creating competencies through collaboration:: the case of eureka r&d consortia

15
European Management Journal Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 590–604, 2000 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Pergamon Printed in Great Britain 0263-2373/00 $20.00 PII: S0263-2373(00)00052-9 Creating Competencies Through Collaboration: The Case of EUREKA R&D Consortia CAROLINE MOTHE, Paris Nanterre University BERTRAND QUE ´ LIN, Groupe HEC, Paris This article discusses the originality of European EUREKA consortia. Formed at the initiative of member firms, these consortia generally adopt a decentralised structure. Their main purpose is to conduct applied research, with the ultimate goal of exploiting its commercial opportunities. The con- sortia strive to ensure collaboration among firms in different countries, and at times, from different industries. Examining the management of R&D consortia, this article focuses primarily on the cre- ation of new knowledge and competencies and on the benefits that member firms can reap from col- laboration. Based on 20 interviews with project managers, the article brings to light two main observations: (1) the leader’s positioning is a determining factor, and (2) a perfect balance between the firm’s technological development and the consortium’s strategic orientation facilitates the acquisition of competencies. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Keywords: Competence, Technological resources, R&D, Consortium, Co-operation Introduction A key dilemma that many corporations confront today is whether they should develop new products and processes independently or participate in collab- orative R&D efforts. Collaboration is perceived as an approach where success is difficult to achieve. In fact, consortia are sometimes ‘a major disappointment to their supporters’ (Leibowitz, 1990). Collaboration, however, is also acclaimed as a new European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 590 managerial approach for exploiting and developing resources and competencies. More and more firms are getting involved in research and development (R&D) partnerships. The formation of co-operative ventures is generally premised on expectations of increased competitive advantage for each firm involved. Indeed, successful management of a co- operation entails an improvement (or at least the maintenance) of most companies’ competitive pos- ition. The pre-competitive nature of R&D collabor- ations enables firms to reduce costs and to share risks, which leads to an important advantage: the ability to conceive innovations from the technological developments generated by the co-operative efforts. Many authors have argued that this capacity, which enhances competitiveness, is based on the creation of new resources, innovative knowledge and com- petencies different from those of the firm (Sevon and Kreiner, 1998; Koza and Lewin, 2000). In fact, one of the main interests in forming R&D consortia is to bring altogether in-house and dispersed resources and competencies. Complementary with in-house R& D projects, then, consortium projects can play an important role in the creation of resources and com- petencies (Badaracco, 1991; Gibson and Rogers, 1994; Aldrich and Sasaki, 1995). In this article, we focus on the creation of new technological resources, com- petencies and knowledge. 1 We do not consider return on investment and the impact of collaborative efforts on in-house R&D — traditional methods of assessing R&D outcome (Irwin and Klenow, 1996; Link et al., 1996). Our objective is to study and uncover the fac- tors that favour this resource creation in R&D con- sortia, 2 and more specifically, in European EUREKA consortia.

Upload: caroline-mothe

Post on 16-Sep-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

European Management Journal Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 590–604, 2000 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0263-2373/00 $20.00PII: S0263-2373(00)00052-9

Creating CompetenciesThrough Collaboration:The Case of EUREKA R&DConsortiaCAROLINE MOTHE, Paris Nanterre UniversityBERTRAND QUELIN, Groupe HEC, Paris

This article discusses the originality of EuropeanEUREKA consortia. Formed at the initiative ofmember firms, these consortia generally adopt adecentralised structure. Their main purpose is toconduct applied research, with the ultimate goal ofexploiting its commercial opportunities. The con-sortia strive to ensure collaboration among firms indifferent countries, and at times, from differentindustries. Examining the management of R&Dconsortia, this article focuses primarily on the cre-ation of new knowledge and competencies and onthe benefits that member firms can reap from col-laboration. Based on 20 interviews with projectmanagers, the article brings to light two mainobservations: (1) the leader’s positioning is adetermining factor, and (2) a perfect balancebetween the firm’s technological development andthe consortium’s strategic orientation facilitates theacquisition of competencies. 2000 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: Competence, Technological resources,R&D, Consortium, Co-operation

Introduction

A key dilemma that many corporations confronttoday is whether they should develop new productsand processes independently or participate in collab-orative R&D efforts. Collaboration is perceived as anapproach where success is difficult to achieve. In fact,consortia are sometimes ‘a major disappointment totheir supporters’ (Leibowitz, 1990).

Collaboration, however, is also acclaimed as a new

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000590

managerial approach for exploiting and developingresources and competencies. More and more firmsare getting involved in research and development(R&D) partnerships. The formation of co-operativeventures is generally premised on expectations ofincreased competitive advantage for each firminvolved. Indeed, successful management of a co-operation entails an improvement (or at least themaintenance) of most companies’ competitive pos-ition. The pre-competitive nature of R&D collabor-ations enables firms to reduce costs and to sharerisks, which leads to an important advantage: theability to conceive innovations from the technologicaldevelopments generated by the co-operative efforts.

Many authors have argued that this capacity, whichenhances competitiveness, is based on the creation ofnew resources, innovative knowledge and com-petencies different from those of the firm (Sevon andKreiner, 1998; Koza and Lewin, 2000). In fact, one ofthe main interests in forming R&D consortia is tobring altogether in-house and dispersed resourcesand competencies. Complementary with in-house R&D projects, then, consortium projects can play animportant role in the creation of resources and com-petencies (Badaracco, 1991; Gibson and Rogers, 1994;Aldrich and Sasaki, 1995). In this article, we focus onthe creation of new technological resources, com-petencies and knowledge.1 We do not consider returnon investment and the impact of collaborative effortson in-house R&D — traditional methods of assessingR&D outcome (Irwin and Klenow, 1996; Link et al.,1996). Our objective is to study and uncover the fac-tors that favour this resource creation in R&D con-sortia,2 and more specifically, in EuropeanEUREKA consortia.

Page 2: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

We conducted interviews with 21 R&D managersinvolved in EUREKA R&D projects. This qualitativeresearch, described hereafter, focuses on a key mana-gerial issue: what are the conditions for creating newresources for a partner firm?

The first section discusses the EUREKA initiative andthe main characteristics of R&D projects with theEUREKA label. The second section sets forth the pap-er’s methodology while the third focuses on the vari-ous factors facilitating resource creation withinEUREKA projects. Using examples from variousEUREKA projects, we will examine a number ofimportant aspects: the nature of partners’ involve-ment, their strategic objectives, internal R&D capa-bilities, membership rules, organisational design,task division, role distribution and mutual activitywithin the consortium. Finally, we will discuss thebenefits of EUREKA collaborations and, more gener-ally, their implications on the relationships in R&Dcollaborations.

What are EUREKA R&D Consortia?

EUREKA is a pan-European framework for R&D col-laboration.3 The initiative was based on the idea thatknowledge can be increased if organisations withcomplementary knowledge (companies, researchcentres, universities) had an opportunity to conducttheir R&D activities in a co-operative manner.EUREKA is a Research and Development frameworkthrough which industry and research institutes from25 Western and Eastern European countries4 developand exploit the technologies crucial to global com-petitiveness and to a better quality of life. The aim isto strengthen European competitiveness by helpingorganisations to work together on collaborative R&Dprojects in most fields of advanced civil technology.The nine technology areas cover medical and biotech-nology, communication, energy, environment, infor-mation, laser, materials, robotics and productionautomation, and transport industries.

