CAPÍTULO 6
INOVAÇÃO E APRENDIZAGEM À ESCALA INTERNACIONAL
CAPÍTULO 6.1.
A RELEVÂNCIA DO CONHECIMENTO E DA APRENDIZAGEM
THE MULTINATIONAL FIRM AS GLOBAL-LOCAL NETWORK
• The MNE as a key actor in the globalisation process
• MNE affiliates embedded in national systems of innovation
THE CORE QUESTIONS
1. Fostering Intra-Firm Cross-Border communication of specific knowledge
2. Promoting external communication to absorb other’s knowledge while preventing the “leakage” of firm’s specific knowledge
3. How to avoid knowledge accumulation paths leading to “deadlocks”
THE MNE AS A REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1) Existence of Specific Advantages (knowledge or knowledge-based rights)
2) International Exploitation (across borders, within firm’s boundaries)
THE ROLE OF SUBSIDIARIES
• A Double ActivityLocal “Emdeddedness” enables knowledge acquisiton
through interaction
andContribution towards MNE network
• Inter-action as a non-Symmetrical Process– Different “combinative Capabilities”– Different Complementary Assets– Non-Additivity of Knowledge
Bartlett & Ghoshal
A. K. Gupta & K. Govindarajan
Critério Básico Participação nos Processos de Partilha de Conhecimento na EMN (Emissão/ Recepção de Conhecimento)
4 TIPOS
Integrated Player (A/A)
Global Innovator (A/B)
Implementer (B/A)
Local Innovator (B/B)
Main forms of internationalisation of industrial R&D
Establishment of R&D activities in the host country by foreign-controlled affiliates (inward investment)
Setting up R&D laboratories abroad by investing countries (outward investment)
Creation of joint ventures
Co-operation agreements or technological alliances
International R&D subcontrating
Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE
NOVOS MODOS DE ORGANIZAÇÃO
• Mandatos Globais
• Plataformas de Produção
• Centros de Excelência
PAPEL DOS CENTROS DE EXCELÊNCIA
• DESENVOLVIMENTO CONHECIMENTOS
• INTEGRAÇÃO DE CONHECIMENTOS
• INSERÇÃO NA REDE
R&D EXPENDITURES OF FOREIGN AFFILIATES AS A % OF TOTAL R&D EXPENDITURES
Fonte: R. Narula (2005), The Globalisation of Innovation, http://www.unctad.org/sections/meetings/docs/narula_en.pdf
Trends of R&D activities by multinationals
Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE
Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE
Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE
Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE
Fonte: Thomas Hatzichronoglou (2006), Recent Trends in the internationalisationof R&D in the enterprise sectot,OCDE
Fonte: UNCTAD, WIR (2005)
Fonte: UNCTAD, WIR (2005)
Fonte: UNCTAD, WIR (2005)
Fonte: UNCTAD, WIR (2005)
Fonte: UNCTAD, WIR (2005)
AS EMN E OS SNI
EMPRESAS MULTINACIONAIS E SISTEMAS NACIONAIS DE INOVAÇÃO
Uma inter-relação cada vez mais intensa
A concorrência internacional para atracção IDE intensivo em conhecimento......mas grande selectividade nas escolhas
A actividade de I&D como algo de adquirido e não como dado (mas há excepções)
A crescente importância do cruzamento de saberes e de bases de conhecimento (conjugando global e local)
EMPRESAS MULTINACIONAIS E SNI EM PAÍSES MENOS AVANÇADOS
Qual o papel desempenhado pelas filiais de EMN? ‘Abafando’ a dinâmica inovadora local?(por aquisições, p. exº.) ou Filiais como tutoras e mobilizadoras de redes?
A internacionalização das ligações locais: papel das filiais na internacionalização das empresas nacionais
Relacionamento e exigência de novos patamares
CAPÍTULO 6.2.
