Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization ...

Research Policy 31 (2002) 569–588

Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization:four different patterns of managing research and development

Maximilian von Zedtwitza,∗, Oliver Gassmannba International Institute for Management Development (IMD), P.O. Box 915, CH-1001 Lausanne, Switzerland

b R&D Technology Management, Schindler Corporation, CH-6031 Ebikon, Switzerland

Received 13 January 2000; received in revised form 2 October 2000; accepted 24 April 2001

Abstract

Research and development are subject to different location drivers. The analysis of 1021 R&D units, each distinguished byits main orientation towards either research or development work, reveals that research is concentrated in only five regionsworldwide, while development is more globally dispersed.

Our research is based on 290 research interviews and database research in 81 technology-intensive multinational companies.We identify two principal location rationales—access to markets and access to science—as the principal determinants for fourtrends that lead to four archetypes of R&D internationalization: ‘national treasure’, ‘market-driven’, ‘technology-driven’,and ‘global’. Their organizational evolution is characterized by four trends. The model is illustrated with short cases ofinternational R&D organization at Kubota, Schindler, Xerox, and Glaxo-Wellcome.

Differences in R&D internationalization drivers lead to a separation of individual R&D units by geography and organization.Current belief is to integrate R&D processes; separation seems to contradict this trend. We argue that this need not be thecase, for there are good reasons to maintain some independence between research and development. © 2002 Elsevier ScienceB.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Globalization; Research and development; Archetypes; Trends; Locations

1. Introduction

1.1. Difficult internationalization of R&D

The internationalization of industrial R&D inrecent years has been interpreted as the attempt oftechnology-intensive companies to exploit location-specific innovation advantages in order to compete inan increasingly globalized environment. Our empiricalinvestigation confirms that in most multinational com-panies, “globalization of R&D is typically accepted

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+41-21-618-07-99;fax: +41-21-618-07-07.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. von Zedtwitz),oliver [email protected] (O. Gassmann).

more with resignation than with pleasure” (De Meyerand Mizushima, 1989, p. 139). Some practitionershave expressed reservations to substantially invest ininternational R&D because of the high execution costsand low project efficiency. At the same time, how-ever, they recognize that the potential of internationalR&D is underestimated and insufficiently exploited.Their main concern is that useful means for effectiveimplementation of international R&D processes arenot in place. Thus, some companies aim “to create aculture in which employees realize that cooperationacross regional and departmental boundaries”, and“to combine internal expertise and know-how withthat of top-performing research facilities worldwide”(Daimler-Benz, 1997, pp. 14–15).

0048-7333/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S0048-7333(01)00125-1

570 M. von Zedtwitz, O. Gassmann / Research Policy 31 (2002) 569–588

The establishment of international R&D networksand the management of transnational R&D projectsare non-trivial and very risky endeavors. The princi-pal challenges are imposed by the physical distanceamong R&D units, as well as between R&D unitsand corporate headquarters. Distance impacts com-munication in terms of frequency and quality, raisestransaction costs, and introduces principal-agent re-lated difficulties. Thus, problems of coordination andcontrol prevent the exploitation of potential synergyeffects. Local specialization leads to the occurrenceof the not-invented-here syndrome and the compart-mentalization along separate R&D functions. Thedefinition of organizations along geographic bound-aries often neglects the different responsibilities ofR&D, hence creating sub-optimal resource and capitalavailability.

Managing transnational R&D projects is inherentlymore difficult than managing local projects. Dataand information exchange cannot be achieved at thesame quality and speed. Frequent travel puts highpersonal and emotional stress on the project manager.Despite modern communication technologies, the ex-change of tacit knowledge, the creation of trust, anda common working culture require direct face-to-face

Fig. 1. Increasing internationalization of R&D in Europe, Japan, and US. Sources: 1. Dunning (1994), 2. Gates (1995), 3. Roberts (1995),4. Patel (1995), 5. Buderi et al. (1991), 6. National Science Board (1991), 7. Kumar (1995), 8. OECD (1996).

communication. Social and family ties make seniorR&D individuals geographically immobile and reluc-tant to accept even temporary overseas assignments.Leading R&D projects is thus mainly based on dis-tant coordination, jeopardizing the necessary trust andcommitment among remote teams.

1.2. Trends in R&D internationalization

Nevertheless, the potential benefits from interna-tional R&D are too significant to ignore. Researchin R&D management have resulted in a better under-standing of the determinants in international R&D,and many R&D organizations are being transformedto meet the new challenges. At the national level,estimates are in the range of 15–70% for individualEuropean countries (average: 30%), 1–8% for Japan,and 8–12% for the US (see Fig. 1). These numbersvary with the investigating researcher and the unit ofanalysis used (e.g. patents, expenditures, personnel).A few exceptional companies from these countriesexceed 90% of R&D internationalization.

There is a substantial amount of research in inter-national R&D with an economic and quantitativebackground (see, e.g. Ronstadt, 1977; Behrmann and

M. von Zedtwitz, O. Gassmann / Research Policy 31 (2002) 569–588 571

Fischer, 1980; Hirschey and Caves, 1981; Pavitt, 1984;Pearce, 1989; Cantwell, 1995; Dalton and Serapio,1995). For instance, based on the investigation of theshare of US patents by large foreign firms, Cantwelland Janne (2000) observe a significant increase of in-ternational R&D activity measured by patent origin,particularly for European and to a lesser degree forUS firms.

This work has led to a number of R&D classifi-cation schemes (see Medcof, 1997 for a concise re-view). More and more, managerial aspects enteredthe discussion (e.g. Rubenstein, 1989; De Meyer andMizushima, 1989; Granstrand et al., 1992; Boutellieret al., 2000). Location factors and overseas determi-nants have been studied as drivers for R&D decen-tralization (e.g. Howells, 1990; Serapio and Dalton,1993; Beckmann and Fischer, 1994; Brockhoff, 1997;Odagiri and Yasuda, 1996); this work is extended bycontributions from business and policy strategy, R&Dmanagement, and international management.

Often, the contracted term “R&D” beguiles usinto disregarding the inherent differences between re-search and development. The necessities of science,compared with the needs of engineering and devel-opment, entail different managerial problems (see,e.g. Leifer and Triscari, 1987). Most contributionsthat distinguish between research and developmentmanagement neglect the international dimension (e.g.Eldred and McGrath, 1997a,b; Iansiti, 1998). Knowl-edge transfer and diffusion have been identified asmajor management challenges in international R&Dcontexts. Kuemmerle (1997) and Chiesa (1996) sug-gested models of R&D organization that center aroundthe knowledge creating and transferring capabilitiesof R&D laboratories.

In an earlier contribution (Gassmann and vonZedtwitz, 1998, 1999a,b), we have outlined trendsand evolutionary patterns for international R&Dorganization based on internal distribution and al-location of R&D resources. Differences betweenresearch and development in terms of location ra-tionales and work culture effectuate different geo-graphical distribution and concentration in differentregional centers. In this paper, we propose a modelof R&D internationalization that focuses on externalsources of knowledge as well as the exploitation ofhome-based-generated but locally implemented formsof knowledge.