The Hanover Charter

The Hanover Charter established the EUREKAinitiative. Its conditions and objectives are outlinedbelow:

EUREKA’s objectives: one of EUREKA’s mainobjectives is to enable Europe, through closer co-operation among companies and research insti-tutes in the field of advanced technologies, tomaster and exploit the technologies important forthe future and to build up its capability in crucialareas. This will be achieved by encouraging andfacilitating increased industrial, technological andscientific co-operation on projects aiming todevelop products, processes and services.

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 591

EUREKA focus and four criteria for membership:

1. EUREKA is open to all efficient capacities includ-ing those existing in small and medium-sizedenterprises (SME) and in smaller research insti-tutes, where many of the innovative technologicalproducts and processes are initiated;

2. The project must bring together private compa-nies, universities and other private or public insti-tutions. The exchange of technologies betweenEuropean companies and institutes is a prerequi-site for the establishment of a high technologicalstandard in European industry;

3. EUREKA projects must satisfy the following con-ditions: multi-nationality (participants must befrom more than one European country), specificand defined expected benefits, use of advancedtechnologies, objective of securing a significanttechnological advance in the product, process orservice concerned, appropriately qualified parti-cipants on the technical and managerial levels, andadequate financial commitment by participatingenterprises;

4. While EUREKA’s purpose may be to conductapplied research and development, the projectmust nevertheless have a strong market focus. Itmust produce results that members can commer-cialise, either individually or jointly.

A market-oriented R&D project is best managed bythose aiming to commercialise its results. These man-agers alone are the best judges of what will succeed.In response, EUREKA’s ground rule is ‘bottom–up’management. Consequently, the partners, rather thanthe EUREKA secretariat or any government, proposeand define their project in response to their ownneeds. Once the project is launched, it is the parti-cipants who manage it and exploit its results. Theydecide who is involved, how the partnership is man-aged, who contributes what and how the results willbe shared. They also own 100 per cent of the intellec-tual rights of all results deriving from the project. TheEUREKA secretariat simply acts as a facilitator, help-ing participants to communicate, collaborate andobtain funding from their national governments.

EUREKA’s positioning compared to both nationaland European programs is rather unique.5 Unlikeother famous European Union (EU) programs suchas ESPRIT, BRITE, EURAM, etc., EUREKA has itsown political superstructure and its own head-quarters (Table 1).

EUREKA projects also benefit from decentralisedfunding mechanisms. The EUREKA label sets a pro-ject apart from others by making it eligible fornational funding programs, private sources of fin-ance and standard-setting authorities, among otherorganisations and associations. Furthermore, the con-siderable public relations effect can lead to free pub-licity material for each participant to promote theproject.

Page 3: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

Table 1 Main Differences Between European Union Programs and EUREKA Consortium

EU programs EUREKA consortia

Ground rule Pre-competitive R&D Development of marketable products andservices

Program generation Top–down generation by the European Bottom–up project generation by partnersCommission (EC)

Supervision EC supervision Business agreements between partnersFunding source Large central funding source Decentralised funding sourceResearch results Research results are property of both EC Research results are property of

and partners partner(s)

Source: EUREKA Secretariat

Characteristics of EUREKA Projects

With 25 countries and the EU Commission as mem-bers, EUREKA also maintains links to a great numberof non-European countries. The EUREKA initiative isorganised as projects, some of which only involvetwo or three partners, while others are very broad‘umbrella’ projects, possibly with many sub-projects.In this case, the participants may include more than100 organisations.6

EUREKA encompasses three main types of projects:

❖ A few large projects resemble true broad ‘pro-grams’. They mobilise dozens of partners innumerous sub-projects, each of which has a spe-cific structure grouping all the partners as well asa structure specific to each individual partner(generally different for each sub-project) and thesupporting governments. These types of projects(JESSI, PROMETHEUS, HDTV, EUROTRAC,ESF), account for approximately half of the publicfunds received for all Eureka projects;

❖ EUREKA administration has created fourteen(originally six, then followed by eight more)‘umbrella’ structures in various sectors(production technologies with FAMOS, navy tech-nologies with EUROMAR, environment withEUROENVIRON, bio-technologies withEUROAGRI, etc.) in order to encourage meetingsand new projects, especially those originatingfrom small companies;

❖ The third category of projects comprises the bulkof ‘ordinary’ projects, i.e. all other projects that donot fit into one of the above-mentioned categories.

Table 2 details the cost and number of participantsin the ‘programs’ and ‘umbrella’ projects.

The following example is that of an ordinaryEUREKA project. Digipress is the leader of theEUREKA project called Eurocare-Last (EU 390),which aims to develop optical disks with a guaran-teed life span of several centuries. The basic idea ofthis consortium is to replace the disk materialspresently used (mostly plastic) by longer lasting min-eral composites. On the technical level, the collabor-

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000592

ation strives to further improve the glass by replacingthe gold with an even stronger material that canadhere well to glass, possibly titanium nitride. Digip-ress, a French SME founded in 1985, collaborates withGlaverbel, a Belgian glass manufacturer. The partnershave satisfactorily defined the workload and eachwill remain the owner of its technological contri-butions. Digipress is to master compact disks. Besidesdeveloping a plating process to be carried out at lowtemperatures, it also makes the various coatings, pro-duces samples and defines the mechanical and cli-matic tests. Glaverbel is to develop a tempered glass,which is both shock- and damp-proof and heat resist-ant. In addition to conducting research on glass, Glav-erbel produces the disks. The main target market willbe data archiving, a rapidly developing segment.Libraries are also expressing great interest as bookpreservation methods are far from perfect despite theprecautions taken.

Specificity of EUREKA Projects

The six main features distinctive of EUREKA pro-jects are:

❖ They are not specialised in one specific industry:firms participating in EUREKA projects conductactivities in nine largely-defined economic sectors;

❖ EUREKA projects are not intended to be ‘pre-com-petitive’: they are less concerned with basicresearch than with near-term research. The activi-ties of EUREKA consortia are mainly downstreamwhile the development process is usually under-taken by an individual firm;

❖ EUREKA projects mainly associate four differenttypes of partners: manufacturers, potential usersof the product or process developed, public lab-oratories, and universities. In contrast, EU pro-grams have fewer industrial companies and moreresearch-oriented entities;

❖ EUREKA consortia are usually formed at theinitiative of the participants, not by governments.An industrial firm almost always initiatesEUREKA consortia. Unlike EU programs’ ‘top–down’ approach which makes them difficult to

Page 4: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

Table 2 Projects: Cost and Number of Participantsa

‘Broad programs’ Number of Cost in M$USb ‘Umbrella projects’ Number of Cost in M$USb

participants participants

EUROTRAC 30 120 EUROLASER 30 24ESF 26 400 EUROMAR 18 2PROMETHEUS 228 900 FAMOS 44 1HDTV 66 900 EUROCARE 24 8JESSI 31 4400 EUROENVIRON 17 0.3Eurotrac: transportation (Universities, Research Laboratories)c Eurolaser: laser technologiesESF: electronics Euromar: navy technologiesPrometheus: automotive technology Famos: producticsHDTV: High Definition TV (Thomson, Philips N.V.) Eurocare: health technologiesJessi: semiconductors (Philips N.V., Siemens, SGS-Thomson) Euroenviron:environment

aAs of 30/6/1992b1 US$ 5 0.7 ECUcProject leaders are represented in parentheses

manage, the ‘bottom–up’ approach to co-operationadopted by EUREKA projects allows firms tochoose their partners freely for common R&D pro-jects;7

❖ The projects are financed by individual Europeangovernments, and not by a common Europeanbudget, as is the case for EU projects. Public aidis thus provided on a national basis. Each countrymay — or may not — support the nationalmember(s) involved in a EUREKA project;

❖ Finally, the participants’ rights differ from thosein EU projects: the proprietary rights remain withthe EUREKA consortium members while they arepartly public in the case of EU programs.EUREKA projects face high financial and techno-logical risks, but in most cases, commercial appli-cation can be rather precisely defined.

