capÍtulo 6 inovaÇÃo e aprendizagem À escala internacional

CAPÍTULO 6

INOVAÇÃO E APRENDIZAGEM À ESCALA INTERNACIONAL

CAPÍTULO 6.1.

A RELEVÂNCIA DO CONHECIMENTO E DA APRENDIZAGEM

THE MULTINATIONAL FIRM AS GLOBAL-LOCAL NETWORK

• The MNE as a key actor in the globalisation process

• MNE affiliates embedded in national systems of innovation

THE CORE QUESTIONS

1. Fostering Intra-Firm Cross-Border communication of specific knowledge

2. Promoting external communication to absorb other’s knowledge while preventing the “leakage” of firm’s specific knowledge

3. How to avoid knowledge accumulation paths leading to “deadlocks”

THE MNE AS A REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE

1) Existence of Specific Advantages (knowledge or knowledge-based rights)

2) International Exploitation (across borders, within firm’s boundaries)

THE ROLE OF SUBSIDIARIES

• A Double ActivityLocal “Emdeddedness” enables knowledge acquisiton

through interaction

andContribution towards MNE network

• Inter-action as a non-Symmetrical Process– Different “combinative Capabilities”– Different Complementary Assets– Non-Additivity of Knowledge

Bartlett & Ghoshal

A. K. Gupta & K. Govindarajan

Critério Básico Participação nos Processos de Partilha de Conhecimento na EMN (Emissão/ Recepção de Conhecimento)

4 TIPOS

Integrated Player (A/A)

Global Innovator (A/B)

Implementer (B/A)

Local Innovator (B/B)

Main forms of internationalisation of industrial R&D

Establishment of R&D activities in the host country by foreign-controlled affiliates (inward investment)

Setting up R&D laboratories abroad by investing countries (outward investment)

Creation of joint ventures

Co-operation agreements or technological alliances

International R&D subcontrating

Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE

NOVOS MODOS DE ORGANIZAÇÃO

• Mandatos Globais

• Plataformas de Produção

• Centros de Excelência

PAPEL DOS CENTROS DE EXCELÊNCIA

• DESENVOLVIMENTO CONHECIMENTOS

• INTEGRAÇÃO DE CONHECIMENTOS

• INSERÇÃO NA REDE

R&D EXPENDITURES OF FOREIGN AFFILIATES AS A % OF TOTAL R&D EXPENDITURES

Fonte: R. Narula (2005), The Globalisation of Innovation, http://www.unctad.org/sections/meetings/docs/narula_en.pdf

http://www.unctad.org/sections/meetings/docs/narula_en.pdf






Trends of R&D activities by multinationals


Fonte: UNCTAD, WIR (2005)

AS EMN E OS SNI

EMPRESAS MULTINACIONAIS E SISTEMAS NACIONAIS DE INOVAÇÃO

Uma inter-relação cada vez mais intensa

A concorrência internacional para atracção IDE intensivo em conhecimento......mas grande selectividade nas escolhas

A actividade de I&D como algo de adquirido e não como dado (mas há excepções)

A crescente importância do cruzamento de saberes e de bases de conhecimento (conjugando global e local)

EMPRESAS MULTINACIONAIS E SNI EM PAÍSES MENOS AVANÇADOS

Qual o papel desempenhado pelas filiais de EMN? ‘Abafando’ a dinâmica inovadora local?(por aquisições, p. exº.) ou Filiais como tutoras e mobilizadoras de redes?

A internacionalização das ligações locais: papel das filiais na internacionalização das empresas nacionais

Relacionamento e exigência de novos patamares

CAPÍTULO 6.2.