What are the factors that influence the differencesin internationalization between research and develop-ment, and what managerial difficulties emerge fromthis phenomenon? Based on our analysis of 81 com-panies representing 1021 R&D sites, we seek to makethe following contributions.

• We identify four archetypes of international re-search and development dispersion: national trea-sure, market-driven, technology-driven, and global.

• We highlight the importance of two principal in-ternationalization forces in R&D: access to localscience and technology, and access to local marketsand customers.

• We observe and present four trends in interna-tionalizing R&D, each aiming to capture specificadvantages for conducting research as well as de-velopment in particular locations.

• Although seamless integration calls for collocationand close collaboration, we argue that there aresignificant benefits achieved by geographical andfunctional separation.

2. Research methodology and data sample

2.1. Two phases of interview-based research

Given our research focus on the patterns of in-ternationalization of industrial R&D, we chose theR&D organization of individual companies to be ourunit of analysis. For each of these organizations, ourresearch followed three principal logical steps. First,we sought to determine the extent of international-ization for both research as well as development.1

1 Although we followed the company internal denotation asclosely as possible, we had to establish a terminology that wouldallow us to classify our findings. Hence, ‘R&D’ comprises cre-ative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increasethe stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture andsociety, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise newapplications (OECD, 1996, p. 7). Commonly accepted definitionsapply: ‘research’ is defined as the process of discovering new sci-entific knowledge which has the potential to act as a platform forthe subsequent development of commercially viable products andmanufacturing processes. There is no expectation that the outputsof research will have immediate commercial value. ‘Development’is the process of creating new products and processes that do havecommercial value, through the application of currently availableplatforms or scientific knowledge (Medcof, 1997, p. 303).


Secondly, we examined changes in the internationalR&D structure to deduce emerging patterns of R&Dinternationalization over time. Thirdly, we confirmedthese patterns in follow-up research, analyzing man-agerial challenges of conducting multi-site R&D andstrategic decisions made by senior R&D personnel.

Different types of data were needed in each step,and different data-collection methods were used toensure the quality and accuracy of subsequent dataanalysis. As a first step, R&D locations were compiledby means of company publications and third-partyR&D databases. Unclear R&D orientations of indi-vidual sites were resolved in follow-up interviews.This provided us with a comprehensive overview ofthe physical and geographical structure of a firm’sR&D organization.

In order to determine how R&D units were inte-grated within the wider R&D organization, we devel-oped a semi-structured interview guideline focusingon functional and hierarchical linkages, participationin corporate-wide R&D programs, establishment andramp-up of R&D sites, as well as the managementof selected transnational R&D projects. Our intervie-wees were R&D directors and senior R&D managers.In some companies, we were able to participate inworkshops and R&D project meetings. Combinedwith internal documentation on R&D organization,presentations by R&D personnel as well as memosfrom R&D managers, these semi-structured data

Table 1List of 81 industrial companies considered in this study, sorted by location and industry groups

Company based in Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food Electrical, information andsoftware technology

Machinery, petro, automotive

Europe Akzo-Nobel, AstraZeneca, BASF, Bayer,Boerhinger Ingelheim, Ciba Spec.,Glaxo-Wellcome, Hoechst, ICI, Nestle,Novartis, Novo Nordisk,Hoffmann-LaRoche, Schering, Unilever

Bosch, Cerberus,Electroclux, Esec, Leica,Nokia, Siemens, Philips, SAP

ABB, BMW, Continental,DaimerChrysler, ElfAquitaine, Hilti, Mahle,Mettler Toledo, RoyalDurch/Shell, Schindler,Sulzer

USA 3M, American Home Products,BP-Amnoco, Bristol-Myers-Squibb,Chevron, Dow, Eli Lilly, W.R. Grace

AT&T, Compaq, GeneralElectric, Hewlett-Packard,IBM, Intel, Lucent,Microsoft, Motorola,National Semiconductor,Texas Instruments, Unisys,United Technologies, Xerox

Exxon, Ford, GeneralMotors, Honeywell

Japan, East Asia Eisai, Kao, LG, Yamanouchi Canon, Daewoo, Hitachi,Kobe Electric, Samsung,NEC, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba

Fujitsu, Haier, Honda,Hyundai, Matsushita,Mitsubishi, Toyota

helped us (in a second step) to determine the reasonsand patterns of how companies internationalized theirR&D function. Finally, we reported our findings tothe interviewed companies and sought their feedbackto correct erroneous interpretation and classification.

We conducted a total of 290 interviews using thissemi-structured interview guideline. Total 136 inter-views in 24 companies were carried out in a firstphase between March 1994 and September 1996, 154interviews in 50 companies in a second phase be-tween October 1996 and December 1998. We targetedmultinational companies in science and technology-intensive industries (see Table 1), since these indus-tries rank among the highest in terms of average R&Dto sales ratio, ranging between 4.2% for motor vehi-cles and 12.6% for telecommunications. Furthermore,they are characterized by a high degree of internationaldivision of labor. Fig. 2 shows a comparison of R&Dand sales for those 46 companies in the investigationsample. Internationalization of sales was computedanalogous to the internationalization of R&D: theshare of international sales in relation to total sales.

In the entire sample, only one company, Eisai, wassignificantly more internationalized in R&D than insales. This exception requires an explanation. Likeother Japanese drug makers, Eisai relied heavily ondomestic sales. The 1990 export ratio for the sevenlargest Japanese pharmaceutical companies was 7.6%as compared with 70.1% for the seven largest Western


Fig. 2. R&D internationalization as compared to sales internationalization of 46 technology-intensive companies.

companies. Woodall and Yoshikawa (1997) arguedthat the low export rations of Japanese pharmaceuti-cal companies may be explained by their weakness inbasic research, ineffective R&D, and government in-tervention in drug pricing. Eisai’s motivation for largeinternational research investment can thus be seento circumvent unfavorable domestic conditions. Withtwo overseas research centers, Eisai’s internationalengagement remained relatively small.

Almost all companies rank higher in international-ization of sales than of R&D: R&D is more centralizedthan the distribution of revenues. Not surprisingly,merger companies exhibit strong internationalizationof sales as well as R&D (ABB, Royal Dutch/Shell,Mettler-Toledo). Moreover, companies with highsales internationalization are headquartered in smallcountries with small markets (Denmark, Finland, TheNetherlands, Sweden, Switzerland).

2.2. Concentration of researchand dispersion of development

We identified 1021 R&D locations in a total of 81technology-intensive companies (Table 1). The homebases of the investigated companies were Europe

(35 companies), USA (26), Japan (15), South Korea(4), and the People’s Republic of China (1). In 1998,13 of the 81 investigated companies ranked amongthe top 20 companies in the world, as measured bytheir market capitalization in Business Week (1998),31 were among the top 100. These companies alonespent several dozen billion US dollars annually oninternational R&D activities.

The location data of the 1021 R&D units (Fig. 3and Table 2) exhibit a strong concentration of R&Din the Triad regions of Europe, the US, Japan, as wellas major regional centers in South Korea, Singapore,and other emerging economies along the Pacific Rim.Research is more concentrated than development.Total 73.2% of all research sites are located in thefive regions of the northeastern USA (New Jersey,New York, Massachusetts), California, the UnitedKingdom, Western Continental Europe (in particularGermany), and the Far East (Japan, South Korea). Thetrend of research concentration is even more appar-ent if only foreign research locations are considered:87.4% operate in the Triad.