Some Figures on EUREKA

EUREKA has a portfolio of more than 600 active pro-jects and over 600 completed projects. Thousands ofcompanies and institutions have been involved in

Figure 1 The EUREKA Project Portfolio by Technological Area (1999)

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 593

EUREKA projects, and it is estimated that currently,around 3000 are actively involved. Approximately150 new projects are endorsed every year. Mostobservers consider EUREKA to be a great success.In one of the few evaluation studies of the EUREKAprogram, no less than 65 per cent of the industrialsstated that their EUREKA project either had alreadysuccessfully developed a new product or will do soin the future (Figures 1 and 2).8

As of June 1999, 14 years after the start of theEUREKA initiative, 25 countries and 5400 Europeanmembers have been, or are, involved in these R&Dconsortia (in comparison with 2500 members in1991). The 1408 projects (686 in process, 722completed) were categorised into nine technologysectors.

Half of the industrial participants in EUREKA pro-jects are large firms, and the other half, SMEs (Smalland Medium Sized Enterprises, with less than 500employees). Large firms are usually those with morethan 2000 employees. The SMEs are, for the mostpart, very small companies with fewer than 100employees (30 per cent of the sample, or more than

Page 5: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

Figure 2 Value of the EUREKA Finished Projects (MECU)

58 per cent of SMEs). Seventy-one per cent of compa-nies with fewer than 100 employees and 46 per centof the other SMEs are private (60 per cent of all SMEsare thus private). Figure 3 provides some otherdescriptive statistics on the partners involved inEUREKA projects.

Research Methodology

Although data was gathered mainly through semi-structured interviews lasting between one and a halfand 3 hours, press releases and public informationabout the participating companies providedadditional information. Two researchers conductedand recorded the interviews. The interviewee wastypically the manager responsible for the project inthe company. Structured in discussions, the inter-views covered issues including the content and objec-tives of the project’s different partners, the content ofthe collaborative agreement, the resources involvedin the project and the competencies created as a resultof participation in the collaboration. This data-gather-ing method enabled us to develop a considerably in-depth understanding, both of the reasons for enteringinto EUREKA consortium and of the managementof competencies.

Figure 3 Size of Partners in EUREKA Projects

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000594

The purpose of the case studies was to help describe,then analyse, the factors that determine the creationof new competencies. It led us to adopt a close-to-the-field research methodology. The principle of casestudy research was applied through the focus oncases in one company and by analysing availableexternal and internal documents (Yin, 1985). All inall, data was collected over a three-month period andinterviews were conducted over two years.

The following discussion is based on an in-depthanalysis of first-hand interviews with 21 R&D man-agers involved in already completed EUREKA pro-jects. It attempts to establish the influences betweenthe most relevant dimensions of co-operation andeach type of scientific or technological resource cre-ated by an R&D consortium. A company-basedapproach was adopted in order to identify the com-petencies that have been either improved or createdby each individual partner rather than by the R&Dconsortium. The study considered that only throughthe examination of finished projects could both tan-gible results and intangible competencies be quant-ified. Consequently, the focus was uniquely on com-panies, as research institutes and universities, whichmainly conduct fundamental research and generallydo not intend to exploit results commercially.

Page 6: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

It appeared clear not only that the creation of com-petencies was an important aspect for all companies,but also that most firms were seeking for both newproducts/processes and for the development of newknowledge. By evaluating the projects’ results, effec-tive measures of new technological resources, com-petencies and knowledge were elaborated. Weassumed here that the scientific and technologicalresults which a firm can create in an R&D consortiuminclude: (1) the final results (such as product and/orprocess improvement and/or development), (2) andthe intermediary results (such as prototypes, norms,licenses or publications). Besides these visible results,we also take into consideration the creation ofindirect intangible R&D results, such as new organis-ational know-how and technological competence.

It is interesting to identify the elements that influencethe creation of resources. They are linked both to theorganisation of the partner firms themselves and tothe R&D consortium. Our full research is based on asample of 317 industrial partners having participatedin EUREKA consortia prior to 1994. Using theEUREKA secretariat list, 21 consortia were selectedto reflect a cross-section of R&D consortia within theoverall population of EUREKA projects. Informationabout each consortium’s effectiveness and its creationof resources was gathered through personal inter-views with 21 project team leaders. We asked aboutall aspects of the consortium, including its origin, his-tory, organisation, purposes, membership, mode ofoperation, technical and organisational effectivenessand output. However, since access to confidentialelements was denied, some factors that may belinked to resource creation (such as proprietary rightsor profit distribution agreements) were not con-sidered in this study.9

The dimensions used to validate the questionnairewere designed specifically for this study. Based onprevious evaluations of European consortia, theywere then confirmed by the 21 interviews with differ-ent European R&D project managers. We oper-ationalize the creation of resources and separateresources into tangible benefits, measured by 10dimensions, and intangible benefits, measured byfour dimensions (Freeman, 1982; Hall, 1993). The 14different items are10:

❖ Tangible results (corresponding to our definitionof the intermediary and final results) were meas-ured on 10 dimensions: (1) improvement of exist-ing products, (2) new products, (3) improvementof existing processes, (4) new processes, (5) proto-types, (6) patents, (7) licenses, (8) norms and stan-dards, (9) doctorates and Ph.D. and (10) publi-cations;

❖ Intangible results (the indirect effects of results)were measured by: (1) improvement of know-how, (2) increase in scientific knowledge, (3)increase in technical knowledge, and (4) increasein personnel qualifications.

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 595

We therefore have a fairly complete spectrum of dif-ferent resources that can result from technologicalprojects. They can be tangible or intangible, complexor simple, observable or non-observable. Table 3 pro-vides the results obtained from large firms and SMEs.

Managing R&D Consortia for Success

By 1993, the EUREKA secretariat, which analysed 339ongoing projects, had managed one of its largestevaluations. 88 per cent of all participants hadexpected to produce a new or improved product orprocess, and 40 per cent among them had actuallyalready achieved this.

Market-focused, EUREKA projects provide opport-unities both to enhance knowledge and experienceand to develop technologies/products promoting thegoals and strategies of the project community as wellas of each individual member. Many EUREKA pro-jects in the 1993 evaluation yielded prototypes, whichneeded further technical development to produceend products tuned to the needs of customers and atan acceptable cost. The sampled firms also benefitedfrom numerous technological and commercialimprovements, which typically manifested them-selves in the form of:

❖ new working methods and routines (adoption ofscientific methods in business companies toenhance the organisational learning capacity);

❖ significantly improved hardware and equipment(new pilot plants, experimental facilities andinstrumentation for development work).