PROCESSOS DE INOVAÇÃO À ESCALA INTERNACIONAL

INNOVATION PROCESS

CENTRAL LOCAL

LOCALLY LEVERAGED

GLOBALLY LINKED

Fonte: Adaptado de Bartlett & Ghoshall (1989)

INOVAÇÃO CENTRAL

Vantagens – Controlo da Tecnologia (Garantias de Apropriabilidade)– Relacionamento Inter-Departamental

(Inter-acção, desenvolvimento, Produção, comercialização)– Rapidez de Desenvolvimento e Lançamento de Novos

Produtos

Riscos– Conflitos Casa Mãe / Subsidiária– Insensibilidade às Necessidades Diversificadas dos

Mercados

INOVAÇÃO LOCAL

Vantagens– Adaptação às Condições Locais– Aproveitamento e Estímulo das Competências

das Filiais

Riscos– Duplicação de Esforços

(Multiplicidade de “Reinvenções da Roda”)

LOCALLY LEVERAGED

Vantagens– Estímulo da Criatividade das Filiais em

Proveito de Toda a Empresa

Riscos– Dificuldade de Transferência devida às

Especificidades Nacionais– Reacções Negativas devidas ao Síndroma NIH

GLOBALLY LINKED

Vantagens– Estimular e Aproveitar de forma Integrada as Capacidades

das Filiais– Obter Economias de Gama à escala Mundial– Resposta Comum a Estímulos (eventualmente) Localizados– Potenciar Aprendizagem à escala Mundial

Riscos– Elevados Custos de Coordenação– Ambiguidade, Falta de Integração e Excessiva Difusão da

Autoridade

CAPÍTULO 6.3.

VIABILIZANDO PROCESSOS DE INOVAÇÃO TRANSNACIONAL

GESTÃO DAS INOVAÇÕES CENTRAIS

Estabelecimento de ligações múltiplas com as Filiais, para estimular e obter as suas contribuições

Criação de mecanismos internos de mercado , para seleccionar projectos e garantir ‘sensibilidade’ às condições da procura

Estabelecimento de sistemas adequados de partilha de conhecimentos: a circulação das pessoas

GESTÃO DAS INOVAÇÕES LOCAIS

Conferir margem de manobra aos gestores locais para testarem e aplicarem novas soluções

Estabelecer mecanismos de ligação com os processos centrais de decisão

Integrar capacidades técnicas e de marketing na Filial Coordenação Inter-funcional Evitar os problemas dos ‘Buracos Negros’

GESTÃO DAS INOVAÇÕES TRANS-NACIONAIS

Inter-dependência de recursos e de responsabilidades

Mecanismos de integração inter-unidades ( Recurso a sistemas de articulação operacional)

Competências nacionais, mas perspectiva mundial

TRANSNATIONAL PROCESSES

1. From Symmetry to Differentiation:Integrating and Exploiting capabilities, knowledge bases and linkages

2. From Dependence or Independence to Interdependence:Dispersed and specialized configuration of resources: the integrated networkInter-unit integration mechanisms to promote synergies

Movement of personnel as a tool for promoting inter-dependence

3. From Unidimentional Control to Differentiated Coordination:Reccourse to different mechanisms to coordinate flows of goods, resources and information

4. Linking National Competences to achieve Worldwide Learning and Competitiveness

INTERDEPENDENT CAPABILITIES AND DIFFERENTIATED ROLES

Dynamic perspective of local adaptation

Promoting interdependencies, transfer of knowledge and sharing of perspectives

Profiting from the involvement of national units in upgrading technology, developing products and sharing marketing strategy for the whole organization

Different subsidiary roles (against the U.N. Syndrome)

Different levels of integration in the network, due to different environmental conditions

Dynamic perspective of subsidiaries’ resources and contributions

EMPRESAS MULTINACIONAIS E SISTEMA DE INOVAÇÃO EM

PORTUGAL:O CASO DOS CENTROS DE

EXCELÊNCIA

DEFINITION OF CoEA CoE is “an area of expertise for which the subsidiary is recognized by the corporation, and which other parts of the corporation draw on”

(Birkinshaw, 1998: 291)

3 MAIN FEATURES Competences

Use of such competences by other units

Recognition

SUBSIDIARY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES AND GAINING CoE MANDATES