Although, the main regional centers for develop-ment largely coincide with the regional centers for re-search, development is more evenly distributed among


Fig. 3. Concentration of R&D in Europe, Japan, and US.

European countries and the northeastern US, and ex-tends into southeast Asia, Australia, Africa, and SouthAmerica. Only slightly more than half (53.4%) ofall development sites are located in the eight mostdevelopment-intensive countries. Development sitesfrom 19 countries must be considered in order to ac-count for a similar share in worldwide development(74.2%) as the top eight countries in research (73.2%).

Table 2R&D orientation and location of 1021 R&D sitesa

N = 1021 Research Development International Domestic Internationalresearch

Domesticresearch

Internationaldevelopment

Domesticdevelopment

US 107 197 153 151 54 99 53 98Europe 98 254 258 94 60 198 38 56Japan 45 93 48 90 17 31 28 624 Tigersa 30 86 34 82 1 33 29 534 New tigersb – 12 12 – – 12 – –OACc 4 8 12 – 4 8 – –RoWd 15 72 84 3 15 69 – 3

Total 299 722 601 420 151 450 148 272

a Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan.b Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam.c Other advanced countriesd Rest of the world.

Moreover, research and development sites of thesame company are not necessarily collocated. Forinstance, AstraZeneca operates research as well as de-velopment units in the US. A research unit in Waltham,Massachusetts focuses on infectious diseases. Sincethere is no complementary development in the US,their research findings are transferred to a developmentlaboratory in Sweden. Of IBM’s 10 international R&D


locations, only the Tokyo site maintains both researchand development in the same building. Similar sepa-ration of research and development can be observedat DaimlerChrysler, Hewlett-Packard, Canon, and oth-ers. Why do we observe this separation of researchand development, when everyone claims that the inte-gration of R&D processes would be so important?

3. Four archetypes of R&D internationalization

The decision about where to establish new R&Dunits is made by higher management, usually inconsultation with representatives from the R&Dand strategy departments. This decision considersR&D-specific factors such as the quality of input atthe new site (through tapping local talent, engagingin local scientific cooperation, etc.), the quality ofexpected output (cooperation with local customersand local development, market proximity, etc.), andthe general operating efficiency (critical mass, projecthand-over, cost issues, etc.) of this R&D unit. The de-cision is also affected by R&D-external factors, suchas tax optimization, reliability and stability of the localpolitical and social system, and image enhancement.

Mergers and acquisitions distort the picture of R&Dexpansion based on internal growth. Ronstadt (1978)noted that about a quarter of all R&D investments thathe had studied were incidental through M&A activity

Fig. 4. Organizational structures of internationalized R&D.

of the parent company, and none of these acquisi-tions had pursued with the intent to gain access tothe organization’s R&D resources. Ronstadt’s obser-vation has been confirmed, e.g. by Pausenberger andVolkmann (1981) and Håkanson and Nobel (1993).

During our interviews with R&D directors, weaimed at disentangling the different factors and driversthat had led a specific R&D configuration. This re-quired their input and insight as people who wereintimately familiar with the history of their R&D or-ganizations. The relative importance of science versusengineering in a given company also appeared to playa role. Furthermore, we analyzed principal R&D inter-nationalization strategies and their actual implemen-tations. Based on these considerations, we identifiedtwo principal drivers that were responsible for naturalR&D internationalization: the quest for external sci-ence and technology, and the quest for new marketsand new products. These gave rise to four archetypicalforms of international R&D organization (Fig. 4):

1. domestic research and domestic development: na-tional treasure R&D;

2. dispersed research and domestic development:technology-driven R&D;

3. domestic research and dispersed development:market-driven R&D;

4. dispersed research and dispersed development:global R&D.


Most of the 81 R&D organizations that we stud-ied fall clearly into one of these four categories:‘national treasure’ R&D accounts for 10 companies,‘technology-driven’ for 7, ‘market-driven’ for 42,and ‘global’ for 19. As noted above, special circum-stances in the process of R&D internationalizationgive rise to inconsistencies and hence a<100% fitwith the proposed categories. In total, three R&Dorganizations were hard to assign to one of the fourarchetypical forms. In these ambiguous or unclearcases, international R&D was either not determinedby either science or market access, or the drivers forinternationalization were too mixed to warrant a dis-cernible classification. Wherever we observed strongsubstantiation for either market or science access, wecategorized accordingly.

The following four case studies illustrate the effectsof these drivers on the management of R&D interna-tionalization.

3.1. National treasure R&D: domesticresearch and domestic development

The R&D organization with both research and de-velopment at the home base is called the ‘nationaltreasure’ model. R&D is kept at home, because coretechnologies are easier to control or critical minimum

Fig. 5. Kubota’s national treasure R&D organization.

mass is important (see, e.g. Patel and Pavitt, 1992).There is little R&D at the international level, althoughimportant technological advances may be monitoredfrom home via local representative offices and inter-national patent scanning. Companies with a nationaltreasure R&D organization are either in a strong dom-inant design position in its main technologies or theirprincipal market is domestic. Neither requires muchadaptation for foreign markets. R&D management isethno- or geocentric, with foreign experts usually lim-ited to advisory or consulting roles. The home-basedmanagement style is viable as long as technologicaldominance can be maintained.

The Japanese machinery company Kubota owneda strongly centralized R&D organization (see Fig. 5;data in these examples are 1999 figures, unless other-wise noted). Kubota established a technology develop-ment headquarters to ensure company-wide coherenceof all R&D carried out in four central R&D labora-tories and 49 R&D units in five divisions. All centralR&D laboratories and most of the R&D units were lo-cated in the Osaka-Kyoto area (central Japan). Kubotainvested about 4.5% of its sales in R&D, and 15%of this amount was reserved for technology develop-ment. About 430 researchers were employed in thecentral R&D laboratories, and some 1600 R&D engi-neers worked in plant- and factory-based R&D units.


Kubota had no international R&D locations, sincethe domestic market was still dominant (about 83% oftotal sales). However, strong linkages existed betweenglobal production sites and the home-based R&D or-ganization, since the production sites were a principalprovider of new market needs and customer feedback.A computerized information network connected theentire corporation, rationalizing corporate functionsand accelerating the innovation process by giving em-ployees worldwide access to Kubota researchers andtheir work. Kubota thus engaged in a variety of in-ternational research and development projects, whileretaining the efficiency advantage of centralization.

3.2. Technology-driven R&D: dispersed researchand domestic development

In ‘technology-driven’ companies, research is moreinternationalized than development. Access to lo-cal centers-of-scientific-excellence and the relativescarcity of scientific personnel at home drives a sub-stantial share of the technology identification andcreation process abroad. Development remains cen-tralized because of a number of factors, including scaleeffects in the development process (e.g. establishmentof technology platforms, access to specialized testingequipment), proximity to central control and decisionmaking, protection of commercial results, synergy

Fig. 6. Xerox’s technology-oriented R&D organization.

effects (e.g. improved communication during the in-novation process, technical cross-fertilization), or thehigh information and coordination costs associatedwith international R&D projects. These centraliza-tion factors are less important in research as long asthe scientific results are easy to communicate to theR&D center and the mission of each research lab issufficiently focused.

