collaboration in r&d: the emerging frontiers of innovation

Gestão do Conhecimento

Collaboration in R&D:The Emerging Frontiers of Innovation1

The paper examines the growing diversity of sources and the global possibilities for research and development. It notes a consistent trend towards collaborative and decentralized ventures which emphasize risk sharing, cost optimization and managing complex business relationships. There are clear indications that new opportunities in IT influence the changing shape of innovation while they support knowledge sharing and enable working across timezones. The paper reviews the international experience of collaborative innovation in corporations, universities and the public sector and identifies intellectual property markets and open source production as important and developing models. Findings show that agile management of R&D production requires organizational, technical and human approaches to sustain knowledge sharing networks. The paper recommends that companies understand and focus their strategic position within collaborative research networks.

José Cláudio Terra, Dr.

InTRoDuCTIon

The continuous growth of corporate Research and Development (R&D) is a key indicator of the emergence of a knowledge-based economy. Although expensed for legal accounting reasons, R&D is in fact one of the key investments that promote future growth for firms and countries. The product of R&D is knowledge that turns into new products and services and that are acquired by researchers, thereby spilling-over to the rest of the economy. Companies in the developed world, and more recently in developing countries are increasing their investments in R&D at a faster rate than the overall economic growth. For instance, data from the US Department of Commerce shows that corporate R&D grew from US$ 93.6 billion in 1994, to US$ 164.5 billion in 2000, which means a compounded annual growth of 7.9% over this period.

Despite this surge in corporate R&D, the evidence suggests that new innovations and technologies can

arise from anywhere in the world and are more likely to arise from collaboration (internal and external) than from individual work. It is also increasingly common for cutting-edge technologies to be developed by a number of different institutions, combining the skills of small and large organizations and private and public organizations. Innovation in isolation is no longer a viable option. There are a number of reasons for this trend:

• Technological advances have made remote collaboration much easier;• A new generation of researchers has been raised with internet access and expecting to work and collaborate virtually. • The innovation process increasingly requires a combination of different skills, technologies and disciplines;• The erosion of vertically integrated supply-chains and the rapid emergence of horizontal supply-chains that include multiple layers of companies working on different parts, components, sub-systems and

biblioteca

© TerraForum Consultores 1

Gestão da Inovação

1 The author acknowledges the strong support and research assistance provided by Dr. Rupert Brown and David Kato.

© TerraForum Consultores

biblioteca

�

www.terraforum.com.br

Collaboration in R&D: The Emerging Frontiers of InnovationGestão da Inovação

platforms of new product offerings;• The growing complexity and uncertainty of innovation leads to risk-sharing among different players;• The dramatic reduction of product life cycles and increased importance of new products as a percentage of total revenues;• Offshoring and outsourcing of R&D is now an attractive option with advantages in labor costs;• An increased number of countries are enforcing intellectual property rights and offering tax-breaks for R&D investments. Thus, new countries are becoming possible hosts of R&D activity;• In certain types of industries, it is now possible to increase the speed of research by working around the clock through two or three time zones;• The emergence of organizations for hire totally dedicated to developing new ideas and inventing new products2 (skunk works for hire);• The rapid growth in the number of incubators of technology-based companies and the lower capital needs in some fields that provide interesting opportunities for entrepreneurs in knowledge-based industries;• Information and knowledge are spreading globally much more rapidly as individuals and organizations have ample online access to journal and patent databases;• The open-source approach to software development that has migrated to other fields (e.g. medicine);• Globalization has increased the need for the rapid creation, diffusion and adaptation of new innovations. In many industries it is not longer possible to innovate with a focus in just one market. Other markets cannot be an afterthought.

In this context with many forces pushing towards

increased collaboration, we examine a set of specific recent trends that are helping to shape the new collaborative and global environment for R&D, namely:1. Decentralization of R&D in large corporations2. Collaboration: academics, universities and Intellectual Property (IP)3. Government support for collaborative R&D4. Open source product development5. Emergence of (IP) markets

1. DECEnTRALIZATIon oF R&D In LARGE CoRPoRATIonS

Not too long ago, governments provided most of the funding for R&D in developed countries. This has changed dramatically over the last decade. The private sector has now become the main driver of R&D worldwide. Very large multinationals have rapidly moved away from “Ivory Tower” R&D centers. In order to reduce labor costs and find innovative local solutions, these multinationals have shifted to developing centers of competence spread in many developed countries and increasingly also in developing countries (specially in more traditional industries).