Our purpose is to provide some general rules for suc-cessfully managing these types of R&D consortia andsuggest how management can create resources. Inaddition to proposing solutions to common prob-lems, we will examine two key aspects affectingresource creation:

❖ a partner’s internal capabilities (involvement,

Table 3 The 14 Types of Results Created by an R&D Consortium

Tangible results Intangible results

Improvement of product Improvement of know-howNew products Increase in scientific knowledgeImprovement of process Increase in technical

knowledgeNew processes Personnel qualificationPrototypesPatentsLicensesStandardsDoctoratesPublications

Page 7: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

coherence between the firm’s and the consortium’sstrategic objectives, R&D capabilities);

❖ organisational capabilities (internal rules andmembership, consortium’s organisational design,task distribution, shared activities).

Evaluating R&D consortia’s accomplishments is acomplex task. Table 4 summarises the effects of themain dimensions identified (strategic choice coher-ence, involvement and distribution of tasks, internalcapabilities and intensity of shared activity) on thecreation of resources. This information will enableR&D managers to quickly seek data that would helpthem to create the necessary resources.

Internal Capabilities

Existing literature presents a long list of motives forestablishing collaborative R&D ventures (Hagedoorn,1993; Sakakibara, 1997).

Strategic ObjectivesThe most common motives are technological comp-lementarity (34 per cent), reduction of innovationtime span (31 per cent), and access to market orindustry restructuring (31 per cent). Other advan-tages of R&D collaboration include reduced costs andeconomies of scale and scope through the minimis-ation of investment duplications and through theopportunity to spread risks. Consortia thereforeserve to share R&D costs and to develop new tech-nology.

On a strategic level, co-operation can be consideredas an organisational tool necessary to gaining accessto resources that are difficult to transfer or that donot have a market for trade. External knowledge canhelp in-house R&D project teams benchmark,increase their ability to exchange sensitive infor-

Table 4 Summary of Main Concepts and Measures

Concepts Measures

Strategic choice coherence Importance of project instrategy

Objective: sales, or increase inknowledge

Involvement Financial investmentOrganizational involvement:

Leadership: main partner,partner, other

Whether or not the firm hasinitiated the project

Role and task distribution Manage, develop, integrate,and/or evaluate

Internal capabilities Other internal R&D projects insame domain

Firm involved in the productdevelopment

Intensity of mutual activity Frequency of meetings

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000596

mation and learn from partners. On a functionallevel, partners in an R&D consortium ally to conducta joint activity that yields results subsequently sharedand exploited in accordance with rules generallydefined by the co-operative agreement (Ouchi andBolton, 1988). As a result, not only is there a transferof competencies, but also a true creation of resourcesand value. This reaffirms that one of the principalreasons for firms to collaborate is to learn and toappropriate products from the co-operative R&Dprocess.

In summary, the three main strategic objectives ofR&D consortia appear to be:

❖ Gain access to partners’ competencies (Teece,1995; Katz, 1995);

❖ Create new knowledge, skills and competencies(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Non-aka et al., 1994; Inkpen, 1996; Quelin, 1996);

❖ Create value with the results of the co-operativeprocess (Mothe and Quelin, 1999).

The 1993 EUREKA evaluation included 659 industrialand 487 non-industrial participants (in 339 projects).According to the industrial firms, their motivationsfor joining collaborative ventures were: access tocomplementary technical expertise (74 per cent)(especially prevalent in new and high-techindustries), cost- and risk-sharing (53 per cent), gain-ing experience of new markets (31 per cent), estab-lishing standards (23 per cent), and monitoring com-petitors’ progress (9 per cent). Of almost equalimportance is the desire to speed up development,and to search for new knowledge and ideas withinthe company’s technology base. Risk reduction wasalso somewhat important (Peterson, 1993; Ormala,1993).

Expected BenefitsTwo examples can help us to better understand theobjectives and results that companies expect from thecollaboration. The first case concerns the upgradingof industrial software and the second is in the fieldof lighting.

The first example is ENVIB (EnvironmentalVibration — Tailoring System — EU 424). This three-year long project (1990–1993) involved three compa-nies: the Belgian LMS International and the FrenchMatra and Technicatome MVI. The collaboration’smain goal was to develop an integrated system forenvironmental vibration testing. To realise this objec-tive, technological and application competencies,technical software system development, and inter-national marketing competencies were all needed.Indeed, they existed within the consortium.

The ENVIB project resulted in the creation of threesoftware modules (Mission Synthesis, Lexade andTailor), which have been commercialised since 1995

Page 8: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

in France, Germany, Sweden, the United States andJapan. The software assists industrials in the defence,spatial, automobile and transport industries in thespecification, conception and justification processesand verifies that the definition corresponds to thespecification. The objective is to personalise this pro-duct for each life profile (that is, to all situations thatit may encounter during its life cycle, such as storage,transport, handling, maintenance, utilisation, etc.) sothat only the strictly necessary resources are usedduring its development, in accordance with the Euro-pean norm on conception and tests (NFX 07-144-1).

The second case is VEDILIS (Vehicle DischargeLighting System, EU 273). This three-year long pro-ject (1989–1992) brought together every light bulband headlamp manufacturer in Europe, as well as carmanufacturers and university research teams. Itsobjective was to develop a new vehicle headlampsystem, based on discharge lamps, with superiorproperties for power consumption, life expectancyand performance. The team, led by the Lighting-Sig-nalling division of Valeo group, included the lampproducers Osram (Germany), Philips (Netherlands),and Thorn (Great Britain, acquired by GE Lightingduring the project). Equipment manufacturers Bosch,Hella (Germany) and Magneti Marelli (Italy) and auto-mobile manufacturers, clients of all these companies,also participated in the collaboration. The strategicobjective was to prepare the regulations for thesesecurity products so that national institutes and lab-oratories can approve them, and to design, build andtest prototypes.

InvolvementMotivation in VEDILIS, members of which enjoyedboth a horizontal and vertical inter-firm relationship,was strong as American and Japanese firms were alsoinvolved. This common interest and enthusiasm thatthe European competitors expressed through theirinvolvement in the project easily led to a consensusand to technical harmonisation.

This example illustrates that the firm’s commitmentin an R&D consortium is a requirement for success.First, its involvement can be a signal to its partnersof the desire to establish a long-term relationship.Second, the involvement essentially translates thefirm’s determination to successfully complete theresearch, technical development and/or new productdevelopment. Confirming the findings of previousstudies (Arino and Doz, 2000; Ring, 2000), the inter-views established that a strong commitment is neces-sary to overcome the natural resistance against risk-taking and information sharing.

Involvement can be evaluated through the financialinvestment in the consortium. Project funding is anessential aspect to consider prior to collaboration.Apart from the budget adjustment and paymentsbetween the parties, to what extent is the projectdependent on governments for financial support? To

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 597

what extent does public funding influence the rightsand obligations stipulated in the agreement? Howwill it determine each partner’s participation? Collab-oration usually yields prototypes and patents whenthe partner’s financial involvement is high.