PROCESSOS DE INOVAÇÃO À ESCALA INTERNACIONAL
INNOVATION PROCESS
CENTRAL LOCAL
LOCALLY LEVERAGED
GLOBALLY LINKED
Fonte: Adaptado de Bartlett & Ghoshall (1989)
INOVAÇÃO CENTRAL
Vantagens – Controlo da Tecnologia (Garantias de Apropriabilidade)– Relacionamento Inter-Departamental
(Inter-acção, desenvolvimento, Produção, comercialização)– Rapidez de Desenvolvimento e Lançamento de Novos
Produtos
Riscos– Conflitos Casa Mãe / Subsidiária– Insensibilidade às Necessidades Diversificadas dos
Mercados
INOVAÇÃO LOCAL
Vantagens– Adaptação às Condições Locais– Aproveitamento e Estímulo das Competências
das Filiais
Riscos– Duplicação de Esforços
(Multiplicidade de “Reinvenções da Roda”)
LOCALLY LEVERAGED
Vantagens– Estímulo da Criatividade das Filiais em
Proveito de Toda a Empresa
Riscos– Dificuldade de Transferência devida às
Especificidades Nacionais– Reacções Negativas devidas ao Síndroma NIH
GLOBALLY LINKED
Vantagens– Estimular e Aproveitar de forma Integrada as Capacidades
das Filiais– Obter Economias de Gama à escala Mundial– Resposta Comum a Estímulos (eventualmente) Localizados– Potenciar Aprendizagem à escala Mundial
Riscos– Elevados Custos de Coordenação– Ambiguidade, Falta de Integração e Excessiva Difusão da
Autoridade
CAPÍTULO 6.3.
VIABILIZANDO PROCESSOS DE INOVAÇÃO TRANSNACIONAL
GESTÃO DAS INOVAÇÕES CENTRAIS
Estabelecimento de ligações múltiplas com as Filiais, para estimular e obter as suas contribuições
Criação de mecanismos internos de mercado , para seleccionar projectos e garantir ‘sensibilidade’ às condições da procura
Estabelecimento de sistemas adequados de partilha de conhecimentos: a circulação das pessoas
GESTÃO DAS INOVAÇÕES LOCAIS
Conferir margem de manobra aos gestores locais para testarem e aplicarem novas soluções
Estabelecer mecanismos de ligação com os processos centrais de decisão
Integrar capacidades técnicas e de marketing na Filial Coordenação Inter-funcional Evitar os problemas dos ‘Buracos Negros’
GESTÃO DAS INOVAÇÕES TRANS-NACIONAIS
Inter-dependência de recursos e de responsabilidades
Mecanismos de integração inter-unidades ( Recurso a sistemas de articulação operacional)
Competências nacionais, mas perspectiva mundial
TRANSNATIONAL PROCESSES
1. From Symmetry to Differentiation:Integrating and Exploiting capabilities, knowledge bases and linkages
2. From Dependence or Independence to Interdependence:Dispersed and specialized configuration of resources: the integrated networkInter-unit integration mechanisms to promote synergies
Movement of personnel as a tool for promoting inter-dependence
3. From Unidimentional Control to Differentiated Coordination:Reccourse to different mechanisms to coordinate flows of goods, resources and information
4. Linking National Competences to achieve Worldwide Learning and Competitiveness
INTERDEPENDENT CAPABILITIES AND DIFFERENTIATED ROLES
Dynamic perspective of local adaptation
Promoting interdependencies, transfer of knowledge and sharing of perspectives
Profiting from the involvement of national units in upgrading technology, developing products and sharing marketing strategy for the whole organization
Different subsidiary roles (against the U.N. Syndrome)
Different levels of integration in the network, due to different environmental conditions
Dynamic perspective of subsidiaries’ resources and contributions
EMPRESAS MULTINACIONAIS E SISTEMA DE INOVAÇÃO EM
PORTUGAL:O CASO DOS CENTROS DE
EXCELÊNCIA
DEFINITION OF CoEA CoE is “an area of expertise for which the subsidiary is recognized by the corporation, and which other parts of the corporation draw on”
(Birkinshaw, 1998: 291)
3 MAIN FEATURES Competences
Use of such competences by other units
Recognition
SUBSIDIARY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES AND GAINING CoE MANDATES
• EVOLUTIONARY, TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS(FORSGREN, JOHANSON AND SHARMA, 2000)
• DOES IT STILL HOLD FOR ACQUISITIONS?(FRATOCCHI AND LORENZONI, 2000)
SUBSIDIARY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES AND GAINING CoE MANDATES
• EVOLUTIONARY, TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS(FORSGREN, JOHANSON AND SHARMA, 2000)
• DOES IT STILL HOLD FOR ACQUISITIONS?(FRATOCCHI AND LORENZONI, 2000)
CoE Mandate
Earned
“Tapped” Given
AUTONOMY VERSUS
INTEGRATION • Autonomy is Needed for the Subsidiary to Create, Develop and
Strengthen its Capabilities
• Integration is Needed to have Influence over other Units of the MNE Network
“Too much autonomy makes the subsidiary mandate potentially vulnerable to divestment (as a spin-off company) or decline (because of a lack of corporate investment)” (Birkinshaw, 1996: 488)
• How to Balance Knowledge Development with Knowledge Sharing?