Data shows that a number of large organizations are already decentralizing R&D (especially those small developed countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland). Figures show a ready basis for extending international research participation, partnerships and collaboration3:• European firms have the highest proportion of R&D abroad (about 30 percent) – much in other European countries. • About 10-12 percent of American R&D and about 10 percent of Japanese R&D has been

2 Walker Digital, Invent Resources, Generics Group, Sarcos Research, Deka Research and Development are good examples. Source: Schwartz E. I. (2004). Sparking the Fire of Invention Technology Review, May 2004.3 Rycroft R. (2002). Technology-Based Globalization Indicators: The Centrality of Innovation Network Data. Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.


biblioteca

�



internationalized.• Around 15 percent of patents granted in the U.S. are generated by foreign subsidiaries of multinational companies (MNCs).• The share of patents generated by foreign MNC subsidiaries in Europe is about 30 percent. • The most internationalized patenting takes place in older manufacturing sectors such as food and paper products, while the least internationalization is in more complex sectors like semiconductors.• It is expected that in 2004, U.S. patent filings from foreign entities will surpass those from U.S. entities for the first time4.• In countries such as Canada and the UK, foreign-funded R&D accounts for nearly 25% of total industrial R&D5.• R&D performed by American companies abroad jumped from US$ 4.6 billion in 1986 to about US$ 20 billion in 20006.• Interesting corporate examples include: o Procter & Gamble that has 40 percent of its 8,000 research staff are outside North America7; o Nokia that has 18,000 engineers doing R&D work spread across 69 sites from Boston to Bangalore8; o UTStarcom, which has more than 1,400 engineers in China and 150 engineers in India9; o Alcatel, the French giant, raised its R&D investment in Shanghai to $100 million for work on third-generation mobile infrastructure and

applications10; o AstraZeneca, a leading British firm, is rapidly increasing its investments in R&D in India11; o E.piphany (a US$ 100 million California-based software company) is outsourcing 30% to 40% of their engineers in China12; o Data provided by the Unites States’ Department of Commerce shows that between 1991 and 2001, U.S. companies participated in more than 4,600 research and technology alliances involving foreign countries. These alliances were particularly strong in the IT and biotechnology industries, confirming that the fast-moving industries are those that demand more collaboration and sharing of risks. Two interesting examples of collaboration in product development highlight the kind of decentralization of R&D indicated by the data above:

The dispute between Brazil’s Embraer and Canada’s Bombardier.

Embraer was almost bankrupt in the mid-nineties. Yet it made the unlikely comeback to become the third largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world surpassing Bombardier. How did this happen? How did a company from a developing country, competing in a high-tech market beat a once superior, profitable and domineering competitor

3 Rycroft R. (2002). Technology-Based Globalization Indicators: The Centrality of Innovation Network Data. Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.4 Schwartz E. I. (2004). Sparking the Fire of Invention Technology Review, May 2004.5 National Science Board & National Science Foundation(2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004.6 Walsh K. (2003). Foreign High-Tech R&D in China: Risks, rewards, and implications for US-China relations. Henry L. Stimson Center.7 Debra Knopman et al (2003) Innovation and Change Management in Public and Private Organizations Rand Organization.8 Kaihla P. (2002). Nokia’s Hit. Factory Business 2.0, August 2002.9 Ramo, A. (2003). The China Syndrome. CFO Magazin, October 2003. 10 Ramo, A. (2003). The China Syndrome. CFO Magazin, October 2003.11 Ramo, A. (2003). The China Syndrome. CFO Magazin, October 2003.12 Ramo, A. (2003). The China Syndrome. CFO Magazin, October 2003.


biblioteca

�



in less than a decade? Many factors include to this success, but one is probably at the forefront: Embraer’s relative lack of funding and technical resources led the company to embrace a much more collaborative product development process than Bombardier. Embraer developed partnerships with American, French, German and Brazilian universities and with small and large organizations from South America, USA, Japan and Europe. These included: Piper Aircraft Company, United Technologies, Northrop, McDonnell Douglas, Parker Hannifin (USA); Aermacchi, Microtecnica, Latecoere (Italy), Kawasaki (Japan); Liebherr (Germany); Gamesa Group (Spain); Sonaca (Belgium) and Enaer (Chile). The company headquarters came to resemble a United Nations camp with suppliers and partners from different continents, speaking different languages, engaged in rapid product development projects through risk-sharing contracts. Indeed, Embraer became very similar to some of the finest Japanese auto-maker producers that through the tradition of keiretsu, engage suppliers, partners and clients in very open, trusting and shared destiny commitments.