Involvement can also be assessed by organisationalcommitment, which itself may be measured by vari-ous indicators. For instance, is the firm the projectinitiator? Is it the project leader (Buckley and Casson,1988)?11 Unlike the case of financial investments,organisational involvement is higher for projects thatare close to the market. This type of commitmentleads not only to the two outcomes mentioned above(prototypes and patents), but also to new productsand licenses, which can be immediately marketed.Furthermore, each participant can individually bene-fit through increased technical knowledge and quali-fied personnel.

The ENVIB example illustrates the importance oforganisational involvement. The Matra and MVImanagers interviewed insisted upon the need for anindividual capable of supporting the collaborativeproject. The experts involved in the EUREKA projectmust be highly motivated, as personal engagementis a key success factor. If possible, the project shouldbe part of a continuous relationship between part-ners. The MVI and Matra managers had known eachother for more than 12 years and had developed aclose relationship that enabled them to solve theproblems linked to LMS’ participation.

Strategic CoherenceAs previously mentioned, a high degree of coherencebetween the R&D consortium’s and the firm’s stra-tegic objectives greatly facilitate commitment to thecollaboration. Our observations revealed that anincrease in knowledge is expected when the collabor-ative project is not central to the partner firm’s tech-nological strategy, whereas the resources created areessentially tangible (new products, product improve-ments, prototypes, doctorates, and licenses) when theproject is strategically vital to the firm. In this lattercase, the partnership has a direct economic impact onthe firm, which can quickly exploit its innovation. Insome instances, despite satisfactory tangible results,the increase in knowledge and intangible resourcesthat a partner for whom the project is essential cre-ates is minimal. A logical explanation would be thatits objective is basically to increase sales, which isusually the case when the project is central to a part-ner firm’s strategy.

The type of objective sought has an impact on thecreation of tangible resources, especially new productimprovements and licenses. Indeed, when the objec-tive is to increase sales, these types of outputs aremore readily produced because the partner firm ismotivated to participate in the product developmentand in the organisational aspects of the collaboration(as indicated by its position in the consortium: main

Page 9: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

partner, partner, sub-contractor, or other). Surpris-ingly, when the objective is to increase knowledge,no specific intangible resources are created.

In the ENVIB example, LMS is a small software pro-vider (150 employees, mostly engineers) presentinternationally. With ambitious profitability objec-tives, the firm’s R&D efforts are meant to serve theneeds of customers — there was to be no investmentmade in any collaborative project until the marketpossibilities were made evident. LMS’ partner wasthe small MVI (Measures, InstrumentationVibrations) division of Technicatome (15,000employees), which was seeking to establish a criticalsize in order to maintain its competencies in environ-mental tests and in the qualification of such environ-ments. Known within Technicatome as the com-pany’s model of successful sales, MVI was also eagerto enhance its profitability. Halfway through the pro-ject, it succeeded in selling some parts to various cus-tomers, thereby financing the end of the collaborativeproject. Essentially a service provider, then, MVI’sactivities were complementary to those of LMS,which it already knew through vertical relations.

R&D CapabilitiesA firm’s internal R&D capabilities is yet another fac-tor that contributes to resource creation. When a firmin a EUREKA consortium is involved in the productdevelopment phase, it is likely that the project’sactivities are positioned relatively downstream in thevalue chain, close to the market. Usually in pos-session of the complementary assets needed to mar-ket the resulting prototype, the firm participatesdirectly in its commercialisation. Already stronglyinvolved in the product’s development, the firm’sincreased technical knowledge and know-how facili-tate a quick market launch.

A partner firm’s R&D projects conducted in the samedomain as that of the EUREKA consortium alsoattests to the presence of internal existing R&D com-petencies. However, these competencies, or bundle ofcapabilities, are situated further back in the firm’svalue chain than the product development capabili-ties discussed above. Thanks to these competencies,when the firm undertakes parallel, or even comp-lementary research, it can more readily create intan-gible resources, namely improved scientific and tech-nical knowledge and enhanced know-how. After all,its R&D team already has the means and abilities tofully benefit from and exploit the competencies andknowledge contributed by other member firms.Within VEDILIS, all lamp producers, equipmentmanufacturers and automobile manufacturers havevery efficient internal R&D units related to the R&Ddomain of the EUREKA project. The collaborativeproject, then, is truly a strategic investment, com-pletely coherent with the partner firms’ individualstrategies.

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000598

Organisational Capabilities

Although we have treated EUREKA projects as a dis-tinct analytical phenomenon, they are in fact inte-grated into member firms’ routine activities.Although EUREKA’s underlying philosophy is col-laboration, in practice, each partner avoids becomingfinancially and labour dependent on the other mem-bers. Any division of labour is kept at a minimum,and with little interdependence. It is not surprising,then, that most projects are characterised by a looseformal structure, where the delegation of authority israther limited.

Membership and Internal RulesRecruitment for EUREKA projects is based onspecialised contributions to the collective task. Thecomplementarity of competencies, the different func-tional roles assumed in the consortium and the pro-ject’s multinational composition suggest that a diver-sity of experience, business practices and aims ispresent. In this perspective, the EUREKA project is ameans for the members to experiment, learn and imi-tate.

Some R&D consortia have an open-membership pol-icy, like the Japanese ISTEC project, open to all firms,both Japanese and foreign, but imposes annual fees.In other consortia, membership may be exclusive(SEMATECH, EUREKA). Since the size of a EUREKAconsortium changes over time — certain membersleave as others join — each consortium must adoptrules and define a policy which allows for an increasein the number of new partners.

Before co-operation can begin, participants must signa contract defining each partner’s role and theirrights to the developed product. Despite this for-mality, the actual organisation, the design of whichis decided upon together by the partners, is usuallysimple. It often consists of an international steeringgroup and local work groups, each with its own‘main partner’, or ‘project leader’. A governancephilosophy to define how the consortium will beruled and how conflicts will be solved must be estab-lished. Certainly, it must be consistent with theEUREKA charter, with the consortium’s field ofresearch and with members’ operating processes.

Furthermore, the partners must define the legalaspects of the collaboration, including:

❖ Confidentiality: Consortium members must agreeon which type of information is to be consideredas secret, confidential or proprietary. They mustalso specify any bans on publication or communi-cation to third parties and indicate how these con-fidentiality undertakings will be enforced betweenthe participants;

❖ Co-operation agreement: The grouping’s legalform as well as each participant’s status shouldbe clearly established. If parties structure their co-

Page 10: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

operation as an R&D contract (which occurs inmost EUREKA cases), they need to be aware thatthe commercial/exploitation phase is not a part ofthe collaboration. The firms should then negotiateanother agreement in order to guarantee theexploitation of the results. Usually, a joint frame-work agreement is established and separate bilat-eral co-operation agreements are formed betweensome of the parties working more closely together.Besides requiring partners to assist each other sothat the project can be properly carried out, thecontract should also indicate the possibility of sub-contracting and specify the circumstances andconditions for new membership (or withdrawals);

❖ Protection and ownership of results: Partners mustdecide whether each participant will remain theowner of his existing know-how and inventions,or whether certain existing or background tech-nology will be transferred upon termination of theproject. Furthermore, partners should considerwhether know-how or inventions resulting fromthe collaboration remain the property of each par-ticipant carrying out the research or if joint owner-ship is possible. It is essential to determine howthe research results will be protected and howintellectual property rights, such as patents, willbe managed and distributed between the parti-cipants;

❖ Exploitation of results: This core issue should begiven careful attention during negotiations, not tomention during the drafting of the business plan.Will participants exploit the results jointly or sep-arately? If one participant owns all the know-how,patents, and specifications, limitations on thescope of the licenses to the other participants isnecessary. If each participant owns a part of thepatents and know-how, partners should considerwhether royalties are needed to compensate forunequal contributions, how ownership rightsshould be allocated (geographically or by field ofuse), and if the licensee has the right to grantsub-licenses.

