Abstracts
Résumé
Ce travail analyse la place respective des coopérations en R&D subventionnées versus non subventionnées dans les stratégies d’accords technologiques des entreprises. Nous avançons que les ressources additionnelles apportées par les subventions gouvernementales favorisent la création d’un portefeuille de coopération ambidextre, les accords subventionnés étant plus exploratoires que les seconds, lesquels sont plutôt à visée d’exploitation. Puis nous élaborons une série de propositions théoriques permettant de différencier les deux types d’accords suivant deux logiques organisationnelles distinctes, en termes d’incitation, de coordination et d’apprentissage. L’ensemble de nos propositions est confronté de manière probante au cas de la stratégie partenariale d’EDF R&D.
Mots-clés :
- Coopération,
- R&D,
- Stratégie,
- Subvention,
- Ambidextrie
Abstract
This paper analyses the respective place of subsidized versus non-subsidized R&D cooperation within the strategy of technological agreements of companies. We argue that additional resources provided by government subsidies foster the creation of ambidextrous co-operation agreement portfolios. Subsidized co-operations tend to be more exploratory than the latter, which are closer to exploitation activities. We formulate a series of theoretical propositions which differentiate the two types of agreements from one another according to two distinct organizational logics in terms of incentive, coordination and learning mechanisms. The set of propositions are then challenged by analysing them with the EDF R&D partnership strategy.
Keywords:
- Cooperation,
- R&D,
- Strategy,
- Subsidy,
- Ambidexterity
Resumen
El presente artículo analiza las cooperaciones de I+D con o sin subvención gubernamental dentro del cuadro de las estrategias de acuerdos tecnológicos de empresa. Sostenemos que los recursos adicionales aportados por las subvenciones de gobierno favorecen la creación de una cartera de cooperación ambidiestra : siendo los acuerdos de I+D subvencionados más de tipo exploratorio que los no-subvencionados, los cuales están más centrados en la explotación. En términos de incitación, de coordinación y aprendizaje, elaboramos una serie de propuestas teóricas que permiten diferenciar los dos tipos de acuerdos según dos lógicas de organización distintas. El conjunto de nuestras propuestas puede verse en la estrategia de colaboración de I+D de EDF.
Palabras clave:
- cooperación,
- I+D,
- estrategia,
- subvención,
- ambidiestro
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Amesse F.; Cohendet, P (2001). « Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy », Research Policy, vol. 30, n° 9, p. 1459-1478.
- Amir, R (2000). « Modelling imperfectly appropriable R&D via spillovers », International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 18, n° 7, p. 1013-1032.
- Beckman, C.M. (2006). « The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior » Academy of Management Journal vol.49, n°4, 741–758.
- Bogenrieder I.; Nooteboom, B (2004). « Learning groups : what types are there ? A theoretical analysis and an empirical study in a consultency firm », Organization Studies, vol. 25, n° 2, p. 287-313.
- Bureth, A.; Wolff, S.; Zanfei, A (1997). « The two faces of learning by cooperating : the evolution and stability of inter-firm agreements in the European electronics industry », Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, vol. 32, n° 4, p. 519-537.
- Chesbrough, H (2003). « Open Innovation : how companies actually do it », Harvard Business Review, vol. 81, n° 7, p. 12-14.
- Child, J. (1997). « Learning trough inter-organizational cooperation », in Proceedings of EMOT program Conference, Stresa, Italy, 11-14 September.
- Ciborra, C.U (1991). « Alliances as learning experiments : cooperation, competition and change in the high-tech industries », dans L. Mytelka (Ed.), Strategic partnerships and the world economy, London, Pinter, p. 51-77.
- Cohen, W.; Levinthal, D (1990). « Absorptive capacity : a new perspective on learning and innovation », Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, n° 1, p. 128-152.
- Cohendet, P.; Llerena, P.; Marengo, L (1998). « Theory of the firm in an evolutionary perspective : a critical assessment », in Proceedings in the DRUID conference, Copenhagen, 9-11, June 1998.
- Cyert, R.M.; March, J.G (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 332 p.
- De Bondt, R (1997). « Spillovers and innovative activities », International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 15, n° 1, p. 1-28.
- Doz, Y.L (1996). « The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances : initial conditions or learning processes ? », Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, n° 1, p. 55-83.
- Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H (1998). « The relational view : cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage », Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, n° 4, p. 660-679.
- Duncan, R.B. (1976). « The ambidextrous organization : Designing dual structures for innovation ». In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization, vol. 1 : 167–188. New York : North-Holland.
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E (2007). « Theory building from cases : opportunities and challenges », Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, n° 1, p. 25-32.
- Garel, G.; Rosier, R (2008). « Régimes d’innovation et exploration », Revue Française de Gestion, vol 187, 127-144
- Gibson, C.B.; Birkinshaw, J. (2004). « The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity ». Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 47 209–226.
- Gulati, R.; Puranam, P. (2009). « Renewal through reorganization : The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization ». Organization Science vol.20, n°2, 422–440.
- Hamel, G (1991). « Competition for competences and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances », Strategic Management Journal, Special Summer Issue, vol. 12, n° 1, p. 83-103.