THE ROLE OF ACQUISITIONS
• Is an historical process of competence development and interrelationships with other MNE units needed?
(“Acquired Subsidiaries cannot become CoEs Overnight”, Fratocchi & Holm, 1998)
• Or can CoE rapidly stem from acquisitions (picking up potential “leaders)?
3 CASE STUDIES
ABB PORTUGAL
ALCATEL PORTUGAL
VULCANO (R. BoschGroup)
1
2
3
ABB PORTUGAL • 1990: SENETE
JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN ABB (40%), MAGUE AND IPE (SOREFAME))
SOREFAME HISTORY:– CREATED IN 1943– HYDROELECTRICAL POWER INVESTMENTS– POWER AGREEMENT: SPECIALIZATION
• 1992: HIDRO-SOREFAMESOLE PRODUCER OF HYDROMECHANIC EQUIPMENT WITHIN ABB
• 1994: ABB CONTROLS 70% OF SENETE
• 1995: HIDRO-SOREFAME CHANGED INTO ABB HIDRO
• 1997: FULL CONTROL OF SENETE BY ABBABB HIDRO BECOMES”LEAD CENTRE”
• 1999: POWER BUSINESS INCLUDED IN A JV WITH FRENCH PARTNER
• 2000: EQUITY STAKE SOLD TO FRENCH PARTNER (THE PORTUGUESE COMPANY STILL A CoE)
1
ALCATEL PORTUGAL• 1987: DEAL ALCATEL/ITT ON TELECOMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
PORTUGUESE SUBSIDIARY “INHERITED”
• 1988: PORTUGUESE SUBSIDIARY ACTIVITYCHANGED FROM SEMICONDUCTORS ANDCONSUMER GOODS TOTELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
• 1989: LOCAL SOFTWARE CENTRE ESTABLISHED
• 2000: 5 CoEs IN ALCATEL PORTUGAL– COILS AND TRANSFORMERS– CALL CENTRES (FOR SOUTHERN EUROPE)– NETWORK MANAGEMENT– COMMUNICATIONS FOR RAILWAY– APPLICATIONS– GSM NETWORKS PLANNING AND – OPTIMIZATION
2
“NETWORK MANAGEMENT COMPETENCE CENTRE”
Original Opportunity (1991):Services for Portuguese GSM Operator– Capability Development– Reference
MNE Network Involvement: Participation in Development of Products for France Telecom and Deutche Telekom
Capability Demonstration (1996): Development of a New Traffic Management System for the Whole Ggroup
CoE Recognition (1997): Network Management Competence Centre
VULCANO• Born as a Licensee of Robert Bosch Gmbh (1977)
• Own Brand Lauching – Vulcano (1983)
• 50% of Portuguese Market; 8TH Largest European Water Boller Manufacturer (1988)
• Licensing Agreements about to Eexprire:
A) Stand aloneOptions B) Renew
C) Strengthen Relationship
• Majority Equity share Acquired by R. Bosch
• Market Leader in Europe (1992)
• Group Competence Centre in Water Boller
• Internationalization Drive– Licensing: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Brazil– Direct Investments: China, Chile and Australia
3
ACQUISITIONS
CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
1 2 3
PRE-EXISTING LINKS
2 YEARS
PRE-EXISTING LINKS
10 YEARS 4 YEARS
THINGS TAKE TIME…
…BUT NOT TOO MUCH!
IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
1 2 3
Market opportunities
Market performance
Government Policy
Technology/Knowledge Linkages
CONCLUSIONS
1) ACQUISITION DRIVEN CoEs ARE DIFFERENT
2) HEADQUARTERS RECOGNITION (AND “PICKING UP”) IS OFTEN FASTER THAN PEER RECOGNITION
3) LOCAL ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS MATTER
4) TO LEVERAGE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AT GROUP LEVEL, STRATEGIC INTENT AND MANAGERIAL INITIATIVE ARE RELEVANT INGREDIENTS
APLICAÇÃO À INDÚSTRIA FARMACÊUTICA
TENDÊNCIAS DE GESTÃO E ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS
ACTIVIDADES INTERNACIONAIS DE I&D
ADVERTÊNCIA
# Todos os slides apresentados a seguir foram retirados da comunicação do Prof. Rajneesh Narula no ICEI/ Universidade Complutense de Madrid em 29 de Novembro de 2007
# Esta comunicação baseou-se no artigo de Paola Criscuolo e Rajneesh Narula, intitulado ‘ Using multi-hub structures for International R&D: Organisational inertia and the challenges of implementation’, publicado na Management International Review,Vol. 47 nº5, 2007
# O docente Vitor Corado Simões agradece a R. Narula a autorização para apresentar estes slides. São da responsabilidade do primeiro a selecção e ordenação bem como pequenas alterações introduzidas.
Drug Development
Target identification Discovery of target receptors
Lead Identification Identify molecules that inhibits the target
Lead Optimization Identify molecules with high good pharmacological activity
Pre-clinical development Laboratory & Animal Testing
Clinical Development Phase 1: Healthy Volunteers used to determine Safety & Dosage Phase 2: Patient Volunteers used to look for Efficacy and Side Effects. Proof of concept Phase 3: Patient Volunteers used to monitor Adverse Reaction to Long-Term use
Drug Discovery
Registration with the health authorities
Drug discovery process
Centralised hub to multi-hubs• From the centralized hub structure to the multi-
hub integrated network• global integration and responsiveness to local
conditions • But…
– Firms have to find a balance between dispersion and centralization (must be a critical mass of resources in each location)
– Dispersion requires extensive coordination to promote efficient knowledge flows within the MNE.
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
The centralised hub R&D structure
• Core activities at home
• Ethnocentric
• Knowledge flows were largely uni-directional
• internal knowledge flows to and from the centre to the periphery.
• Dyadic relationships
Central R&D
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
• Dyadic relationships
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
The integrated R&D network structure
• New technologies are not created at centre
• Each R&D unit assumes leading role, depending on strength of competences
• Centre of Excellence• adopt a more systemic
coordination mechanism in order to promote intensive communication flows, both within networks internal to the firm, and between external and internal networks.
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
However, there is organizational inertia…
• firms show a ‘persistent organizational resistance to architectural change’
• structures evolve to achieve a certain amount of reliability and accountability, and to do so, institutionalisation of routines and standardisation of processes is required.
• Provides stability but also causes inertia, and it is greater where complexity is higher, because complex sets of formal and informal institutions need to be redesigned and developed.
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Barriers to knowledge flows• inter-unit technological distance
– Absorptive capacity–common set of prior knowledge
• levels of technological uncertainty and specialisation – R different from D, differences in AC
• organisational distance – inter-unit rivalry (also from M&A)
• geographical distance – Particularly when knowledge is tacit in nature – close physical
proximity improves such transfers
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Methodology• In depth interviews with R&D managers
and researchers with international assignments experience.