Organisational Design of the R&D ConsortiumEUREKA projects are not fully stable and structuredentities. They are better characterised as emerging

Figure 4 The Modular Structure

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 599

processes that, in the beginning, change direction andscope. Quite a few projects failed to gather the neces-sary resources (including financial support) to launchthe collaboration. A few projects were confrontedwith obstacles that prevented all forms of co-oper-ation (property rights, non-compatibility betweenprojects).

There are many different designs for organisingresearch consortia (Ouchi and Bolton, 1988; Gibsonand Rogers, 1994). Generally, they are not mutuallyexclusive. Two organisational structures appear to bedominant and are frequently mentioned: the modularstructure and the star structure. In a modular struc-ture, the relationships between the workpackages,and indeed between the partners, vary from projectto project. The modular approach allows for parallelactivities across the different workpackages while co-ordination is achieved through a network of linksbetween partners (Figure 4).

Work on the project is normally divided into work-packages, each of which may be further divided intomodules with on-site operational teams. Normally,the workpackage is the responsibility of one of theproject partners while the modules may be dividedup among the partners (Figure 5).

In contrast, co-ordination is centralised in the star,sometimes called ‘hub and spoke approach’. Thisapproach is more typical when there exists a sup-plier–user relationship within the project, with thecentral partner being the assembler. In fact, this part-ner is both assembler and user of the separate outputof each workpackage.

EUREKA consortia are collaborative research agree-ments that foster horizontal and/or vertical relation-ships. Maintaining a focus on process, technologyand product development rather than basic research,the EUREKA initiative consists of a collection ofeither independent or related projects. In general,each member of these consortia works separately onthese projects and there is no central research facilityas in the case of SEMATECH. There is no central test-ing organisation for equipment development and nocentralised qualification procedure for new equip-ment.

Page 11: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

Figure 5 The Star Structure

Since EUREKA projects are near-term, the intellectualproperty rights policy is fairly limited. Firms developproprietary technologies privately; licensing is notsystematically stipulated in the co-operative agree-ment. As no common laboratory is created, a firm’scontrol of its research is facilitated and knowledgespillover among participants is reduced.

Distribution of TasksIn a EUREKA consortium, besides the decentralisedstructure, the division of tasks between members isan attractive feature for firms conducting research innew technologies.

Four main roles that a firm in a EUREKA consortiumcan assume were retained for this study: manage-ment of the consortium, supervision of development,technological integration between partners’ out-comes, and project evaluation. More secondary func-tions, such as test control or participation in the R&D consortium as an expert, were not considered.

The role that the firm assumes in the EUREKA con-sortium influences the type of resources created: themanagement function favours the creation of verydiverse results (prototypes, doctorates, patents,licenses, knowledge increase and personnelqualification) whereas the supervision of the techni-cal development essentially yields new products.Another interesting role is the integration of variouspartners’ results: new processes, prototypes, and pat-ents are the main tangible resources that can be cre-ated. This integrating role is probably the best for cre-ating intangible resources (know-how, scientific andtechnical knowledge, and personnel qualification). Afirm’s role that implicates it in the product’s develop-ment, especially that of managing the consortium orintegrating the technologies, is a strong indicator ofits organisational involvement. Indeed, since thepartners ensuring the management and/or the inte-gration are those which create the most resources,they tend to seek to assume these two roles simul-taneously. These firms are also the most involved inthe consortium’s organisation, i.e. they tend to be themain partners. Generally, they are those with thecompetencies to contribute directly to the product’scommercial development and are therefore capableof increasing future sales.

In the case of the ENVIB project, the role of the partic-

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000600

ipating firms was clear in the beginning: MVI andMatra were to develop the three modules separately.Thereafter, LMS would integrate and commercialisethem in exchange for royalties. With its expertise incomputer-based systems for experimental structuralanalysis and its experience in European R&D pro-grams, LMS was most suited to act as project leader.

However, since LMS did not receive financing fromthe Belgian/Flemish authorities, the roles and mis-sions of the three firms on the three modules — Mis-sion Synthesis, Lexade and Tailor — varied consider-ably:

❖ Matra developed Mission Synthesis’ specifications.LMS did not wish to integrate it into its own struc-ture due to the lack of financing. This problembecame obvious to its partners only after the firstyear, costing Matra three months of extra work tointegrate the module into the LMS data processingstructure. As Matra often used Mission Synthesisinternally, it signed a commercialisation contractwith LMS, granting royalties of 40% to the devel-oper;

❖ Lexade was realised by MVI, which discoveredhalfway through the project that the functionali-ties could not be integrated into the LMS structure.LMS’ strategy, which was to diffuse large quan-tities of rather low quality and middle of the lineproducts on specific working stations, was incom-patible with MVI’s. However, LMS had alreadydeveloped its own structure for the module, whichled to problems with MVI, as it became a potentialLMS competitor. Fortunately, prior contracts andlinks between the two firms helped prevent aclash;

❖ As for Tailor, LMS admitted from the beginningthat it did not have an appropriate structure tointegrate this module. Matra thus developed it andthe coding and commercialisation were sub-con-tracted to a third firm.

In short, LMS gained the most from the project. Mainmanaging partner and project co-ordinator, LMS,having performed practically no technical work, bysimply organising and conducting informationalmeetings and working groups every two months,obtained the output with little investment. Matra, onthe other hand, was contributed two modules in

Page 12: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

source code (human-readable program statementswhere any desired modification can be made easily),but received the third one in executable code, whichmeant that nothing could be modified on the softwa-re.

Intensity of Mutual ActivityWithin ENVIB, ordinary meetings were held everytwo or three months, and technical meetings, when-ever necessary. In addition to these meetings, Matraalso organised 17 others during the 3 years (onceevery 2 months) with user groups, mostly in thedefence sector (Thomson, Dassault, the French MarineForce, Renault, etc.). Their purpose was to show the‘maquette’, developed in parallel with the specifi-cations and enhanced simultaneously, and to gatherideas for the specifications of the developed modules(In data processing, the maquette is conceivedquickly. It then needs to set before it can be transfor-med into a product).

As for VEDILIS, its partners formed two workinggroups: an electrical one with five partners and anoptical one. Each group met about three times a yearwith a supervising directory. Lamp manufacturersworked with equipment manufacturers andexchanges were made every 2 months during the3 years in a neutral place, at Germany’s Dusseldorfairport.

VEDILIS resulted in four prototypes, each of whichwas developed independently, then integrated. Com-petitors developed the prototypes simultaneouslyand the best solution was selected. Exchangesbetween competitors were non-existent. Work wasrealised by functionality, not by technical solution.Consequently, each competitor was able to keep itsown technical solutions even though all were obligedto communicate their results to each other.