- Hamel, G.; Prahalad, C.K.; (1990). « The core competence of the corporation », Harvard Business Review, vol. 68, May/June, p. 79-91.
- Hoang, H.; Rothaermel, F.T. (2010). « Leveraging internal and external experience : exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance », Strategic Management Journal, 31, 734-758
- Hoffman, W.H (2007). « Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances », Strategic management Journal, vol. 28, n° 8, p. 827-856.*
- Ingham M. ; Mothe, C. (2000). « Les déterminants de l’apprentissage organisationnel », Revue Française de Gestion, janvier-février, 71-79.
- Kale, P.; Singh, H.; Perlmutter, H (2000). « Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances : Building relational capital », Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, n° 3, p. 217-237.
- Kale, P.; Singh, H (2009). « Managing Strategic Alliances : What Do We Know Now, and Where Do We Go From Here ? », Academy Of Management Perspectives, vol. 23 n°3, p. 45-64
- Koza, M.P.; Lewin, A.Y (1998). « The co-evolution of strategic alliances », Organization Science, vol. 9, n°3, 255-264
- Koza, M.P.; Lewin, A.Y (1999). « The co-evolution of network alliances : a longitudinal analysis of an international professional service network », Organization Science, vol. 10, n° 5, p. 638-653.
- Lavie, D.; Rosenkopf, L (2006). « Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation », Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, n° 4, p. 797-818.
- Lee, T.W (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research, Sage : Thousand Oaks, CA, 192 p.
- Lin, Z.; Yang, H.; Demirkan, I. (2007). « The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations : Empirical investigation and computational theorizing ». Management Science vol.53, n°10, 1645–1658.
- Lin, Z.; Yang, H.; Arya, B. (2009). « Alliance partners and firm performance : resource complementarity and status association ». Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 30, 961-940
- Lubatkin, M.H.; Simsek, Z.; Ling Y.; Veiga, J.F. (2006). « Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms : The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration ». Journal of Management 32(5) 646–672.
- Lundvall, B.A. (1988). « Innovation as an interactive process : from user-producer interaction in the national systems of innovation », dans G. Dosi et al. (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinters, p. 349-369.
- Luo, Y. (2008). « Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances » Strategic Management Journal, 29 : 27–46
- March, J.G (1991). « Exploration vs. exploitation in organizational learning », Organization Science, vol. 2, n° 1, p. 71-87.
- Matt, M.; Robin, S.; Wolff, S. (2011). « The influence of public programs on inter-firm R&D collaboration strategies : project-level evidence from EU FP5 and FP6 ». The Journal of Technology Transfer : 1-32. Online FirstTM. doi : 10.1007/s10961-011-9232-9.
- Nooteboom, B.; Van Haverbeke, W.; Duysters, G.; Gilsing, V.; Van den Oord, Ad (2007). « Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity », Research Policy, vol. 36, n° 7, p. 1016-1034.
- O’Reilly, C. A.; Tushman M. L. (2004). « The ambidextrous organization ». Harvard Business Review, vol. 82 74–81.
- Park, S. H., Chen, R., Gallagher, S. (2002). « Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups ». Academy of Management Journal, vol.45 : 527–545.
- Raisch, S.; Birkinshaw, J.; Probst, G.; Tushmann, M.L (2009). « Organizational Ambidexterity : Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance », Organization Science vol. 20, n° 4, 685–695
- Raisch, S.; Birkinshaw. J. (2008). « Organizational ambidexterity : Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators ». Journal of Management 34(3) 375–409.
- Richardson, G.B (1972). « The organization of industry », Economic Journal, vol. 82, n° 327, p. 883-896.
- Ring, P.S.; Van de Ven, A.H (1994). « Developmental processes in cooperative interorganizational relationships », Academy of Management Review, vol. 19, n° 1, p. 90-118.
- Rothaermel, F.T (2001). « Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation », Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, p. 687-699.
- Rothaermel, F.T.; Deeds, D.L (2004). « Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology : a system of new product development », Strategic Management Journal, vol. 25, n° 3, p. 201-221.
- Rothaermel, F.T.; Boeker, W. (2008). « Old technology meets new technology : complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation », Strategic Management Journal, 29, 47-77.
- Siggelkow, N (2007). « Persuasion with case studies », Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, n° 1, p. 20-24.
- Teece, D.J (1992). « Competition, cooperation and innovation : organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress », Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, vol. 18, n° 1, p. 1-25.
- Tushman M.L.; O’Reilly III C.A (1996) « Ambidextrous Organizations : Managing Evolutionary And Revolutionary Change », California Management Review, 38, 4, 8-30.
- Wassmer, U. (2010). « Alliance Portfolios : a review and research agenda », Journal of Management, 36, 141-171
- Williamson, O.E (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism, New York : Free Press, 450 p.
- Williamson, O.E (1979). « Transaction costs economics : the governance of contractual relations », Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 22, n° 2, p. 233-261.
- Yamakawa, Y.; Yang, H.; Lin, Z. (2011). « Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio : performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit », Research Policy, 40, 287-296
- Yin, R.K (1994). Case study research : design and methods, (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 170 p.