Xerox is a good example of a company with a strongfocus on technology (see Fig. 6). Over the past twodecades, the document processing industry has beensubstantially affected by electronic and informationtechnologies. As a result, Xerox Research—whichwas originally modeled along the lines of earliercentralized research organizations—was graduallydecentralized (see Myers and Smith, 1999). Therewere five research sites worldwide: Webster (NewYork), Palo Alto (California), Mississauga (Canada),and two locations in Europe: Grenoble (France),Cambridge (UK). Each site had a specific researchfocus and was strategically located to leverage areaindustry and academic competencies relevant to thatregion and research focus. Research and technologydevelopment at Xerox was centrally managed underthe corporate research and technology group with di-rect line-of-site to the CEO. Corporate research andtechnology had an average annual headcount of 1320;about 80 of which are in Europe.


Technology centers developed and delivered newtechnology to business groups. Although, manage-ment of the technology centers was centralized, re-sources were located as to align with the developmentgroups and manufacturing sites they delivered to.The three primary technology centers had offices inEl Segundo (California), Webster (New York), PaloAlto (California). Engineering was found mainly inthe same locations. Product development teams weregeographically collocated with the primary manufac-turing sites serving their respective product markets.The largest manufacturing site was in Webster, NewYork, responsible for approximately 65% of Xeroxmanufactured end products. The second largest man-ufacturing site in the US was El Segundo, California.Although, there were no manufacturing facilities inPalo Alto, California, this site was the third largest de-velopment center in the US. Development in Palo Altofocused primarily on software product development.

3.3. Market-driven R&D: domestic researchand dispersed development

Companies with highly dispersed developmentand little internationalized research have typicallyfollowed the call of the market; therefore they consti-tute the ‘market-driven’ model. Business development

Fig. 7. Schindler’s market-driven R&D organization.

is dominated by customer demands and not by sci-entific exploration. Research is of low significance inthe overall R&D effort and is kept at home to retaincritical mass. Technology monitoring is carried outfrom home or in association with local developmentgroups. The benefit of conducting research internallyis often questioned, and research is under pressure toprovide added value to product development and newbusiness creation.

R&D at Schindler, a worldwide leader in eleva-tors and escalators with a turnover of over 8 billionSwiss Francs, was characterized by the market-drivenparadigm (see Fig. 7). Schindler’s core mission wasto be a global service company with strong customerorientation. In this industry, it was considered crucialto respond to regional customer requirements such ascodes, standards, and passenger behavior. Many of thecompany’s 45 000 employees worked in technical ser-vice or in direct customer contact. On the other hand,Schindler had to realize global synergies in productinnovation.

In order to combine global efficiency with local ef-fectiveness, Schindler organized R&D around threelevels.

1. Corporate R&D was responsible for system en-gineering, development of key components, and


breakthrough innovations. This R&D took placemainly in Ebikon (Switzerland), Morristown (NewJersey), Shanghai (China), and Sao Paulo (Brazil).A special department of corporate R&D, ‘Technol-ogy Management’ was responsible for advanceddevelopment, technology monitoring, competitoranalysis, and strategic technology management,with the principal location in Ebikon and minoroutposts in Morristown and Shanghai.

2. Manufacturing R&D was collocated with thecomponent factories. Being responsible for in-cremental product improvements, these activi-ties were located in Spain (Zaragoza), France(Mulhouse, Melune), Switzerland (Locarno), USA(Gettisburgh, Sydney), Malaysia (Ipoh), and China(Shanghai).

3. Field engineering was responsible for customizedsolutions, including local adaptation of the elevatorto specific customer requirements. These engineer-ing activities were conducted at every large fieldorganization distributed over the 100 countries inwhich Schindler is represented.

These three levels enabled the organization tomake best possible use of its competencies. Synergiesand platform concepts are brought in through corpo-rate R&D, while local solutions were found locallynear downstream activities. Recently, Schindler also

Fig. 8. Glaxo-Wellcome’s global R&D organization.

showed signs of more and more technology-driveninternationalization. The systematic international-ization of corporate R&D and the establishment ofinnovation outposts for technology management in-dicated that Schindler was heading towards a globalR&D organization.

3.4. Global R&D: dispersed researchand dispersed development

Finally, ‘global’ companies have distributed re-search as well as development worldwide. Thesecompanies aim for global coordination of their R&Dactivities; most of them feature integrated R&D net-works. Centrifugal forces have become stronger thancentralizing forces. Research is located where there ishigh-quality scientific input expected from centers-of-excellence. Development labs conform to localdemands and standards. The additional costs of main-taining transnational R&D are offset by the creationof business and market advantages. In global R&Dnetworks, local science can be quickly absorbedand adapted for utilization elsewhere, and singledevelopment centers can take the lead to prepareproducts for global market launch. Managing R&Din this environment is significantly more complexand more costly than in the traditional R&D organi-zation.


‘Global’ R&D organizations have been established,for instance, in the highly competitive pharmaceuticalindustry. Headquartered in the UK, Glaxo-Wellcomehad a 4.72% share of the US$ 275 billion globalpharmaceutical market in 1998. It was the secondlargest pharmaceutical company both in Europe andthe US, with market shares of approximately 5 and6%, respectively. In 1998, seven of its products werein the world top 50. Being pharmaceutical company,Glaxo-Wellcome identified disease areas of unmetmedical need and determined mechanisms by whichthey might be addressed, mainly through developingand registering new medicines.

Formed in 1995 by the merger of two major compa-nies, Glaxo-Wellcome’s R&D was distributed aroundthe world (see Fig. 8). Principal sites for R&D wereStevenage, Greenford, and Ware in the UK; ResearchTriangle Park and Palo Alto in the USA; TsukubaScience City, Japan; Verona, Italy; Les Ulis, France;Madrid, Spain; Mississauga, Canada. Research loca-tions focused on special areas. The two major researchcenters in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK and in theResearch Triangle Park in North Carolina covered thewidest range of research areas. They were supportedby smaller locations focusing on, e.g. anti-microbialand anti-fungal research (Madrid), bioinformatics(Geneva), or disease models (Lausanne) and the Affy-max Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, whichwas engaged in technology development in screeningand combinatorial chemistry.

4. Two principal forces and four trendsin internationalizing corporate R&D

Although, complete integration of globally dis-persed R&D activities is associated with high coor-dination and social costs, few companies can affordto ignore the benefits of local product adaptation ortapping into foreign science clusters. Operating withconstrained resource availabilities in R&D (budget,manpower, etc.), management will prioritize its ef-forts as to why and when to internationalize R&D.Summarizing location factors found in the literatureas well as the analysis of our four archetypes, we canmake the following conclusions.

1. Access to local markets and customers: If forces oflocal markets and customer compliance prevail, the

company will develop a decentralized developmentstructure.

