Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners
(Sprache: Englisch)
For small firms, knowledge leakage, loss and theft are counted among the greatest risks in inter-firm collaborations. SMEs are more vulnerable, because they suffer from a number of structural disadvantages when collaborating with larger companies, and yet,...
Voraussichtlich lieferbar in 3 Tag(en)
versandkostenfrei
Buch (Kartoniert)
Fr. 70.00
inkl. MwSt.
- Kreditkarte, Paypal, Rechnungskauf
- 30 Tage Widerrufsrecht
Produktdetails
Produktinformationen zu „Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners “
Klappentext zu „Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners “
For small firms, knowledge leakage, loss and theft are counted among the greatest risks in inter-firm collaborations. SMEs are more vulnerable, because they suffer from a number of structural disadvantages when collaborating with larger companies, and yet, they need to collaborate with external partners to overcome their lack of resources.Therefore, this study investigates how SMEs can most effectively protect critical knowledge in collaborations with external partners, for that they can prevent knowledge loss, leakage and theft, while maximizing the performance of the collaboration.This book derives valuable insights for practice and theory through a comprehensive review of existing literature and a collection and analysis of experiences from Germany s most innovative and successful SMEs.
Lese-Probe zu „Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners “
Text Sample:Chapter 2.1.1., Long term (strategic) means of protection:
Long term (strategic) means of protection are such, which are put in place even before the company considers going into a specific collaboration. These mechanisms are generally applied throughout the company and all collaboration projects. For example, a company may adopt a generic first-mover strategy (lead time), where it seeks to protect innovations by being first to market (Laursen andamp; Salter 2005a). Specific collaborative projects will usually not influence such a long term strategic orientation.
Secrecy:
Companies generally try to control what knowledge is revealed to partners in collaborative arrangements (Paasi et al. 2010). Extensive efforts are made to control the communication flow between employees and the external environment (Laursen andamp; Salter 2005a) where companies are preventing employees from disclosing critical knowledge to co-operation partners (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006). When applying secrecy, knowledge is simply not disclosed, and therefore, the mechanism is regarded the most effective protection against Randamp;D spillovers (Cohen et al. 2000).
However, secrecy has two main drawbacks in joint collaborative projects. First of all, it is difficult to make sure that employees adhere to trade secret laws, because these laws are generally difficult to prosecute: legal means of prosecution are narrow in scope and companies need to implement safeguards to monitor employees (Liebeskind 1997). And second, an overemphasis on secrecy may limit the possibilities for collaboration and knowledge trading (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006), which is a fundamental problem that also applies to other protection mechanisms (please see chapter 2.2.1 Dilemma of openness and protection ).
For small firms in particular, secrecy is expected to be a very important and popular mechanism, because in comparison to other means it is more readily at their disposal (c.f. Olander 2009). However,
... mehr
SMEs seem to face a difficulty in maintaining trade secrets in close cooperative relationships (Leiponen andamp; Byma 2009).
Lead time:
Lead time is about being first to enter a market with a new product. When focusing on lead time, companies protect innovations by being faster than competition: by the time a potential competitor copies or imitates an innovation, the next service or product generation is already being developed by the focal firm (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006).
Hence, lead time protects knowledge differently than other means such as secrecy. It does not restrict the access to knowledge, but it generates a competitive situation in which knowledge that may be leaked in collaborations becomes useless to competitors because the focal firm is faster at commercializing this knowledge. It follows that, to render such a strategy effective, firms must be able to seek opportunities to enter the market more quickly than their rivals (Laursen andamp; Salter 2005b).
Although lead time is one of the most popular protection mechanism (Harabi 1995), it has some significant drawbacks. In some industries, it is necessary to own complementary assets and to have sufficient market power for that companies can earn returns on innovation through lead time otherwise, these returns would be captured by imitators or followers who possess the complementary assets (David J. Teece 1986). Furthermore, the strategy requires an enormous innovation investment, which has to be amortized over a short time period (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006).
Lead-time is generally perceived as a very effective means of protection for smaller companies, because small firms simply move faster and they are able to adapt opportunities that emerge within their networks very quickly (H. Chesbrough 2010). However, in industries where complementary assets or large innovation investments are required to sustain lead time (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006), it may be difficult for small enterprises to afford this
Lead time:
Lead time is about being first to enter a market with a new product. When focusing on lead time, companies protect innovations by being faster than competition: by the time a potential competitor copies or imitates an innovation, the next service or product generation is already being developed by the focal firm (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006).
Hence, lead time protects knowledge differently than other means such as secrecy. It does not restrict the access to knowledge, but it generates a competitive situation in which knowledge that may be leaked in collaborations becomes useless to competitors because the focal firm is faster at commercializing this knowledge. It follows that, to render such a strategy effective, firms must be able to seek opportunities to enter the market more quickly than their rivals (Laursen andamp; Salter 2005b).
Although lead time is one of the most popular protection mechanism (Harabi 1995), it has some significant drawbacks. In some industries, it is necessary to own complementary assets and to have sufficient market power for that companies can earn returns on innovation through lead time otherwise, these returns would be captured by imitators or followers who possess the complementary assets (David J. Teece 1986). Furthermore, the strategy requires an enormous innovation investment, which has to be amortized over a short time period (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006).
Lead-time is generally perceived as a very effective means of protection for smaller companies, because small firms simply move faster and they are able to adapt opportunities that emerge within their networks very quickly (H. Chesbrough 2010). However, in industries where complementary assets or large innovation investments are required to sustain lead time (Hipp andamp; Herstatt 2006), it may be difficult for small enterprises to afford this
... weniger
Autoren-Porträt von Karl Tschetschonig
Karl Tschetschonig, MSc, was born in Vienna in 1985. He completed his study programs in Business Informatics and International Management in 2011. At university, he focused his research on challenges for SMEs in joint innovation activities with external partners. Later, he joined a high-tech SME s strategy department, where he helps to overcome such challenges in practice.
Bibliographische Angaben
- Autor: Karl Tschetschonig
- 2014, Erstauflage, 108 Seiten, 8 Abbildungen, Masse: 15,5 x 22 cm, Kartoniert (TB), Englisch
- Verlag: Anchor Academic Publishing
- ISBN-10: 3954892065
- ISBN-13: 9783954892068
Sprache:
Englisch
Kommentar zu "Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners"
0 Gebrauchte Artikel zu „Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners“
| Zustand | Preis | Porto | Zahlung | Verkäufer | Rating |
|---|
Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar zu "Collaboration without risk: How the most innovative SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with partners".
Kommentar verfassen