2002 R&D expenditures
in $
AstraZeneca 4 11,000 3,069 4 5Aventis 6 5,600 3,235 5 4GSK 2 15,000 4,108 2 5Novartis 8 3,000 2,799 6 2Roche 13 5,030 2,746 7 3Schering 19 1,200 869 19 5
Rank by
sales
No. of Employees
in R&D
Rank by
R&D
No. of Interviews conducted
Company Name
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Integrated network structure in drug discovery
Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Schering…
More of a natural evolution from centralised hub structure…
Research centre in Oncology Penzberg, Germany
Research centre in Metabolic Disorders, Oncology, Vascular
Diseases Nutley, US
Research centre in Central Nervous
System, Inflammatory Diseases/Bone,
Genitourinary Diseases, Viral Diseases Palo Alto, US
Research centre in Metabolic
Disorders, Central Nervous System, Vascular Diseases
Basel, Switzerland
Pre-clinical and clinical
development Nutley,US
Pre-clinical and clinical
development Basel,
Switzerland
‘We prefer to have a project in one site within the domain of the project from synthesis, to analytics and screening. All these functions are more easily and efficiently done in one site’.
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Old centralized hub structure
• ‘Things were worked almost exclusively in each site. Each location was self-contained, they had all the resources to carry out all the function that a project required. There were no cross-national teams.’
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Integrated network structure, GSK, Aventis using CoE
“In development, economies of scale is one the biggest benefits. But in research, size does not seem to help. You want small group agile not tied up with bureaucracy, thinking innovatively, making use of the cultural differences. In research smaller is better” Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Drug Discovery Drug Development
CoE in therapeutic area A
CoE in therapeutic area C
CoE in therapeutic area D
CoE in therapeutic area B
R
R
R
R
D
D
D
Organizational inertia• Units are more flexible, small and autonomous. • However, they compete for resources, and there is considerable inter-unit
rivalry, which leads to inefficiency in terms of inter-unit communications and cross-fertilization
• Although there is an effort to use resources globally, scientists build their innovative efforts using pre-existing routines which have been developed in the old organizational structure.
• Organizational distance• ‘Although we have an electronic archive with the list of expertises and
contacts, I rely on my personal contacts. You can store as much information as you want, but it only becomes knowledge if you know the other person especially in the way researchers carry out their daily routines’.
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
• ‘The CEDDs are more geographically located and among them there is a minimum level of communication, mostly based on personal relationships. Most of the people in Upper Marion do not know the people in North Carolina because they used to belong to different companies.’
• ‘Biotech’ mind set to promote strategic rivalry to boost productivity thas created barriers to knowledge diffusion (absence of arrows)
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Creating mechanisms to promote flows
• Creating platforms• Cross-disciplinary project proposal review boards• But still, geography is important:• ‘The one-location team is the preferable model because it
is the more efficient, but the reality of our organisation is that most of our teams have members based in at least two countries and some of them three. My personal view is that if you can have one location team you are going to be better off, if you can have all sitting in one corridor is going to work better. But this is [now] the exception to the rule’.
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Creating mechanisms to promote flows (2) socialization mechanisms
• Temporary assignments• Long-term assignments• Used to ‘hand over’ from research to development• ‘The way we approach the hand over from research to
development is that the people will work very closely with the discovery people up to one year before the compound is finally identified. We use secondments and short-term assignments (from three to six months) we have people who travel a lot in terms of maintaining relationships’
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Conclusions• undoubted benefits of multi-hub structures, but also new
costs • Greater investment in human, managerial and financial resources to
promote knowledge integration within a geographically and technologically dispersed R&D structure.
• Efficiencies of cross-border integration less obvious for more complex activities compared with manufacturing, etc.
• Organizational distance and intra-firm competition limits flow of knowledge and cross-fertilisation of ideas, although it may save money
• HQ function needed to be ‘honest broker’ Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)