2. Access to local science and technology: If criticalscientific knowledge is globally dispersed, interna-tional research outposts will be established to feedback technological information to development.

R&D internationalization, however, does not nec-essarily stop there. Once the R&D organization hasreached—driven by either of the two principal inter-nationalization factors of access to science or accessto market—a satisfactory mode of operation, the re-spective other factor may prevail in driving furtherR&D internationalization. This leads to four principaltrends of internationalization in research and develop-ment (see Fig. 9).

1. Trend 1: internationalization of research: If thecompany has no or difficult access to science fromits home base, it may have to establish local re-search units which directly tap into scientific com-munities, centers-of-innovation, and local talentpools. This is often the case when the company’sR&D center is located in a country with strongengineering but relative scarce scientific researchcapabilities (e.g. Daimler between 1988 and 1996,Canon between 1988 and 1992, Eisai).

2. Trend 2:internationalization of development: If thecompany’s business requires local product adapta-tion and intensive customer cooperation, it is likelythat local development units are established thatdeploy and implement technology created at theR&D center. Foreign markets have become moreimportant than the domestic market. However, themain technological inputs originate at the homebase (e.g. Leica in the 1980s and 1990s, SAP andUnisys in the 1990s).

3. Trend 3:development follows research: In scienceand technology-driven industries, developmentunits may bring prospective new business oppor-tunities from research to the market. These devel-opment units are often located close to the localresearch site and characterized by high personneland infrastructure integration. However, their or-ganizational structure and their reporting lines aredifferent (e.g. Canon between 1993 and 1998, andXerox in France recently).

4. Trend 4:research follows development: The evolu-tion of local development sites and the necessity to


Fig. 9. Principal determinants and trends in internationalization of research and development.

provide more substantial research support locallymay result in the on-site establishment of researchunits. In the strive to establish competence-basedR&D networks, local development units becomeexclusively responsible for a particular technology,and hence must acquire the necessary research ca-pability to support subsequent development andmaintenance of this technology (e.g. Schindler be-tween 1997 and 1999).

Only corporations with large resources to spend onR&D will be able to opt for concurrent international-ization of both research and development. They oftendo so in separate research and development organi-zations. For instance, IBM internationalized researcharound the same time as development, establishinga fairly independent research organization (IBM Re-search) and retaining development in the IBM businessunits. IBM Research has followed trend 1, while de-velopment at IBM followed trend 2. In the 1980s and1990s, IBM developed an integrated R&D networkby aligning worldwide R&D activities and guidingboth R&D organizations towards the ‘global’ model.A similar development took place at Hewlett-Packardand Philips. In general, however, resource constraintsand industry requirements will tip the balance towardsone of the two major internationalization trends.

Reorganizations of R&D structure (as they oftenfollow mergers and acquisitions of the parent com-panies) may seemingly lead to a reversal of above

trends. Cost saving and the exploitation of synergyeffects being a principal motivation for M&A activ-ity, redundant R&D units are closed down or col-located. For example, after the merger of Astra andZeneca, Astra’s former Rochester, New York lab wasmoved to a newly established R&D site in Waltham,Massachusetts, which also integrated R&D activi-ties from Zeneca’s development unit in Wilmington,Delaware, and two other Astra sites in Worchester andCambridge, Massachusetts. However, AstraZeneca’soverall investment in R&D in the US was main-tained or even expanded, since other R&D units inSweden and the UK were being cut in staff simul-taneously.

Similarly, a strategic initiative to strengthen corpo-rate research and development at Schindler has led toa reduction of research sites. These sites however werenot eliminated but, except in one case, moved to thesupervision of business units as their work has becomeincreasingly product-oriented. Hence the significanceof international development has been improved, giv-ing corporate research the flexibility to concentrateon strategic investments in technology development inChina.

Such events can be seen as corrections to ‘junglegrowth’ internationalization in R&D. They are aimedat reducing the costs of conducting R&D both do-mestically and abroad, improving local effectivenessof development (e.g. project management constraintsand synergy building) and global utility of research


(e.g. economies of scale and platform/competencemanagement).

5. Discussion

5.1. International R&D literature revisited

A number of management researchers have comeclose to describing similar structures as the fourarchetypes proposed in this paper. Most recently,Kuemmerle’s (1997) study on the role of individ-ual R&D sites distinguished home-base-augmentinglaboratories with the objective to create knowledgeand then transfer it back to a central R&D site, fromhome-base-exploiting laboratories that commercial-ize knowledge by transferring it from the company’shome base to the laboratory site abroad. Chiesa (1996)recognized that in the same firm, different R&D struc-tures are developed for experimentation and exploita-tion activities. Both external sources of knowledge aswell as internal dispersion of R&D resources affectthe resulting R&D structure. Knowledge acquisitionand absorption is a means to reduce uncertainty. VonBoehmer et al. (1992) applied Pearson’s (1990) un-certainty map to the location of international R&Dactivities, finding differences between applicationengineering and technical development.

The four archetypes are a concept based on externalfactors driving R&D internationalization. If we com-pared the archetype concept with a model based on in-ternal coordination and competition (Gassmann, 1997;Gassmann and von Zedtwitz, 1999a,b), the ‘nationaltreasure’ companies appear to fall within the geo- andethnocentric paradigm, the ‘technology-driven’ com-panies relate best to the hub-model, ‘market-driven’companies follow typically polycentric R&D inter-nationalization, and the companies denoted here as‘global’ are found to be either striving for integratedR&D networks or retain a polycentric decentralizedR&D configuration. This latter model is based onBartlett’s (1986) work on the structure of multina-tional companies as well as Perlmutter’s (1969) basicbehavioral patterns of multinational corporations.

The four archetypes also describe the evolutionof an entire R&D organization based on the roles ofits individual R&D units. While many authors deep-ened our understanding of the multitude of different

location factors for individual units (e.g. Beckmannand Fischer, 1994; De Meyer and Mizushima,1989; Gassmann and von Zedtwitz, 1996; Håkansonand Zander, 1988; Carnegie Bosch Institute, 1994;Krubasik and Schrader, 1990; von Boehmer et al.,1992), we have summarized these factors and con-centrated on two principal external drivers that af-fect the development of the R&D organization asa whole.

But what are other possible explanations for the ob-served R&D archetypes? The behavior of companiesis to a large degree determined by corporate cultureand the ethnic/cultural background of their decisionmakers. We shall therefore first consider differencesby geographical–cultural origin. Then business andindustry environments may necessitate a competitivebehavior influencing the organization of internationalR&D. We thus look into differences of industry byindustry. However, we believe our strongest argumentis given by the differences between scientific and en-gineering work, which not only account for differentpatterns between individual companies but also theobserved global distribution of R&D sites.

5.2. Differences by geographical–cultural origin

European, American, and Japanese companies haveshown different patterns in the way they approachedthe establishment of foreign R&D operations. Perrinoand Tipping (1989, pp. 14–15) argued that Europeancompanies have been most aggressive in establishingforeign R&D outposts, often through the acquisitionof entire firms. Japanese companies have relied onhome development, licensing, and listening posts toacquire technology rather than expanding R&D over-seas. American companies have tended to support newbusiness opportunities by setting up overseas R&Dunits staffed with American researchers. Brockhoff(1998, p. 42) noted differences between companiesfrom Japan and other countries in their acquisition offoreign R&D units.

