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 Activity
Local “Emdeddedness” enables knowledge acquisiton
through interaction
and
Contribution 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 foreigncontrolled 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 network
Inter-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 CoE
A 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)
Earned
CoE Mandate
“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
1
ABB PORTUGAL
2
ALCATEL PORTUGAL
3
VULCANO (R. Bosch
Group)
1
•
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-SOREFAME
SOLE 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 ABB
ABB 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)
ALCATEL PORTUGAL
2
•
1987: DEAL ALCATEL/ITT ON TELECOMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
PORTUGUESE SUBSIDIARY “INHERITED”
•
1988: PORTUGUESE SUBSIDIARY ACTIVITY
CHANGED FROM SEMICONDUCTORS AND
CONSUMER GOODS TO
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 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
“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
3
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:
Options
A) Stand alone
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
ACQUISITIONS
1
2
3
PRE-EXISTING
LINKS
PRE-EXISTING
LINKS
2 YEARS
10 YEARS
4 YEARS
CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
THINGS TAKE TIME…
…BUT NOT TOO MUCH!
IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL
ENVIRONMENT
1
2
3
Market
opportunities



Market
performance



Government
Policy


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 discovery process
Target identification
Discovery of target receptors
Drug
Discovery
Lead Identification
Identify molecules that inhibits the target
Lead Optimization
Identify molecules with high good pharmacological activity
Pre-clinical development
Laboratory & Animal Testing
Drug
Development
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
Registration with the health authorities
Centralised hub to multi-hubs
• From the centralized hub structure to the multihub 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.
Company
Name
AstraZeneca
Aventis
GSK
Novartis
Roche
Schering
No. of
2002 R&D
No. of
Rank
Rank
Employees expenditures by
Interviews
by
in R&D
in $
sales
R&D conducted
4
6
2
8
13
19
11,000
5,600
15,000
3,000
5,030
1,200
3,069
3,235
4,108
2,799
2,746
869
4
5
2
6
7
19
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
5
4
5
2
3
5
Integrated network structure in drug discovery
Research centre in
Central Nervous
System, Inflammatory
Diseases/Bone,
Genitourinary Diseases,
Viral Diseases
Palo Alto, US
Research centre in
Oncology
Penzberg,
Germany
Pre-clinical and
clinical
development
Basel,
Switzerland
Pre-clinical and
clinical
development
Nutley,US
Research centre in
Metabolic Disorders,
Oncology, Vascular
Diseases
Nutley, US
Research centre in
Metabolic
Disorders, Central
Nervous System,
Vascular Diseases
Basel, Switzerland
Novartis, Roche,
AstraZeneca,
Schering…
More of a natural
evolution from
centralised hub
structure…
‘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 selfcontained, they had all
the resources to carry
out all the function
that a project required.
There were no crossnational teams.’
Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)
Integrated network structure, GSK, Aventis using CoE
CoE in therapeutic area A
D
R
CoE in therapeutic area B
D
R
R
CoE in therapeutic area C
D
R
Drug Discovery
CoE in therapeutic area D
Drug Development
“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)
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 interunit 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)