a discrete choice experiment to explain knowledge acquisition strategies of smes frank van...
DESCRIPTION
Introduction Internal or external R&D? Aim: “to compare the influence of attributes of an innovation project on the choice for a knowledge acquisition strategy for different latent classes of firms”TRANSCRIPT
A discrete choice experiment to explain knowledge acquisition
strategies of SMEs
Frank van Rijnsoever Sander Kempkes Introduction Internal or
external R&D?
Aim: to compare the influence of attributes of an innovation
project on the choice for a knowledge acquisition strategy for
different latent classes of firms How does this work? Knowledge
acquisition strategies
Internal R&D Buy Collaborate Attributes Characteristic
Explanation Level Speed to market
Are you ahead of your competitors? First mover Second mover Risk
The likeliness the project will fail, does not yield the expected
results in the end. Low risk more than 50% chance succes High risk
less than 50% chance succes Development time The timescale of the
project. Short time: two times as fast Long time: normal time
Knowledge source Where do you get the knowledge to develop your
idea to a proof of concept from? None Supplier Competing firm
Non-competing firm Buyer University or public research institute
Private research institute Your intellectual property (IP) How is
your IP ownership arranged? Free IP Shared IP License IP Full
ownership Attributes Characteristic Explanation Level Access to a
network Access to new contacts you gain by choosing a specific
strategy to other partners. No Scientific Business Scientific &
Business Access to Office/Specialized equipment Free access to an
office and/or specialized equipment (e.g. laboratory, field test
facilities) Office Specialized equipment Office & Specialized
equipment Access to Training/Coach Free access to a coach and/or
training such as master classes and workshops. Coaching includes
advisory boards, mentors and other coaches. Coach Training Coach
& Training Funding model The way the project is financed.
Subsidy from the government Loan from a bank Crowd funding Investor
Family & Friends Own investment Example choice task Discrete
choice experiment
Respondents receive 9 choice tasks Experimental design Data
collection 427 entrepreneurs that founded or owned inmanufacturing
SMEs in the UK (284) or Germany(143) Online panel, 20 minute
questionnaire Attribute Wald 2 Sig. Level class 1 class 2 class 3
class 4 Knowledge acquisition strategy 53,66 *** Internal R&D
-8,08 ** 16,93 -1,61 0,75 Buy 3,95 -17,61 -8,16 -0,15 Collaborate
4,12 0,68 9,77 -0,60 Speed to market 76,85 First mover -0,33 0,03
2,23 0,23 Second mover 0,33 -0,03 -2,23 -0,23 Risk 133,85 Small
0,82 0,13 2,24 -0,05 Large -0,82 -0,13 -2,24 0,05 Development time
32,38 Short 0,00 -0,12 0,85 0,51 Long 0,12 -0,85 -0,51 Knowledge
source 96,24 Buyer 0,16 -0,26 0,28 0,15 Competing firm -0,80 0,08
-0,93 0,04 Private research institute 0,22 0,62 * -0,46
Non-competing firm 0,77 0,44 1,30 -0,27 Supplier 0,17 0,11 -0,43
University or public research institute -0,08 -0,59 -0,84 IP 86,06
No IP -0,16 -0,20 0,35 0,18 Full ownership 0,01 0,96 1,53 License
IP -0,38 -1,54 0,25 Shared IP -0,35 -0,10 Network 48,37 None -0,14
-0,36 Business 0,38 0,19 -1,82 0,39 Scientific 0,10 -0,31
Scientific & business -0,01 -0,19 1,18 Office & specialized
equipment 49,10 -0,17 -0,50 Office 0,34 -0,40 0,07 Specialized
equipment 0,02 -0,30 0,93 -0,24 -0,04 0,66 Training & coach
49,91 -0,25 -0,97 Training -0,28 1,43 Coach 0,32 0,47 -0,22 -0,21
-0,09 Funding model 207,07 Own investment 0,71 3,02 Family &
friends 0,09 0,90 -0,06 Investor -0,47 0,43 Loan (bank) 0,37 -1,16
-2,06 -0,42 Crowd funding -0,77 -2,51 0,72 Subsidy (government)
2,59 Results: latent class analysis
KAS Collaborate, Buy Internal R&D Collaboration Change in KAS?
From collaborate to buy No Yes! Market speed Second mover First
mover Firm characteristic Wald 2 Sig. Category class 1 class 2
class 3 class 4 External R&D Internal R&D Collaborate
Flexible Intercept 12,12 ** 1,48 -0,55 -1,28 * 0,35 R&D 16,61
*** Yes -0,80 0,40 0,07 0,33 a Patent stock 20,07 0,21 -0,23 0,51
-0,49 1-2 0,16 0,32 -0,42 -0,06 3-10 0,52 -0,53 -0,04 0,04 >10
-0,90 0,44 -0,05 Product innovations 20,31 -0,11 0,12 0,10 1 -0,31
0,02 2 -0,35 0,36 -0,27 0,27 3 0,37 -0,60 0,50 >3 0,15 0,42 Past
use of KAS: suppliers 16,41 Buy -0,17 0,14 0,08 0,41 -0,01 0,09 Not
used -0,25 -0,13 Past use of KAS: competing firm 14,50 0,68 0,22
-0,92 0,01 -0,41 0,48 -0,46 0,18 -0,16 Past use of KAS:
non-competing firm 14,21 0,34 0,43 -0,26 -0,48 0,23 -0,08 0,00 Past
use of KAS: customers 11,27 0,05 -0,61 0,55 -0,09 0,03 -0,14 0,17
-0,07 Past use of KAS: Universities & Public knowledge
institutes 8,71 -0,47 0,56 Past use of KAS: Private knowledge
institutes 6,88 -0,28 0,31 0,20 -0,20 -0,03 Size 24,13 Micro -0,12
Small 0,47 -0,43 Medium 0,62 -0,91 Medium-large -0,82 0,99 McFadden
R2 Results: latent class analysis
KAS Collaborate, Buy Internal R&D Collaboration Change in KAS?
From collaborate to buy No Yes! Market speed Second mover First
mover First Mover R&D Yes Patents Some Innovative Not that much
A bit Interesting for collaboration? Mwa Yes, but unlikely Yes, and
doing so Yes, and you can get them to do so! Conclusions Label,
risk and funding are important
Knowledge institutes are unpopular partners Heterogeneity matters!
Four latent classes Difference in preferences and likelihood to
change Preferences are grounded in past behavior (routines?) 22%
already collaborates 26% percent can be seduced into collaboration
Practical implications
Resource endowments like subsidies, mentorship,coaches,
laboratories, office, etc. have a limitedeffect. But can still be
useful! Since firm history is matters, it is important tocreate
firms that are externally oriented from thestart. Focus on
collaboration in entrepreneurship education andacceleration
programs Questions