Most recently, Embraer has shown how innovation, talent and collaboration have no limits. In great need of young talents to build and work on new products and realizing that there was enough of a supply of qualified aeronautics engineers in Brazil, the company set up a very innovative in-house Master’s program in Aeronautics to attract the best to work for them. In order to establish the program, it carefully studied every engineering and related discipline programs in Brazilian universities. Then, it convinced different universities and departments to team up together with Embraer’s own PhDs in order to develop a unique program to attend to the company’s most pressing needs. The young scientists and engineers

s

who participate in this program are paid to earn a Master’s degree. The result is the churning out of a new generation of scientists and engineers every year that are already helping Embraer to develop new generation of planes.

Océ’s R&D Networks

From the Netherlands, comes the interesting case of Océ. Océ is a leading Dutch company with 18,000 employees (with 1,500 in R&D) that is a key competitor to Canon and Xerox in the high-end copier market. According to Professor Roel Rutten, who did a comprehensive study of the innovation process at Océ, the company made the major change from having a closed R&D environment to creating an open innovation concept13:

“In the early 1990s, the main purpose of the fence around the site of Océ R&D in Venlo, the Netherlands, was to prevent knowledge from leaking out. Today, some 250 people from universities, engineering bureaus, software developers, and suppliers work side by side with Océ engineers inside that fence14". He goes on to say: “The fundamental R&D is often done on a global scale, using the knowledge and expertise of leading institutes and universities. Whether these institutes are located in Japan, the United States, or the Netherlands is irrelevant. What matters is that Océ acquires the knowledge it needs”15.

�. CoLLABoRATIon: ACADEMICS, unIVERSITIES AnD IP

The academic community has traditionally collaborated across institutions, geography and languages. It has been known as the most cosmopolitan of all working categories employed by

13 Rutten R. (2003) Knowledge and Innovation in Regional Industry: an entrepreneurial coalition Routledge.14 Ibid, page 24.15 Ibid, page 26.


biblioteca

�



industry. However, this open approach has achieved unprecedented levels in recent years. The National Science Foundation data, for instance, shows that collaborative efforts are responsible for an increasing number of patents and publications and that these relationships are also constructed and operate across borders. Scientists from developed and developing countries are also rapidly increasingly the number of co-authorships with colleagues from other institutions, countries and regions16.

Another important development in terms of R&D collaboration involving academics is the recent emergence of IP licensing companies. These companies are helping to unlock much of the value tied up in intellectual property and to ensure that universities miss fewer opportunities for the commercial application of outputs. This trend has led to much greater collaboration between R&D labs and industry. The results are already striking: American universities received $1.1 billion in IP license income during 200017. In 1980, only approximately 20 universities had technology licensing and transfer offices. By 1990, this number has reached 200 and currently almost all research universities in the U.S. have one18. The same kind of change (although not with the same intensity) is occurring in other countries, including developing ones such as Brazil.

An interesting example of innovative industry-academia partnership comes from Britain. IP2IPO, a British venture-capital firm is making a US$36m investment in Oxford University’s chemistry department19. The department produces 80 PhDs each year and US$18m in research income, with a growing stream of spin-outs. The university owns the IP, not the researchers, and spin-outs now split

their equity four ways: 30% to the investors, 20% to the management, 25% to the university and 25% to the academics who did the original research. The department that fostered the research sees a direct payback, too, by receiving 15% of the university’s profit when it sells its stake.

As industry-academia evolves, we are witnessing the emergence of hybrid organizations. These are being formed when there is a need for a number of types of institutions to mobilize a research project. A recent example is a post 9/11 military project: The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT. It involves 8 academic departments, 6 international companies, 5 small enterprise partners, 3 army research institutions and open participation from the public through an annual Soldier Design Competition. Outputs range from armor to waterproofing to an artificial liver20.