In R&D and technological development projects,individuals need to interact to develop new ideas,identify problems and seek solutions (Osborn et al.,1985). The intensity of these interactions can help cre-ate a common knowledge and language, and caneven encourage the sharing of a strategic vision. Asone of the characteristics of EUREKA consortia is taskdivision, the number of meetings is a good indicatorof the need for co-ordination. The frequency of meet-ings is often evoked in relations between subsidiariesand parent firms and in joint ventures as a means tocreate common managerial practices, which in turnaccelerate organisational learning (Brown and Dug-uid, 1991; Inkpen, 1996).

Interviews show that a high frequency of meetings isalso needed to obtain a large number of outputs: newproducts, improved processes, doctorates, patents,licenses, publications and abilities. It seems that themore involved the consortium is in the upstream partof R&D, the more necessary it is to exchange ideasand establish a consensus on subjects that remain

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 601

obscure. The need to meet, however, is not as strongfor product development; in fact, in this case, parallelor independent work by each partner preserves thecharacteristics of the end products and facilitates aseparate exploitation of results by each partner.

Managerial Implications andPerspectives

Through its study of individual partner firms’ motiv-ations for collaborating in EUREKA consortia, thisarticle analyses the different types of resources andcompetencies that firms are capable of extractingfrom R&D co-operation.

The findings suggest that EUREKA R&D consortiahave succeeded in providing an organisational struc-ture where knowledge and competencies could becreated. These issues are of particular interestbecause they can apply to all companies involved intechnological partnerships. The main organisationalfeatures that favour an individual partner’s ability tocreate resources in a EUREKA R&D consortium seemto be:

❖ Organisational and managerial involvementappear to be as critical as financial involvement inthe creation of resources.

❖ Strategic coherence with the partner’s businesspolicy tends to favour resource creation.

❖ EUREKA projects have been more successful instrengthening firms that already have significantR&D activity in the consortium’s field.

❖ Strong internal capabilities lead to an increasedcreation of resources. Firms with significant exist-ing in-house management, financial and techno-logical resources and competencies benefit mostfrom the collaboration.

❖ The firm’s role in the consortium influences boththe quantity and the type of resources created:consortium leaders or technological integrationmanagers seem to create significantly moreresources than do the other partners.

❖ Finally, frequent meetings between partner firmsin the R&D consortium are especially useful inresource creation for upstream research projects.

All these issues lead to important implications formanagers:

❖ This paper supports the argument that consortiaare more effective in helping to improve andadopt technology rather than in long-termresearch. R&D partnerships deal with the adop-tion of new advances like prototypes or patents.

❖ If communication links are strong, resources aremore likely to be created. The efficient collabor-ation emerges, not from formal structures, but

Page 13: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

rather from personal relationships and communi-cation links that develop during the project. Theserelationships enable participants to define andpursue common professional interests. In manycases, the partners invested time and ingenuity infostering such relationships. In fact, in more than50 per cent of EUREKA projects, collaboration isbased on a former partnership.

❖ When new technologies increase in complexity,their development requires that the firm acquireexternal capabilities to complement its internalones used in new product development. R&D co-operation should be organised in such a manneras to gain access to complementary technologiesand to competence-sharing consortia.

❖ A pre-commercial R&D consortium typicallyinvolves the sharing of sensitive information andknowledge. However, as the partners may some-times be competitors, it is no surprise that in eachconsortium studied, stress related to the sharingand appropriation of the research results wasexpressed.

❖ Near-term applied research can incite participantsto be more attentive to performance; as a result,they seek to obtain high returns on their contri-butions and to avoid the difficulties of translatingbasic research into products.

❖ According to our research, in order to maximiseoutput and resource creation, an R&D consortiumshould be organised in such a manner that allmembers can be both responsible and auton-omous, but are at the same time united by a cohes-ive structure. The success of such a structurerequires that consortium managers be attentive topartner firms’ financial involvement and to theirmotivation to acquire competencies.

R&D consortia pose many dilemmas and contradic-tions. Consortia that focus exclusively on collectivebenefits will fail because the proprietary dimensionsare not clearly defined; likewise, consortia that focusexclusively on individual benefits will not succeedbecause the collaboration philosophy is not wellestablished. As technological co-operations continueto expand internationally and multiply at a rapidpace, all these issues pertaining to the successfulmanagement of R&D collaborations will becomeincreasingly relevant. Globalisation certainly incitesfirms to form collaborations that are growing inimportance due to both their international dimen-sions and their impact on each partner firm’s future.

Notes

1. The economics of collaborative research have receivedconsiderable attention, especially the organizationalaspects. Previous research on R&D consortia has mainlyfocused on: (1) case studies of American cooperativeR&D see (Peck, 1986; Ouchi and Bolton, 1988; Evan andOlk, 1990; Murphy, 1991; Gibson and Rogers, 1994;Browning et al., 1995); (2) industrial characteristics of part-

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000602

icipants in cooperative R&D see (Link and Bauer, 1987;Kleinknecht and Reijnen, 1992); (3) evaluation of nationalprograms; see (Peterson, 1993; Grindley et al., 1994); (4)analyses of the specificity of Japanese and American con-sortia; for SEMATECH, see (US General AccountingOffice, 1992); for EEC projects, see (Ormala, 1993); for theUK Alvey Project, see (Grindley, 1988); for Japanese con-sortia, see (Fransman, 1990; Hane, 1994); (5) for comparingJapanese and American consortia, see (Aldrich and Sasaki,1995; Corey, 1996; Ham et al., 1998).

2. Throughout this article, a research consortium is broadlydefined as an organizational form based on an agreementor contract between companies, public laboratoriesand/or Universities to share the expenses associated withan R&D activity. The sharing of the expected benefitsrequires a precise definition of the intellectual propertyrights.

3. Launched in 1985 at the initiative of the French PresidentFrancois Mitterrand. Its aim is to promote scientific andcommercial collaboration within Europe.

4. Twenty-five countries belong to EUREKA as of 1999: the15 countries of the European Union (Austria, Belgium,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland,Italy, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,UK), the Czech Republic, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Switz-erland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, and Turkey,and the European Commission.

5. National programs in Europe: if procedures for sustaininginnovation exist, they are intended for individual compa-nies and never specify that collaboration is a pre-requisitefor public funding; European Union (EU) programs: itwas not until the beginning of the 1980s that the idea ofcooperating with competitors on applied research projectswas accepted by industrial firms.

6. An umbrella is a structure related to a specific field. Theyare mini-networks within the larger EUREKA network.Although they promote the use and development of stan-dards, they do not have the authority to endorse projectsor provide funding. There are 14 currently activeumbrellas. See Ouchi (1989).

7. According to the interview with M. Sand, formerly Headof Evaluations at the EUREKA Secretariat in Brussels.

8. Evaluation of EUREKA industrial and economic effects(1993).

9. We conducted this survey at the end of 1994 with theagreement of the EUREKA Administration through theFrench SOFRES polling institute. Data from theEUREKA/SOFRES questionnaire helped us to measureresource creation through empirical variables. Institutes,research laboratories, and university laboratories wereeliminated from our sample, as their objective was gener-ally to pursue fundamental research without the intentionof commercially exploiting the results. The surveyaddresses member firms’ opinions about the resourcesand competencies resulting from already completed tech-nological collaborations. Questionnaires in five Europeanlanguages (English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish)were written and distributed to EUREKA project man-agers in 200 consortia, i.e. to 910 firms. The data were col-lected in most of the 22 countries participating inEUREKA. The response rate was 35 per cent, or 317usable questionnaires.