• EVOLUTIONARY, TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS(FORSGREN, JOHANSON AND SHARMA, 2000)

• DOES IT STILL HOLD FOR ACQUISITIONS?(FRATOCCHI AND LORENZONI, 2000)

CoE Mandate

Earned

“Tapped” Given

AUTONOMY VERSUS

INTEGRATION • Autonomy is Needed for the Subsidiary to Create, Develop and

Strengthen its Capabilities

• Integration is Needed to have Influence over other Units of the MNE Network

“Too much autonomy makes the subsidiary mandate potentially vulnerable to divestment (as a spin-off company) or decline (because of a lack of corporate investment)” (Birkinshaw, 1996: 488)

• How to Balance Knowledge Development with Knowledge Sharing?

THE ROLE OF ACQUISITIONS

• Is an historical process of competence development and interrelationships with other MNE units needed?

(“Acquired Subsidiaries cannot become CoEs Overnight”, Fratocchi & Holm, 1998)

• Or can CoE rapidly stem from acquisitions (picking up potential “leaders)?

3 CASE STUDIES

ABB PORTUGAL

ALCATEL PORTUGAL

VULCANO (R. BoschGroup)

1

2

3

ABB PORTUGAL • 1990: SENETE

JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN ABB (40%), MAGUE AND IPE (SOREFAME))

SOREFAME HISTORY:– CREATED IN 1943– HYDROELECTRICAL POWER INVESTMENTS– POWER AGREEMENT: SPECIALIZATION

• 1992: HIDRO-SOREFAMESOLE PRODUCER OF HYDROMECHANIC EQUIPMENT WITHIN ABB

• 1994: ABB CONTROLS 70% OF SENETE

• 1995: HIDRO-SOREFAME CHANGED INTO ABB HIDRO

• 1997: FULL CONTROL OF SENETE BY ABBABB HIDRO BECOMES”LEAD CENTRE”

• 1999: POWER BUSINESS INCLUDED IN A JV WITH FRENCH PARTNER

• 2000: EQUITY STAKE SOLD TO FRENCH PARTNER (THE PORTUGUESE COMPANY STILL A CoE)

1

ALCATEL PORTUGAL• 1987: DEAL ALCATEL/ITT ON TELECOMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

PORTUGUESE SUBSIDIARY “INHERITED”

• 1988: PORTUGUESE SUBSIDIARY ACTIVITYCHANGED FROM SEMICONDUCTORS ANDCONSUMER GOODS TOTELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

• 1989: LOCAL SOFTWARE CENTRE ESTABLISHED

• 2000: 5 CoEs IN ALCATEL PORTUGAL– COILS AND TRANSFORMERS– CALL CENTRES (FOR SOUTHERN EUROPE)– NETWORK MANAGEMENT– COMMUNICATIONS FOR RAILWAY– APPLICATIONS– GSM NETWORKS PLANNING AND – OPTIMIZATION

2

“NETWORK MANAGEMENT COMPETENCE CENTRE”

Original Opportunity (1991):Services for Portuguese GSM Operator– Capability Development– Reference

MNE Network Involvement: Participation in Development of Products for France Telecom and Deutche Telekom

Capability Demonstration (1996): Development of a New Traffic Management System for the Whole Ggroup

CoE Recognition (1997): Network Management Competence Centre

VULCANO• Born as a Licensee of Robert Bosch Gmbh (1977)

• Own Brand Lauching – Vulcano (1983)

• 50% of Portuguese Market; 8TH Largest European Water Boller Manufacturer (1988)

• Licensing Agreements about to Eexprire:

A) Stand aloneOptions B) Renew

C) Strengthen Relationship

• Majority Equity share Acquired by R. Bosch

• Market Leader in Europe (1992)

• Group Competence Centre in Water Boller

• Internationalization Drive– Licensing: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Brazil– Direct Investments: China, Chile and Australia

3

ACQUISITIONS

CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

1 2 3

PRE-EXISTING LINKS

2 YEARS

PRE-EXISTING LINKS

10 YEARS 4 YEARS

THINGS TAKE TIME…

…BUT NOT TOO MUCH!

IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

1 2 3

Market opportunities

Market performance

Government Policy

Technology/Knowledge Linkages

CONCLUSIONS

1) ACQUISITION DRIVEN CoEs ARE DIFFERENT

2) HEADQUARTERS RECOGNITION (AND “PICKING UP”) IS OFTEN FASTER THAN PEER RECOGNITION

3) LOCAL ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS MATTER

4) TO LEVERAGE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AT GROUP LEVEL, STRATEGIC INTENT AND MANAGERIAL INITIATIVE ARE RELEVANT INGREDIENTS

APLICAÇÃO À INDÚSTRIA FARMACÊUTICA

TENDÊNCIAS DE GESTÃO E ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS

ACTIVIDADES INTERNACIONAIS DE I&D

ADVERTÊNCIA

# Todos os slides apresentados a seguir foram retirados da comunicação do Prof. Rajneesh Narula no ICEI/ Universidade Complutense de Madrid em 29 de Novembro de 2007

# Esta comunicação baseou-se no artigo de Paola Criscuolo e Rajneesh Narula, intitulado ‘ Using multi-hub structures for International R&D: Organisational inertia and the challenges of implementation’, publicado na Management International Review,Vol. 47 nº5, 2007

# O docente Vitor Corado Simões agradece a R. Narula a autorização para apresentar estes slides. São da responsabilidade do primeiro a selecção e ordenação bem como pequenas alterações introduzidas.

Drug Development

Target identification Discovery of target receptors

Lead Identification Identify molecules that inhibits the target

Lead Optimization Identify molecules with high good pharmacological activity

Pre-clinical development Laboratory & Animal Testing

Clinical Development Phase 1: Healthy Volunteers used to determine Safety & Dosage Phase 2: Patient Volunteers used to look for Efficacy and Side Effects. Proof of concept Phase 3: Patient Volunteers used to monitor Adverse Reaction to Long-Term use

Drug Discovery

Registration with the health authorities

Drug discovery process

Centralised hub to multi-hubs• From the centralized hub structure to the multi-

hub integrated network• global integration and responsiveness to local

conditions • But…

– Firms have to find a balance between dispersion and centralization (must be a critical mass of resources in each location)

– Dispersion requires extensive coordination to promote efficient knowledge flows within the MNE.

Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)

pc72

Delete Must be a critical mass of resources

The centralised hub R&D structure

• Core activities at home

• Ethnocentric

• Knowledge flows were largely uni-directional

• internal knowledge flows to and from the centre to the periphery.

• Dyadic relationships

Central R&D


pc72

I would add 'technological upgrading emerges...' in the next slideCorrect relatrionship

• Dyadic relationships


The integrated R&D network structure

• New technologies are not created at centre

• Each R&D unit assumes leading role, depending on strength of competences

• Centre of Excellence• adopt a more systemic

coordination mechanism in order to promote intensive communication flows, both within networks internal to the firm, and between external and internal networks.


However, there is organizational inertia…

• firms show a ‘persistent organizational resistance to architectural change’

• structures evolve to achieve a certain amount of reliability and accountability, and to do so, institutionalisation of routines and standardisation of processes is required.

• Provides stability but also causes inertia, and it is greater where complexity is higher, because complex sets of formal and informal institutions need to be redesigned and developed.


Barriers to knowledge flows• inter-unit technological distance

– Absorptive capacity–common set of prior knowledge

• levels of technological uncertainty and specialisation – R different from D, differences in AC

• organisational distance – inter-unit rivalry (also from M&A)

• geographical distance – Particularly when knowledge is tacit in nature – close physical

proximity improves such transfers


Methodology• In depth interviews with R&D managers

and researchers with international assignments experience.