The above example, although definitely an exception, points to the frontiers of collaboration in R&D. Most firms, however, that engage in R&D need to start, if they have not yet, looking into and mapping what is happening in the best universities in their knowledge areas. Opportunities for collaboration and outsourcing are abundant in many fields.

�. GoVERnMEnT SuPPoRT FoR CoLLABoRATIVE R&D

Firms can also expand their networks of R&D collaboration through monitoring (and influencing) government’s role in fostering R&D collaboration. Almost all governments from developed nations have been increasing their support for collaborative, pre-commercial R&D collaboration. The U.S., for

16 National Science Board & National Science Foundation(2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004.17 The Economist (2003). Reinventing Europe. Economist Technology Quarterly, September 4th 2003.18 Colyvas, J. et al (2002). How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice? Management Science, Jan 2002, 61-73.19 The Economist (2003). Reinventing Europe. Economist Technology Quarterly, September 4th 2003.20 MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) http://web.mit.edu/isn/


biblioteca

�



instance, has had major federal legislation since the 80’s that provides support for collaborative R&D. It includes the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act (1980); the Bay-Dole University and Small Business Patent Act (1980); the Small Business Innovation Development Act (1982); the National Cooperative Research Act (1984) and the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (1988). These Acts have all been amended recently either to relax restrictions on collaboration or to stimulate the transfer of knowledge from universities and federal labs.

Japan and the European Union have even stronger incentives for collaborative R&D. At the end of the eighties, 80% of the Japanese government budget for R&D was already allocated to projects that involved the collaboration of industry consortia, research associations, universities and research centers managed by groups of firms. Promotion of cooperation in community research has been a longstanding goal of European research policy. Among recent examples coming from Europe, the case of the Netherlands is worth citing 21:

“The government there has formulated a €200m plan, known as the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI), to undertake genomics research and extract value from it. Industry and the universities have been asked to propose research projects that can contribute to the global genomics effort. The request has led to tenders for ten projects worth €50m a year over a five-year period. The NGI approach is similar to one taken in the formation of the Netherlands’ Technological TOP Institutes, which undertake pre-competitive research that is meant to lead to

commercial innovations. The institutes receive 50% of their funding from the government, 25% from universities and 25% from industry. They were created by tapping the universities for ideas and then defining a series of technology areas for each of the institutes to focus on. The industrial partners then chose which areas to back.”

�. oPEn SouRCE PRoDuCT DEVELoPMEnT

Open source is an undeniable new phenomenon that is shaking up traditional notions of collaboration for R&D and product development. Open source means that the content, substance or code of any application is open to anyone to view, improve, extend, customize or share within the author’s rules. Yochai Benkler, law professor at Yale University gives open source a precise technical definition of “non-proprietary peer-production of information-embedding goods”22. It also implies a research and development process that is collaborative and most likely virtual. Open source software is having a serious impact on the US$90 billion software market and boasts more and more widely recognizable brands, for example: Linux (34% of web servers), Apache (67% of web servers23), OpenOffice, ITRON Kernel24, Mozilla and MySQL.

A very interesting article entitled “An open-source shot in the arm?” in The Economist25 magazine argues that open source research can also have an impact in other fields and disciplines, for instance in biomedical research and on generic drugs. Open source research can be used to exploit non-patentable compounds, drugs whose patents have

21 The Economist (2003). Reinventing Europe. Economist Technology Quarterly, September 4th 2003.22 The Economist (2004).An open-source shot in the arm? Economist Technology Quarterly, June 10th 2004.23 Netcraft (2004) Web Server Survey 2004. Netcraft.com.24 3 billion installations, 1984-2003. Source: Krikke J. (2003). The most popular operating system in the world. Linux Insider, October 2003.25 The Economist (2004).An open-source shot in the arm? Economist Technology Quarterly, June 10th 2004.


biblioteca

�



expired and in developing treatments for diseases that afflict small numbers of people, such as Parkinson’s Disease, or are found mainly in poor countries, such as malaria. In these last cases, there is not a large enough market of paying customers to encourage large commercial organizations to develop commercial solutions. Some open source biomedical research projects have stated that should they find and patent a new treatment, it will be licensed cheaply to pharmaceutical firms to ensure a supply of drugs at low cost.