10. The question asked to managers (in charge of theconsortium) was ‘Which of the following project out-comes would you say has benefited your company?’.

11. Buckley and Casson confirm the importance of thesecharacteristics concerning the involvement of partners ina cooperation.

References

Aldrich, H.E. and Sasaki, T. (1995) R&D consortia in theUnited States and Japan. Research Policy 24, 301–316.

Page 14: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

Arino, A. and Doz, Y. (2000) Rescuing troubled alliances…before it’s too late. European Management Journal 18(2),173–182.

Badaracco, J. (1991) The Knowledge Link: How Firms CompeteThrough Strategic Alliances. Harvard Business SchoolPress, Boston, MA.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning andcommunities-of-practices. Organization Science 2, 40–57.

Browning, L.D., Beyer, J.M. and Shetler, J.C. (1995) Buildingco-operation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH andthe semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Jour-nal 38(1), 113–151.

Buckley, P.J. and Casson, A. (1988) A theory of co-operationin international business. In Co-operative Strategies inInternational Business, eds F.J. Contractor and P. Lorange.Lexington Books, Lexington.

Corey, E.R. (1996) Technology Fountainheads. Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, MA.

Evan, V.M. and Olk, P. (1990) R&D consortia: a new U.S.organizational formation. Sloan Management ReviewSpring, 37–46.

Fransman, M. (1990) The Market and Beyond: Co-operation andCompetition in Information Technology Development in theJapanese System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Freeman, C. (1982) The Economics of Industrial Innovation.Frances Pinter, London.

Gibson, D. and Rogers, E. (1994) R&D Collaboration on Trial:The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation.Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Grindley, P. (1988) The UK Software Industry: A Survey of theIndustry and Evaluation of Government Policy. LondonBusiness School, Centre for Business Strategy, ReportSeries.

Grindley, P., Mowery, D.C. and Silverman, B. (1994) SEMA-TECH and collaborative research: lessons in the designof a high-technology consortia. Journal of Policy Analysisand Management 13, 723–785.

Hagedoorn, J. (1993) Understanding the rationale of strategictechnology partnering: interorganizational modes of co-operation and sectoral differences. Strategic ManagementJournal 14(5), 371–385.

Hall, R. (1993) A framework linking intangible resources andcapabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Stra-tegic Management Journal 14(8), 607–618.

Ham, R.-M., Linden, G. and Appleyard, M.-M. (1998) Theevolving role of semiconductor consortia in the UnitedStates and Japan. California Management Review 41(1),137–163.

Hane, G.J. (1994) The real lessons of Japanese research con-sortia. Science and Technology Winter, 56–62.

Inkpen, A.C. (1996) Creating knowledge through collabor-ation. California Management Review 39, 123–140.

Irwin, D.A. and Klenow, P.J. (1996) High-tech R&D subsidiesestimating the effects of Sematech. Journal of InternationalEconomics 40, 323–344.

Katz, M. (1995) Joint ventures as a means of assembling comp-lementary inputs. Group Decision and Negotiation 4, 383–400.

Kleinknecht, A. and Reijnen, J.O.N. (1992) Why do firms coop-erate on R&D? An empirical study. Research Policy 21(4),347–360.

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000 603

Koza, M. and Lewin, A. (2000) Managing partnerships andstrategic alliances: raising the odds of success. EuropeanManagement Journal 18(2), 146–151.

Leibowitz, M. (1990) Electronics Business, January 22, pp. 46–51.

Link, A.N. and Bauer, L.L. (1987) An economic analysis of co-operative research. Technovation 6(4), 247–260.

Link, A.N., Teece, D.J. and Finan, W.F. (1996) Estimating thebenefits from collaboration: the case of SEMATECH.Review of Industrial Organization 11, 737–751.

Mothe, C. and Quelin, B. (1999) Creating new resourcesthrough European R&D partnerships. Technology Analy-sis and Strategic Management 11(1), 605–617.

Murphy, W.J. (1991) R&D Co-operation Among MarketplaceCompetitors. Quorum Books, Westpoint, CT.

Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowl-edge creation. Organization Science 5, 14–37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-CreatingCompany: How Japanese Companies Foster Creativity andInnovation for Competitive Advantage. Oxford UniversityPress, London.

Nonaka, I., Byosiere, Ph., Borucki, C.C. and Konno, N. (1994)Organizational knowledge creation theory: a first com-prehensive test. International Business Review 3, 337–351.

Ormala, E. (1993) Evaluation of EUREKA Industrial and Econ-omic Effects. Secretariat EUREKA, Paris.

Osborn, R.N., Olson, J. and Hanada, M. (1985) AnalysingUS/Japanese Joint Research and Development Units. NationalScience Foundation, Washington DC.

Ouchi, W. (1989) The new joint R&D. Proceedings of the IEEE77, 1318–1326.

Ouchi, W.G. and Bolton, M.K. (1988) The logic of jointresearch and development. California Management Review30(3), 9–33.

Peck, M.J. (1986) Joint R&D: the case of microelectronics andcomputer technology corporation. Research Policy 15,219–231.

Peterson, J. (1993) High Technology and The Competition State.Routledge, London.

Quelin, B. (1996) Appropriability and the creation of newcapabilities through strategic alliances. In Strategic Learn-ing and Knowledge Management, eds R. Sanchez and A.Heene, pp. 139–160. Wiley, London.

Ring, P.M. (2000) The three T’s of alliance creation: task, teamand time. European Management Journal 18(2), 152–163.

Sakakibara, M. (1997) Heterogeneity of firm capabilities andco-operative research and development: an empiricalexamination of motives. Strategic Management Journal18(Special issue), 143–164.

Sevon, G. and Kreiner, K. (eds) (1998) Constructing R&D Col-laboration. Handelshojskolens Forlag, Copenhagen Busi-ness School Press.

Teece, D.J. (1995) Profiting from technological innovation.Research Policy 15(6), 286–305.

US General Accounting Office (1992) Federal Research: LessonsLearned from SEMATECH, GAO/RCED-92-1238. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington DC.

Yin, (1985) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Pub-lications, Newbury Park, CA.

Page 15: Creating competencies through collaboration:: The case of EUREKA R&D consortia

CREATING COMPETENCIES THROUGH COLLABORATION

CAROLINE MOTHE, BERTRAND V. QUE-Paris X Nanterre, 200, av. LIN, Groupe HEC Paris,de la Republique, 92001 School of Management,Nanterre Cedex, France. E- 78351 Jouy-en-Josas Cedex,mail: [email protected] France. E-mail: [email protected]

Caroline Mothe received a Bertrand V. Quelin ispostgraduate degree from Associate Professor at HECParis Dauphine University, (Paris), and currentlyand holds a MBA of Univer- Associate Dean for the HECsity of New York. She holds Ph.D. Program. He teachesa Doctorate in management Industrial Economics and

at Paris Nanterre University, where she is currently Strategic Management. His main topics of researchMaitre de Conferences. Her past experience in a con- involve economics of organisation, the strategic man-sulting company is a strong background for teaching agement of competencies, and outsourcing. He is theStrategy and Business Policy. Her research interests co-editor of a book Le Management Strategique desare mainly inter-firm co-operation and R&D Consortia. Competences Paris: Ellipses, 2000.

European Management Journal Vol 18 No 6 December 2000604