2002 R&D expenditures

in $

AstraZeneca 4 11,000 3,069 4 5Aventis 6 5,600 3,235 5 4GSK 2 15,000 4,108 2 5Novartis 8 3,000 2,799 6 2Roche 13 5,030 2,746 7 3Schering 19 1,200 869 19 5

Rank by

sales

No. of Employees

in R&D

Rank by

R&D

No. of Interviews conducted

Company Name


Integrated network structure in drug discovery

Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Schering…

More of a natural evolution from centralised hub structure…

Research centre in Oncology Penzberg, Germany

Research centre in Metabolic Disorders, Oncology, Vascular

Diseases Nutley, US

Research centre in Central Nervous

System, Inflammatory Diseases/Bone,

Genitourinary Diseases, Viral Diseases Palo Alto, US

Research centre in Metabolic

Disorders, Central Nervous System, Vascular Diseases

Basel, Switzerland

Pre-clinical and clinical

development Nutley,US

Pre-clinical and clinical

development Basel,

Switzerland

‘We prefer to have a project in one site within the domain of the project from synthesis, to analytics and screening. All these functions are more easily and efficiently done in one site’.


Old centralized hub structure

• ‘Things were worked almost exclusively in each site. Each location was self-contained, they had all the resources to carry out all the function that a project required. There were no cross-national teams.’


Integrated network structure, GSK, Aventis using CoE

“In development, economies of scale is one the biggest benefits. But in research, size does not seem to help. You want small group agile not tied up with bureaucracy, thinking innovatively, making use of the cultural differences. In research smaller is better” Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)

Drug Discovery Drug Development

CoE in therapeutic area A

CoE in therapeutic area C

CoE in therapeutic area D

CoE in therapeutic area B

R

R

R

R

D

D

D

Organizational inertia• Units are more flexible, small and autonomous. • However, they compete for resources, and there is considerable inter-unit

rivalry, which leads to inefficiency in terms of inter-unit communications and cross-fertilization

• Although there is an effort to use resources globally, scientists build their innovative efforts using pre-existing routines which have been developed in the old organizational structure.

• Organizational distance• ‘Although we have an electronic archive with the list of expertises and

contacts, I rely on my personal contacts. You can store as much information as you want, but it only becomes knowledge if you know the other person especially in the way researchers carry out their daily routines’.


• ‘The CEDDs are more geographically located and among them there is a minimum level of communication, mostly based on personal relationships. Most of the people in Upper Marion do not know the people in North Carolina because they used to belong to different companies.’

• ‘Biotech’ mind set to promote strategic rivalry to boost productivity thas created barriers to knowledge diffusion (absence of arrows)


Creating mechanisms to promote flows

• Creating platforms• Cross-disciplinary project proposal review boards• But still, geography is important:• ‘The one-location team is the preferable model because it

is the more efficient, but the reality of our organisation is that most of our teams have members based in at least two countries and some of them three. My personal view is that if you can have one location team you are going to be better off, if you can have all sitting in one corridor is going to work better. But this is [now] the exception to the rule’.


Creating mechanisms to promote flows (2) socialization mechanisms

• Temporary assignments• Long-term assignments• Used to ‘hand over’ from research to development• ‘The way we approach the hand over from research to

development is that the people will work very closely with the discovery people up to one year before the compound is finally identified. We use secondments and short-term assignments (from three to six months) we have people who travel a lot in terms of maintaining relationships’


Conclusions• undoubted benefits of multi-hub structures, but also new

costs • Greater investment in human, managerial and financial resources to

promote knowledge integration within a geographically and technologically dispersed R&D structure.

• Efficiencies of cross-border integration less obvious for more complex activities compared with manufacturing, etc.

• Organizational distance and intra-firm competition limits flow of knowledge and cross-fertilisation of ideas, although it may save money

• HQ function needed to be ‘honest broker’ Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)

capÍtulo 6 inovaÇÃo e aprendizagem À escala internacional

Documents

excelncia slide

ocde slide

roda slide

pessoas slide

autoridade slide

inovao transnacional

novos patamares slide

bartlett ghoshal slide