The same article provides a concrete example similar to the open source research approach. It describes how Dr. Peter Lansbury, of Harvard Medical School, is examining the therapeutic effect of a thousand approved drugs on which the patent has expired in most cases. His laboratory, which has approximately 25 researchers and an annual budget of $2.5m, focuses its work on neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Huntington’s, to which the major commercial drug companies devote few resources because of the small potential market. Dr Lansbury refers to his work as “not-for-profit drug discovery”. He sees direct parallels with the open-source approach in that (1) his group places much of its data in the public domain, and (2) its goal is to involve other scientists around the world.

George Dafermos has examined the management of open source production. He has found virtual networked organizations where geographically dispersed knowledge workers virtually collaborated on projects with barely any central planning and co-ordination26. A number of elements of these networked projects were reported:• They rely heavily on web tools as modes of communication, with automated communications archives, mailing lists & wikis.

• A large user-base specifies requirements, participates in design reviews, beta testing and implementation of new systems.• Source code and other artifacts are available to customers – for them to identify issues earlier in the project lifecycle and to create a greater sense of ownership.• More than 50% of open source developers participate in two or more projects and another 10% participate in 10 or more.• Archiving of as much of the development process as possible to protect a team’s knowledge base, in the event of participant drop-out and sickness27.

With the exception of pro-bono, government-sponsored or pure academic research, it is hard to imagine large, for-profit organizations engaging in open source product development. However, paying attention to this emerging model of knowledge creation is a must for all firms. It is a process that, in some cases, can involve thousands of people across the world and generally includes young professionals motivated to be recognized as experts or, more often, because they want develop a feeling of belonging to a knowledge community.

The next section, deals with the emergence of Intellectual Property markets, a “cousin” of the open source concept.

�. EMERGEnCE oF InTELLECTuAL PRoPERTY (IP) MARKETS

The advent of virtual auctions, online showrooms and secure transactions and communications has allowed the design of online spaces where IP and ideas can be showcased and purchased. These market spaces are entering a consolidation phase and three models of market spaces have taken hold:

26 Dafermos, G.N. (2001) Management and Virtual Decentralised Networks: The Linux Project. First Monday, v.6 n.11.27 Barret L. and Schwaber C. E.(2004). Firms can improve success rate by learning from open source software development. Computer Weekly, June 2004.


biblioteca

�



(1) All-in-one service. Generally includes a contacts database, a matching service for seekers and providers, submission of RFQs and project and payment process. NineSigma and CanBioTech are good examples; (2) Shop window or auction. This model openly displays technology wants and needs according to the areas where expertise is sought. The range of sites varies from highly speculative, such as NewIdeaTrade.com, to more specific such as Yet2.com, an Internet ‘dating service’ for IP users and providers. Finally, there are sites with an extremely tight industry focus like PharmaLicensing.Com. or “2Rentacoder”, which currently has over 80,000 registered programmers in its database and offers an environment similar to E-bay, but exclusively for software development contract work.

(3) Reward or challenge. These are usually biotechnology and pure science sites that offer a bounty for those who solve a problem or challenge posted on the site in exchange for the intellectual property rights of the innovation. Innocentive [www.Innocentive.com] is a market leader and is underwritten by Eli Lilly and with the strong participation of Procter and Gamble plus Dow and BASF.

Some of the ideas that initially pushed Eli Lilly (a US$ 11 billion company, with an annual US$ 2 billion R&D budget) to invest in Innocentive were nicely summarized by its CIO W. Roy Dunbar28: “We’re very clever within Lilly in Indianapolis headquarters, but we also recognize there are a lot of other clever folk in other places. There are communities of world-class

chemists in the states of the former Soviet Union, in India and in China. InnoCentive is an attempt to explore how to access those communities via a Web site that posts specific problems in chemistry and a financial bounty for the first viable solution”.

MAnAGInG R&D CoLLABoRATIon

As highlighted by the data, ideas and cases above, small and large organizations alike are looking into new ways to collaborate in R&D collaboration. Even those that understand the need for collaboration and open concepts of innovation, also understand that effective collaboration is not a given. As Robert Rycroft puts it29: “Discovering, transforming, and applying relevant tacit and explicit knowledge can be an intimidating technological and organizational challenge. Yet once learning processes are established that make repeated innovation possible, a network may have a sustainable competitive advantage. The dynamic capabilities that result from rapid learning are difficult for competitors to replicate, precisely because they are constantly evolving, emerging [and developed through cumulative experiences30]. Thus, the overall advantages of innovation networks seem to be substantial.”

