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 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

Coordenação Inter-funcional Evitar os problemas dos ‘Buracos Negros’ na Filial

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)

“Tapped” Earned CoE Mandate 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)

2

ALCATEL PORTUGAL

•

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 PRE-EXISTING LINKS 2 2 YEARS 10 YEARS 4 YEARS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE 3 PRE-EXISTING LINKS

THINGS TAKE TIME… …BUT NOT TOO MUCH!

IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

1 2 3 Market opportunities

  

Market performance Government Policy

    

Technology/

CONCLUSIONS

1) 2) ACQUISITION DRIVEN CoEs ARE DIFFERENT 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 Lead Identification

Identify molecules that inhibits the target

Lead Optimization

Identify molecules with high good pharmacological activity

Pre-clinical development

Laboratory & Animal Testing

Development Drug Discovery 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 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.

Company Name AstraZeneca Aventis GSK Novartis Roche Schering Rank by sales No. of Employees in R&D 4 6 2 8 13 19 11,000 5,600 15,000 3,000 5,030 1,200 2002 R&D expenditures in $ Rank by R&D 3,069 3,235 4,108 2,799 2,746 869 4 5 2 6 7 19 No. of Interviews conducted 5 4 5 2 3 5

Fonte: Rajneesh Narula (2007)

Integrated network structure in drug discovery

Research centre

in Oncology

Penzberg, Germany

Pre-clinical and clinical development

Basel, Switzerland 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

Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Schering…

Research centre

in Metabolic Disorders, Oncology, Vascular Diseases

Nutley, US

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 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

CoE in therapeutic area A D R CoE in therapeutic area B D R R CoE in therapeutic area C D R CoE in therapeutic area D Drug Discovery 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 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 the rule’.

exception to 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)