We may be able to refine the patterns of R&Dinternationalization for multinational companies bydiscerning differences between research and develop-ment and their specific location drivers. Due to theirlarge home markets and their strength in domesticresearch, many American and Japanese companieshave been found to adhere to the ‘national treasure’


paradigm. European companies are characterized bythe ‘market-driven’ model mostly because of theirsmall domestic markets and relative ease of estab-lishing development units within the European con-tinent. Based on our study of 1021 R&D locations,we observed a substantial amount of intra-Europeaninternationalization.2 Of a total of 352 R&D loca-tions in Europe, no less than 133 R&D sites wereowned by companies from other European countries.If they were not considered as international R&Dsites, Europe would be left with 30 research sitesfrom extra-European companies, and 95 develop-ment sites, or just about half of their previous rate ofinternationalization.3

Recently, many American companies have assumeda ‘market-driven’ configuration because of the ris-ing relative importance of foreign markets. Japanesecompanies are following suit. Due to their relativeweakness in domestic research, they have locatedresearch units in Europe and North America. How-ever, instead of having R&D follow production, manyJapanese companies have chosen to internationalizeresearch first in order to prepare the ground for lo-cal development and manufacturing. This constitutesthe ‘technology-driven’ paradigm. With the relativelystrong emphasis on technology implementation inJapanese companies, cultural and social factors liketight personal networks and narrowly-meshed com-pany interdependencies have made it difficult for themto establish productive development centers outsideJapan.

Similar regional attributions for ‘global’ companiesare difficult to make. Only few Japanese companiesso far have established significant overseas pres-ence in both research and development. A numberof European and US companies have spread re-search and development evenly in dominant regionsaround the globe. ‘Global’ R&D is thus less likelydetermined by geographic provenience but rather bymaturity of an internationally-dispersed R&D organi-zation.

2 The OECD estimates that about one-half of EC investment goesinto other EC countries (OECD, 1996, p. 32, citing Thomsen andWoolcock, 1993). Only the UK has stronger ties to the US asmeasured by inward and outward investment.

3 The remaining 94 locations (38 research, 58 development) areR&D sites established by companies in their home counties.

5.3. Differences by industry

A breakdown by industry neglects national, cul-tural, and company-specific factors. The available dataand examples suggest that pharmaceutical and someIT/electrical companies prefer the ‘global’ R&D or-ganization, probably due to particular location advan-tages in centers of excellence for research with globaldevelopment networks to adapt or test products locally.

The ‘market-driven’ paradigm is the most preva-lent and obvious way of R&D internationalization. Itis pursued in almost all industries, and particularlystrongly in electrical, machinery, and chemical com-panies. In these cases, technology platforms developedat home are the bases for local product development.There appears to be little need for elaborate interna-tional research networks.

Internationalization of development occurs morenaturally as a consequence of internationalization ofsales and local market support. Therefore, there arerelatively few examples where research is more de-centralized than development. It appears that somepharmaceutical and electrical companies internation-alize research before development, following trend1. The pharmaceutical industry appears to be themost internationalized in research: it operates aboutone foreign research site for every foreign develop-ment unit. Companies of more traditional businesssuch as automobiles, heavy industry, and oil explo-ration concentrate their R&D resources in the homecountry.

Based on our data, foreign R&D investment is morethan twice as likely to be development oriented thandomestic R&D investment (oil, machinery, automo-tive, chemicals, telecommunication, food, diversifiedproducts). The information technology and electricalindustries have a moderate emphasis towards more do-mestic research. Only the pharmaceutical industry re-peats its domestic R&D investment ratio abroad.

In some cases, we observed that research sites wereestablished as precursors to development centers.For instance, Philips’ corporate research center inBriarcliff Manor, New York, has recently spun off adevelopment team to their digital video and televisionbusiness groups. Xerox research center in Grenoblehas dedicated a team to more product-oriented re-search. In general, however, the present data set isstill too limited to provide strong indications for clear


industrial preferences in the patterns of research anddevelopment internationalization.

5.4. Different drivers for sciences and engineering

In our understanding, neither geographical/culturalnor industrial analysis sufficiently explains the ob-served archetypes and trends, although it is possi-ble to argue for certain correlations of geographicalorigin or industry with R&D archetypes. We havefound too many counter-examples to warrant possi-ble hypotheses like “pharmaceutical companies tendto establish ‘global’ R&D organizations”. Disregard-ing R&D-external factors such as mergers and acquisi-tions, one could also expect the causal determinants ofdifferences in R&D dispersions to be rooted in differ-ences in the very constituents of R&D work, namelyscience and engineering.

Scientists aspire to find new phenomena and createnew knowledge. Their time horizon is usually long:some scientists devote their entire career to the ad-vancement of a very specialized subject. Scientistsidentify themselves stronger with their field than withthe company they work for. Their main contacts areother scientists, although there is a strong tendency towork and obtain credit as an individual. Commercialobjectives are often absent and their success uncer-tain, and it is a difficult task for the director of a re-search department to match thematical freedom withbudgetary constraints.

Table 3Location drivers for research and development

Reasons to locate ‘research’ in a particular locationa Reasons to establish ‘development’ in a particular locationb

Proximity to local universities and research parks Local market requirementsTapping informal networks Global customers request local supportProximity to centers-of-innovation Customer proximity and lead usersLimited domestic science base Cooperation with local partnersAccess to local specialists/recruiting Market accessDissipating risks among several research units Local citizen imageSupport of local development projects Simultaneous product launchingAdhering local regulations Use of different time zonesLocal patenting issues Country-specific cost advantagesSubsidies Facilitating scale-up in manufacturingLow acceptance of research in home country (e.g. genetics) Process innovation and adaptation to local production

National protection

a Science and technology drivers.b Engineering and market drivers

Engineers develop new technology and productsmostly by utilizing existing knowledge in a novel way.There is often a strong time pressure to meet techni-cal, performance, and market targets. Almost exclu-sively, these goals require the close cooperation withother engineers as well as frequent contacts with sup-pliers and lead customers. Technical specifications andcommercial objectives are defined or negotiated withproduction, marketing, or customers. Executing a de-velopment project is thus more a matter of processmanagement than of people administration (Boutellieret al., 1997).

These R&D-internal demands help to explain thetwo principal motivations to establish R&D sitesabroad.

1. Proximity to other corporate activities (e.g. manu-facturing) and proximity to local customers, whichfavor the operation and productivity of engineeringand local product development.

2. The quest for technical know-how and exper-tise available in only a few centers-of-excellencearound the world, which favor the productivity ofresearch and technology monitoring.

Since science has productivity requirements dif-ferent from engineering, the internationalization ofresearch follows a different rationale than the interna-tionalization of development. The internationalizationof research is driven by access to local science andabsorption of know-how of global value (see Table 3).


In international development, understanding and re-acting to the local market and the efficient cooperationwith local customers (manufacturing, developmentpartners) are important drivers.