Research indicates that successful interactive learning triggers further cooperation. Firms that succeed at networking may become not only more adept at learning about the technological dimensions of collaboration, but also more skilled in organizational dynamics that foster open, committed and yet flexible relationships with different players31.

Collaboration is also a matter of being tuned into the

28 Dunbar W. R. Thinking out loud. CIO Insight, October 2, 2002.29 Rycroft R. (2003). Self-Organizing Innovation Networks: Implications for Globalization. Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.30 Added by the author31 Rycroft R. (2003). Self-Organizing Innovation Networks: Implications for Globalization. Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.


biblioteca

�



environment and constantly monitoring it in order to rapidly spot potential emerging technologies coming from the same industry, adjacent industries, universities, research institutes, etc. Organizations engaged in paths of increased collaboration need an even sharper understanding of their own competencies, skills and expertise as a way of both protecting these assets and finding complementary partners. It is important to stress that managing collaboration is not just a matter of wanting it. Resources and time need to be managed effectively through a range of methodologies (product life cycle methodology) and software. As competition continuously heats up, the winners are likely to be those that manage these collaborating skills effectively and strategically. In this context, knowledge management has made important in-roads into R&D management. In fact, no other business function is more knowledge-intensive and more likely to benefit from typical KM approaches such as Communities of Practice, After-action Review, Lessons Learned, Knowledge Portals, Yellow Pages and advanced collaboration & communications tools.

Sustaining adequate learning and knowledge sharing requires, however, purposeful, continual attention. The governance of collaboration must be one based on reciprocity and shared-destiny, instead of directives. Organizations that choose the path of collaboration with third parties need strong skills in terms of holding open communication and handling conflict as overtly as possible. In many fast-moving industries, companies will need to move ahead without all the legal formal apparatus to which they were accustomed in the past. More and more, important alliances are established based on broad principles decided by senior leaders. This does not mean that legal and formal planning is not required. Collaborative R&D is increasingly complex and full

of pitfalls in terms of IP ownership, confidentiality conditions and non-competition issues. All these issues need careful management. Nevertheless, without the strong will of leaders that understand the imperative of collaboration and develop a common and exciting vision, people can become completely “caught up” in endless disputes around legal details and end up losing sight of the big picture and the need for forging ahead.

Trust and risk management are two sides of the same coin in the R&D collaborative space. Trust is an important currency in today’s fast moving markets. R&D projects, however, are risky by nature and collaborating with third parties may increase the risk. Thus, sorting out who and what to trust is a skill that people working in complex R&D projects will need to master in order to make fairly rapid decisions about entering and leaving partnerships and new markets.

According to a number of studies, only a few organizations have managed a complete transition to an open innovation and flexible R&D infrastructure. Those that have built up experience in this area have been labeled “complexity masters”32, i.e. organizations that can maintain multiplex knowledge interfaces and connections between innovation and R&D; sourcing, manufacturing, and delivery; and marketing, sales, and after-sales service33. Crossing the frontiers of innovation requires a commitment to a comprehensive effort to open and improve these channels so that ideas can flow from anywhere. With data showing that by 2010, products representing more than 70 percent of today’s sales will be defunct34, companies that do not understand this new paradigm will likely fade away.

As a final word on managing R&D collaboration, it cannot be stressed enough how important it is to

32 Deloitte (2004). Mastering Innovation: Exploiting Ideas for Profitable Growth. Deloitte Global Benchmark Study p.133 Deloitte (2004). Mastering Innovation: Exploiting Ideas for Profitable Growth. Deloitte Global Benchmark Study p.1034 Deloitte (2004). Mastering Innovation: Exploiting Ideas for Profitable Growth. Deloitte Global Benchmark Study p.3


biblioteca

10



understand one’s own place in these networks. Some companies are great at integrating technologies, others at developing innovative components or providing superior process or manufacturing capabilities. Usually, only a few companies are able to drive the innovation process in complex supply-chains by closely monitoring and delivering the needs of final clients. Many companies participate in many different networks as they broaden their competencies into different markets. Most, however, are better-off developing a strong focused position in a vibrant network or integrated supply-chain.

