The possibility of overcoming barriers in international cooperation in the area of R&D from the point of view of a research unit, based on the example of the Institute of Aviation

• Authors: Wyka Sylwester

Title variants

PL

Możliwość przełamywania barier współpracy międzynarodowej w zakresie B+R z punktu widzenia jednostki badawczej na przykładzie Instytutu Lotnictwa

• Languages of publication: EN PL

Abstracts

EN

The article presents the possibilities of overcoming barriers in international cooperation from the point of view of a research unit. The goal of the article is the presentation of good management practices in international cooperation in the area of R&D between the Institute of Aviation and General Electric, which reduce the level of uncertainty of cooperation. In the text the results of quantitative research concerning barriers for technological cooperation between Polish entities and foreign partners were used. Case study analysis revealed the possibility of reducing these barriers. Data for the case study were collected in interviews with the managers of both the Polish and the American partner. Partner cooperation between organizations brings mutual benefits and motivates the partners to pursue further development of cooperation and reduces the transaction costs resulting from cooperation in a sensitive area. Both organizations have worked out a series of good practices of international cooperation in the area of R&D, which can be used for overcoming barriers in establishing international R&D cooperation by Polish companies.

PL

Artykuł przedstawia możliwości przełamywania barier we współpracy międzynarodowej z punktu widzenia jednostki badawczej. Celem artykułu jest prezentacja dobrych praktyk zarządczych współpracy międzynarodowej w obszarze B+R między Instytutem Lotnictwa a General Electric, które obniżają poziom niepewności kooperacji. W tekście wykorzystano wyniki badań ilościowych dotyczące barier współpracy technologicznej między polskimi podmiotami a zagranicznymi partnerami. Analiza studium przypadku wykazała możliwość ograniczenia tych barier. Dane do studium przypadku zostały zebrane w wywiadach z menedżerami zarówno polskiego jak i amerykańskiego partnera. Partnerska współpraca pomiędzy organizacjami przynosi obopólne korzyści i motywuje partnerów do dalszego rozwoju współpracy i obniża koszty transakcyjne wynikające ze współdziałania we wrażliwym obszarze. Obie organizacje wypracowały szereg dobrych praktyk współpracy międzynarodowej w obszarze B+R, które mogą zostać wykorzystane do przełamania barier w nawiązywaniu międzynarodowej współpracy B+R przez polskie przedsiębiorstwa.

Keywords

EN

international cooperation; barriers for cooperation; R&D cooperation; high-tech; research institute

PL

współpraca międzynarodowa; bariery współpracy; współpraca R&D; high-tech; instytut badawczy

• Publisher: Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz - Instytut Lotnictwa
• Journal: Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 1(31)
• Pages: 173-188

Dates

online

2019-03

Contributors

author

Wyka Sylwester

• Instytut Lotnictwa

References

• Axelrod, R. M., Hamilton, W. D. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
• Barta, G., Csizmadia, Z., Deak, C., Dõry, T., Kiss, A., Lengyel, B. (2011). R&D Cooperation Between Universities And Enterprises. Centre For Regional Studies Of Hungarian Academy Of Sciences: Discussion Papers, 84.
• Barkema, H., Bell, J., Pennings, J. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (2), 151–166.
• Boultellier, O., Grassman, M. von Zedtwitz, (2000). Managing Global Innovation. Berlin: Springer.
• Buckley, P. J., Casson, M. (1976). The future of multinational enterprise. New York: Holmes and Meier.
• Bufon, M., Minghi, J., Paasi, A. (2014). The New European Frontiers: Social and Spatial (Re) Integration Issues in Multicultural and Border Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Camera, G., Casari, M. (2009). Cooperation among strangers under the shadow of the future. American Economic Review, 99 (3), 979–1005.
• Chesa, V. (1996). Strategies for global R&D. Research-Technology Management, Sep.–Oct., 19–25.
• Cho, M. (2014). Cooperation in the repeated prisoner's dilemma game with local interaction and local communication. International Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 235–262 doi: 10.1111/ijet.12039.
• Cygler, J., Wyka, S. (w druku). Internal barriers to international R&D cooperation of Polish high tech enterprises. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia.
• Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1095–1121.
• D'Aveni, R. A., Gunther, R. (1995). Hypercompetitive Rivals. Competing in Highly Dynamic Environments, New York: The Free Press, 1995.
• Dicken, P. (1992). Global Shift. New York: Guilford Press.
• Dittrich, K., Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: The case of open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 510–521.
• Dixit, A, K, Nalebuff B. J, (2009). The art of strategy: A game theorist's guide to success in bussines & life. New York, London, W. W. Norton & Company.
• Dyer, J. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 535–556.
• Dyer, J. H. (2000). Collaborative advantage. Winning through extended enterprise supplier networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fandrejewska, A., Wasilik, K. (2018). Cultural Differences and Barriers in Communication and Functioning of an International Organisation. Handel Wewnętrzny, 1 (372), 203–215.
• Franke, N., Piller, F. (2004). Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of the Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 401–415.
• Gestland, R. R. (2012). Cross-cultural Business Behavior: A Guide for Global Management. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
• Henderson, R., Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Special Issue), 63–84.
• Hindmoor, A. (1998). The importance of being trusted: Transaction costs and policy network theory. Public Administration, 78, 25–43.
• Hong, P., Park, Y. W. (2015). Building network capabilities in turbulent competitive environments. Business success stories from the BRICS, Boca Raton: CRC Press
• King, A. (2007). Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: A transaction cost perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 889–900.
• Lui, S. S., Ngo, H. (2005). An action pattern model of inter-firm cooperation. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (6), 1123–1153.
• McGahan, A. M. (2004). Business Strategy over the Industry Lifecycle. Advances in Strategic Management, 21, 317–358.
• Mayberry, J. P. Harsanyi, J. C., Scarf, M. E., Selten, R. (1992). Game — Theoretic models of co-operation and conflict. San Francisco: Westview Press
• Medcof, J. W. (2001). Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 999–1012.
• Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4), 794–829.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.
• Rapoport, A. (1988). Experiments with N-person social traps I. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (3), 457–472.
• Rennie, M. W. (1993). Born global. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 45–52
• Ricciardi, F. (2014). Innovation processes in business networks. Managing inter-organizational relationships for innovational excellence. Wiesbaden: Springer Global.
• Ring, P. S., Van de Ven, A. (1989). Cooperative relationships between organizations. The Strategic Management Research Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (working paper).
• Schaeffer, E. (2017). Industry X. 0. Realizing digital value in industrial sectors. Munich: Kogan Page.
• Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (8), 791–811
• Thompson, F. G. (2003). Between hierarchies & markets. The logic and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Thomson, G. F. (2003). Between Hierarchies & Markets. The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wang, H., Yang, B. Z. (2003). Classification of 2x2 games and strategic behavior. American Economist, 47 (2), 78–85.
• Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (2). 269–296.
• Witek–Hajduk, M. K. (2014). Internationalization of enterprises — selected theoretical concepts and research directions. Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics.
• Wróblewski, Ł. (2015). Websites of Polish Cultural and Educational Organizations in the Czech Republic — Analysis and Evaluation. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 3 (1), 65–78.
• Yi, R., Johnson, M. W., Bickel, W. K. (2005). Relationship between cooperation in an iterated prisoners dilemma game and the discounting of hypothetical outcomes. Learning & Behavior, 33, 324–336.

Notes

EN

Available in Open Access. (EN)

PL

Publikacja w otwartym dostępie (Open Access).

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/minib-2019-0018

DOI

10.2478/minib-2019-0009