New R&D units are rarely set up as fully-fledgedR&D centers. Most of them are established as rathersmall units that have to prove their viability first. Be-cause of different science and engineering orientation,their internal evolution towards more mature R&Dsites may be quite different. In many cases for whichwe obtained historical data of individual R&D units,we observed that development units evolve from localmarket support units, while research units evolve fromscanning and listening posts. For instance, Leica’sproduct development unit in Singapore is based ontheir previous technical service expertise and localmanufacturing cooperation, and Daimler’s researchcenter in Palo Alto was originally conceived as alistening post. Although, still largely uninvestigated,we believe that our principal external factors (cus-tomer and market demands as well as integration oflocal science and technology) are important deter-minants for the evolution of individual R&D labo-ratories.

6. Managerial implications

R&D is torn between the demands for scientific andcommercial results. Research is geared towards dis-covery rather than invention, while development aimsat invention rather than discovery. Since research dif-fers from development, the management of researchdiffers from the management of development. Copingwith managerial and organizational distances betweenresearch and development are at least as challenging ascoping with geographical distances. These distancesexplain why there are internal struggles about missionand leadership, time pressures, funding sources and fi-nancing, results and performance evaluation, structureand thematical freedom.

At the same time, it is often argued that a re-inte-gration of the two disciplines would improve overallinnovation efficiency (e.g. Iansiti, 1998; Dimanescuand Dwenger, 1996). Detz (1996, p. 31) states that“the isolation of this (research) function in separateunits, often physically separated from a company’sother technology activities, and remote geographically

and strategically from the needs of the company’sbusinesses··· made technology transfer exceed-ingly difficult”. Asking for ‘seamless integration’of R&D processes, authors with a focus on effi-cient project management expect shorter developmenttimes, improved technology transfer and project hand-over, higher customer orientation, and reduced overallcosts.

We are therefore confronted with a fundamentaltension between centrifugal forces that try to estab-lish distance between research and development forgreater R&D effectiveness, and centripetal forcesthat try to integrate research and development forstronger customer orientation and higher economicefficiency.

The current trend towards shorter time-to-marketcertainly favors the quality and intensity of com-munication and collaboration which are achieved byfrequent face-to-face contact, physical collocation(see especially Allen, 1977), and modern informationand communication technology. However, we believethat physical and organizational separation betweenresearch and development has also the followingadvantages:

• research and advanced development teams can bet-ter evaluate radical new technologies ‘off-line’;

• mid- and long-term platform teams are not just ex-tended capacity resources for time critical projects;

• pilots with visionary lead users can be developedseparately; this enables solutions that are more in-novative than the averageexisting customer’s re-quirement, which is normally the base for businesscases.

Thus, at the possibly high costs from inefficientcommunication and long-distance collaboration pro-cesses, research needs to be conducted in places wherescientific input can be maximized and where the en-vironment is more conducive to carry out research.A calm environment is needed to cultivate ‘newbuds’, including separate performance evaluation cri-teria and a more focused and specialized researchinfrastructure. Removed from distracting short-termconcerns of development managers and corporate ad-ministration, these teams are more likely to pursueradical ideas, possibly leading to breakthrough inno-vations. The installation of research teams in scientifichot-spots like Silicon Valley, science clusters such


as Route 128 near Boston, Massachusetts, and re-search parks allows the emergence of such a creativedynamic.

‘Seamless integration’ must not lead to tearingdown all walls between research and development.Research must be organized according to the task athand, not the function! This may well mean that theentire innovation process must bridge geographicaldistances, synchronize different technologies, andovercome organizational reservations. Two funda-mentally different attitudes in R&D must be alignedor even merged. Thus, the dilemma between well-separated research and development and an efficientknowledge transfer needs specific managerial atten-tion. Management of dispersed research must addresstechnology and knowledge transfer between remotelocations, the ivory-tower syndrome, and the guidanceof colorful and individualistic personalities.

7. Conclusion

International R&D does not necessarily mean aglobally integrated approach to R&D. InternationalR&D dispersion is often a result of non-R&D-relatedmerger and acquisitions of parent companies. Theanalysis of 1021 R&D units, each distinguished by itsmain orientation towards either research or develop-ment work, has revealed that research is concentratedin five regions worldwide, while development is moredispersed globally than research.

The establishment of new R&D units is influencedby two principal factors: access and support of localmarkets, and access to local science and technology.They give rise to four archetypical forms of R&Dorganization in which research and development arenot necessarily collocated. Four generic trends de-scribe the evolution of R&D organizations from onearchetype into another. More than geographic originor industry, the relative importance of science and en-gineering appears to influence the direction of R&Dinternationalization. Spatial and functional distancesmake the research-to-development interface moredifficult to handle. Particular in fulfilling its role asa facilitator of inter-unit knowledge and technologytransfer, R&D management becomes more complexdue to limitations in knowledge mode conversion,side effects of cultural, linguistic and behavioral

diversity, and project-internal communication impe-diments.

We expect that advances in information and com-munication technologies will further facilitate thedispersion of R&D. At the same time, multinationalcompanies will establish talent pools of managerswho are experienced in conducting multi-site R&Dprojects. With increased global presence, companieswill be able to draw more easily on local science andtechnology. We do not expect, however, that interna-tional R&D alone will improve a company’s abilityto innovate. It will remain necessary to manage thecommunication flows and innovation processes thatare at the core of the integrated R&D network.

References

Allen, T.J., 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology—TechnologyTransfer and the Dissemination of Technological Informationwithin the R&D Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Bartlett, C.A., 1986. Building and managing the transnational:the new organizational challenge. In: Porter, M.E. (Ed.),Competition in Global Industries. HBS Press, Boston,pp. 367–401.

Beckmann, C., Fischer, J., 1994. Einflussfaktoren auf die Inter-nationalisierung von Forschung und Entwicklung in derChemischen und Pharmazeutischen Industrie. Zeitschrift fürBetriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 46 (7/8), 630–657.

Behrmann, J.N., Fischer, W.A., 1980. Transnational corporations:market orientations and R&D abroad. Columbia Journal ofWorld Business 15 (3), 55–59.

Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., von Zedtwitz, M., 1997. Innovationand phases in transnational R&D. In: Hirasawa, R. (Ed.),Proceedings of the 7th International Forum on TechnologyManagement on Challenges for the 21th Century—NetworkingEast and West, Kyoto, Japan, 3–7 November, pp. 481–488.

Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., von Zedtwitz, M., 2000. ManagingGlobal Innovation. 2nd Revised Edition, Springer, Berlin.

Brockhoff, K., 1997. Industrial Research for Future Competi-tiveness. Springer, Berlin.

Brockhoff, K., 1998. Internationalization of Research and Deve-lopment. Springer, Berlin.

Buderi, R., Weber, J., Hoots, C., Neff, R., 1991. A Tighter Focusfor R&D. Business Week, Vol. 2, December, pp. 80–84.

Cantwell, J., 1995. The globalisation of technology: what remainsof the product cycle model? Cambridge Journal of Economics19, 155–174.

Cantwell, J., Janne, O., 2000. The role of multinational cor-porations and national states in the globalization of innovatorycapacity: the European perspective. Technology Analysis andStrategic Management 12 (2), 243–262.