LooKInG AHEAD

As humanity’s problems, challenges and goals become increasingly more complex (e.g. dealing with global warming, deciphering the Human Genome, exploring space), the need for collective intelligence and global R&D can only increase in importance. Scientists have been known to be moved more by opportunities to make an impact than by financial rewards. Current advances made available by globalization and the internet are allowing unprecedented collaboration opportunities for the scientific community, from universities and government agencies to small and large corporations. Whether we will continue to make steady progress towards increased collaboration across organizational boundaries, locations, regions, languages and cultures will depend heavily on an increased ability to manage complexity, ambiguity, risk and shared ownership; the fostering of more trusting relationships; and developing an appropriate communications infrastructure that helps to connect the brain dots scattered around the globe.

* * *

José Cláudio C. Terra é presidente da TerraForum Consultores. Atua como consultor e palestrante no Canadá, nos Estados Unidos, em Portugal, na França e no Brasil. Também é professor de vários programas de pós-graduação e MBA e autor de vários livros sobre o tema. Seu email é [email protected]


biblioteca

11



REFEREnCES

Barret L. and Schwaber C. E.(2004). Firms can improve success rate by learning from open source software development. Computer Weekly, June 2004.

Colyvas, J. et al (2002). How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice? Management Science, Jan 2002, 61-73.

Dafermos, G.N. (2001) Management and Virtual Decentralised Networks: The Linux Project. First Monday, v.6 n.11.

Debra Knopman et al (2003) Innovation and Change Management in Public and Private Organizations Rand Organization.

Deloitte (2004). Mastering Innovation: Exploiting Ideas for Profitable Growth. Deloitte Global Benchmark Study

Dunbar W. R. Thinking out loud. CIO Insight, October 2, 2002.

Evan I. S. (2004) Sparking the Fire of Invention. Technology Review, May 2004.

Kaihla P. (2002). Nokia’s Hit. Factory Business 2.0, August 2002.

Krikke J. (2003). The most popular operating system in the world. Linux Insider, October 2003.

National Science Board & National Science Foundation(2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004.

Netcraft (2004) Web Server Survey 2004. Netcraft.com.

Ramo, A. (2003). The China Syndrome. CFO Magazin, October 2003.

Rutten R. (2003) Knowledge and Innovation in Regional Industry: an entrepreneurial coalition Routledge.

Rycroft R. (2002). Technology-Based Globalization Indicators: The Centrality of Innovation Network Data. Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

Rycroft R. (2003). Self-Organizing Innovation Networks: Implications for Globalization. Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

Schwartz E. I. (2004). Sparking the Fire of Invention. Technology Review, May 2004.

The Economist (2003). Reinventing Europe. Economist Technology Quarterly, September 4th 2003.

The Economist (2004).An open-source shot in the arm? Economist Technology Quarterly, June 10th 2004.

Walsh K. (2003). Foreign High-Tech R&D in China: Risks, rewards, and implications for US-China relations. Henry L. Stimson Center.


biblioteca

1�


A EMPRESA

A TerraForum Consultores é uma empresa de consultoria e treinamento em Gestão do Conhecimento (GC) e Tecnologia da Informação. Os clientes da empresa são, em sua maioria, grandes e médias organizações dos setores público, privado e terceiro setor. A empresa atua em todo o Brasil e também no exterior, tendo escritórios em São Paulo, Brasília e Ottawa no Canadá. É dirigida pelo Dr. José Cláudio Terra, pioneiro e maior referência em Gestão do Conhecimento no país. Além disso, conta com uma equipe especializada e internacional de consultores.

PuBLICAÇÕES TERRAFoRuM

Winning at Collaboration Commerce

Gestão do Conhecimento e E-learning na Prática Portais Corporativos, a Revolução na Gestão do Conhecimento Gestão do Conhecimento - O Grande Desafio Empresarial Gestão do Conhecimento em Pequenas e Médias Empresas Realizing the Promise of Corporate Portals: Leveraging Knowledge for Business Success Gestão de Empresas na Era do Conhecimento


ARTIGoS RELACIonADoS

Cooperação e Compartilhamento: Construção de Riqueza?Conhecimento e Colaboração

Poder e Compartilhamento de ConhecimentoObstáculos ao Compartilhamento do Conhecimento

Análise de Redes Sociais

collaboration in r&d: the emerging frontiers of innovation

Business

popular operating system

jos cludio terra

george washington university

innovation biblioteca www

innovation biblioteca www

national science foundation

organizing innovation networks

economist technology quarterly