Carnegie Bosch Institute, 1994. Managing International Researchand Development. Working Paper 94–98, InternationalExecutive Forum of the Carnegie Bosch Institute, Pittsburgh,1993.

Chiesa, V., 1996. Managing the internationalization of R&D acti-vities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 43 (1),7–23.

Daimler-Benz, 1997. Producing the goods. Daimler-Benz HighTech Report’97. Daimler-Benz, Stuttgart, pp. 12–15.

Dalton, D.H., Serapio, M.G., 1995. Globalizing Industrial Researchand Development. US Department of Commerce, Washington,DC.

De Meyer, A., Mizushima, A., 1989. Global R&D management.R&D Management 19 (2), 135–146.

Detz, C.M., 1996. Corporate-supported research in a reengineeredtechnology organization. Research Technology Management39 (4), 30–32.

Dimanescu, D., Dwenger, K., 1996. World-Class New ProductDevelopment. Amacom, New York.

Eldred, E., McGrath, M., 1997a. Commercializing new technology- I. Research Technology Management 40 (1), 41–47.

Eldred, E., McGrath, M., 1997b. Commercializing new technology- II. Research Technology Management 40 (2), 29–33.

Gassmann, O., 1997. Internationales F&E-Management. Potentialeund Gestaltungskonzepte transnationaler F&E-Projekte. Olden-bourg, München.

Gassmann, O., von Zedtwitz, M., 1996. Ein Referenzrahmenfür das Internationale Innovationsmanagement. In: Gassmann,O., von Zedtwitz, M. (Eds.), Internationales Innovationsmana-gement. Vahlen, München, pp. 3–15.

Gassmann, O., von Zedtwitz, M., 1998. Organization of industrialR&D on a global scale. R&D Management 28 (3), 147–161.

Gassmann, O., von Zedtwitz, M., 1999a. New concepts and trendsin international R&D organization. Research Policy 28, 231–250.

Gassmann, O., von Zedtwitz, M., 1999b. Organizing virtual R&Dteams: towards a contingency approach. In: Kocaoglu, D.F.(Ed.), Proceedings of the Portland International Conference onManagement of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) onTechnology and Innovation Management—Setting the Pace forthe Third Millennium, Portland, July, pp. 25–29.

Gates, S., 1995. The Changing Global Role of the Researchand Development Function. Report No. 1123-95-RR, TheConference Board, New York.

Granstrand, O., Håkanson, L., Sjölander, S. (Eds.), 1992.Technology Management and International Business: Interna-tionalization of R&D and Technology. Wiley, Chichester.

Håkanson, L., Nobel, R., 1993. Foreign research and developmentin Swedish multinationals. Research Policy 22, 373–396.

Håkanson, L., Zander, U., 1988. International management ofR&D: the Swedish experience. R&D Management 18 (3), 217–226.

Hirschey, R.C., Caves, R.E., 1981. Internationalisation of researchand development by multinational enterprises. Oxford Bulletinof Economics and Statistics 42 (2), 115–130.

Howells, J., 1990. The location and organisation of research anddevelopment: new horizons. Research Policy 19, 133–146.

Iansiti, M., 1998. Technology Integration: Making Critical Choicesin a Dynamic World. Harvard Business Press, Boston.

Krubasik, E.G., Schrader, J., 1990. Globale Forschungs- undEntwicklungsaktivitäten. In: Welge, M.K. (Ed.), GlobalesManagement. Schaetfer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp. 17–27.

Kuemmerle, W., 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad.Harvard Business Review 3/4, 61–70.

Kumar, N., 1995. Intellectual Property Protection, MarketOrientation and Location of Overseas R&D by MultinationalEnterprises. UNU/INTECH Discussion Papers, March.

Leifer, R., Triscari, T., 1987. Research versus development:differences and similarities. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement EM-34 (2), 71–78.

Medcof, J.W., 1997. A taxonomy of internationally dispersedtechnology units and its application to management issues.R&D Management 27 (4), 301–318.

Myers, M., Smith, K., 1999. Xerox: the global market andtechnology innovator. In: Boutellier, R., Gassmann, O., vonZedtwitz, M. (Eds.), Managing Global Innovation. Springer,Berlin, pp. 299–315.

National Science Board, 1991. Why US technology leadership iseroding. Research Technology Management 34 (2), 36–42.

Odagiri, H., Yasuda, H., 1996. The determinants of overseas R&Dby Japanese firms: an empirical study at the industry andcompany levels. Research Policy 25, 1059–1079.

OECD, 1996. Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 1996.OECD, Paris.

Patel, P., 1995. Localised production of technology in globalmarkets. Cambridge Journal of Economy 19, 141–153.

Patel, P., Pavitt, K., 1992. Large firms in the production of theworld’s technology: an important case of non-globalisation. In:Granstrand, O., Håkanson, L., Sjölander, S. (Eds.), TechnologyManagement and International Business: Internationalization ofR&D and Technology. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 53–73.

Pausenberger, E., Volkmann, B., 1981. Forschung und Entwick-lung in internationalen Unternehmungen. In: Moll, H.H.,Warnecke, H.J. (Eds.), RKW-Handbuch Forschung, Entwick-lung, Konstruktion (F&E). Bd. 3, Stand: Okt. 1990 (19. Lfg.),Kennzahl 8400, Berlin.

Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectional patterns of technical change: towardsa taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13, 343–374.

Pearce, R.D., 1989. The Internationalisation of Research and Deve-lopment by Multinational Enterprises. Macmillan, Basingstroke,UK.

Pearson, A., 1990. Innovation strategy. Technovation 10 (3), 185–192.

Perlmutter, H.V., 1969. The tortuous evolution of the multinationalcorporation. Columbia Journal of World Business 4, 9–18.

Perrino, A.C., Tipping, J.W., 1989. Global management oftechnology. Research Technology Management 32 (3), 12–19.

Roberts, E.B., 1995. Benchmarking the strategic management oftechnology I. Research Technology Management 38 (1), 44–56.

Ronstadt, R.C., 1977. Research and Development Abroad by USMultinationals. Praeger, New York.

Ronstadt, R.C., 1978. International R&D: the establishment andevolution of research and development abroad by seven USmultinationals. Journal for International Business Studies 9, 7–24.


Rubenstein, A.H., 1989. Managing Technology in the Decen-tralized Firm. Wiley, New York.

Serapio, M., Dalton, D., 1993. Foreign R&D facilities in the UnitedStates. Research Technology Management 36 (6), 33–39.

Thomsen, S., Woolcock, S., 1993. Direct Investment and EuropeanIntegration: Competition among Firms and Governments.Catham, London.

von Boehmer, A., Brockhoff, K., Pearson, A.W., 1992. Themanagement of international research and development. In:Buckley, P.J., Brooke, M.Z. (Eds.), International BusinessStudies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 495–509.

Woodall, B., Yoshikawa, A., 1997. Japan’s Failure inPharmaceuticals: Why is the World Saying No to JapaneseDrugs? CIBER Working Paper.

Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization ...

Documents

Transcript of Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization ...