|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Paul Chiambaretto (MRM - Montpellier Research in Management - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UM3 - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UM2 - Université Montpellier 2 - Sciences et Techniques - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School - UM - Université de Montpellier); Jonathan Maurice (TSM - Toulouse School of Management Research - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - TSM - Toulouse School of Management - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole); Marc Willinger (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - FRE2010 - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement) |
| Abstract: | This article provides a formal model of the value creation-appropriation dilemma in the coopetition for innovation, i.e., alliances among competing firms. The model determines the levels of cooperation that maximize the profit of each firm in an innovative coopetition agreement regardless of the number of firms and their respective budget endowments dedicated to the coopetitive project. We answer the following questions. Within an innovative coopetition agreement, will the partners cooperate more or less when their budget endowments change? What is the impact on profit? When is it profitable to accept a new partner into the agreement? What happens to the remaining firms when a partner withdraws from the agreement? We show that when the coopetitive budget of the focal firm increases, the focal firm allocates a larger part of this budget to value creation activities and increases its profit. In contrast, when a partnering firm increases its coopetitive budget, the focal firm reduces its budget for value creation activities to maintain a sufficient budget for value appropriation activities. We also show that the addition of a competitor with a large coopetitive budget to the innovative coopetition agreement decreases the cooperation of the focal firm but increases the profit of the initial partnering firms. In contrast, the exit of a partnering firm with a large coopetitive budget from the agreement intensifies the cooperation among the remaining firms but reduces their profit |
| Keywords: | game theory,value appropriation,value creation,coopetition,innovative coopetition projects |
| Date: | 2020 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02497321&r=all |
| By: | Héloïse Berkowitz (TSM - Toulouse School of Management Research - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - TSM - Toulouse School of Management - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole); Antoine, Souchaud (NEOMA - Neoma Business School) |
| Abstract: | What role can chartered accountants (CAs) play in the use of collective intelligence in crowdlending and under what conditions? This article studies a failed attempt to use chartered accountants to exploit collective intelligence in a partnership between a crowdlending platform and the professional body for chartered accountants in France. Our results describe some of the actions used by CAs to activate various collective intelligence functions on the forums, both upstream and downstream of collection campaigns. We also reveal two organizational factors that explain the failure to exploit this resource, namely non-compliance with the co-dependence principle and organizational hypocrisy. Based on this analysis, we propose an extended co-dependence model between the platform, project owners, crowd, and chartered accountants, enabling an "engineering" of collective intelligence, i.e. its expression, transformation and exploitation. |
| Keywords: | chartered accountant,collective intelligence,peer-to-peer lending,partial organization,co-dependent organization 2 |
| Date: | 2019–12–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02525737&r=all |
| By: | Mafini Dosso (European Commission - JRC); Paulina Ramirez |
| Abstract: | This study examines the on-going structural changes in the international organisation of corporate R&D and innovative (RDI) activities. Insights are mainly drawn from interviews made to innovation representatives and managers of large R&D-investing companies in 2017 in the frame of the European Commission’s project – Industrial Research and Innovation Monitoring and Analysis –. The research intends to complement the quantitative evidence available in the project on the worldwide leading corporate R&D investors in order to better characterize the on-going fragmentation of R&D and innovation activities. The study suggests directions for mapping innovation value chains beyond research and inventive activities and carries out important conceptual and policy implications for the configurations and sustainability of innovation systems in Europe. |
| Keywords: | R&D and innovation value chains, MNEs, top R&D investors, interviews, qualitative research |
| Date: | 2020–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:wpaper:202003&r=all |
| By: | Joaquin Ameller (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM), ADEME - Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie); Jean-Daniel Rinaudo; Corinne Merly (BRGM - Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM)) |
| Abstract: | Urban planners increasingly perceive Brownfield redevelopment (BFR) as a strategic priority. BFR not only allows suppressing some of the nuisances caused by derelict and contaminated lands, it also contributes to revitalizing dense urban areas and preventing the undesired effects of urban sprawl. This literature review paper analyses how economists have contributed to removing some of the barriers that prevent or restrict BFR. A first contribution was to demonstrate the economic benefits of BFR. Economists also contributed to the development of multidisciplinary decision support tools used to rank BFR projects in terms of long-term sustainability and social welfare. They also contributed to the design of institutional arrangements (including regulatory and economic instruments) that can facilitate the engagement of stakeholders in BFR projects. Our literature search combines the use of a standard and a systematic literature review to identify relevant papers scattered in very diversified publication outlets. We show that there is significant scope for better integration of economic analysis within the multidisciplinary mainstream of BFR literature, and provide pathways for future research. |
| Date: | 2020–02–24 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02532209&r=all |
| By: | Younes, George Abi; Ayoubi, Charles; Ballester, Omar; Cristelli, Gabriele; de Rassenfosse, Gaetan; Foray, Dominique; Gaule, Patrick; Pellegrino, Gabriele; van den Heuvel, Matthias; Webster, Beth |
| Abstract: | The present document provides the take of innovation economists on the current pandemic. It is addressed to the general public and focuses on questions related to the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) ecosystem. It does not present new research findings. Instead, it provides a reading of current real-world developments using economic reasoning and relying on existing economic research. The first part of the report explains the root causes for a general underinvestment in Research and Development (R&D), with a particular focus on vaccines. These causes include an insufficient demand for vaccines in normal times and the very characteristics of R&D. Governments can intervene to mitigate these problems, but government intervention comes with its own set of issues. We discuss three of them, namely free riding, setting research priorities, and acting on scientific knowledge. The second part discusses several aspects related to current STI policy reactions. First, we observe a sizable shift of funds towards research on SARS-CoV-2. Aren’t we wasting money by allocating so much of it on one single scientific problem? Using the concept of the ‘elasticity of science,’ we argue that we are far from a situation where additional funding would represent a waste of money. Second, we also observe an unprecedented level of cooperation among researchers but also an intense competition to find therapeutic solutions and vaccines. We seek to make sense of this apparent antonymy, highlighting how both cooperative and competitive forces might accelerate research. Third, we focus on one policy tool, namely patents, and we discuss whether the existence of patents hampers the search for a solution. We argue that it might, but we provide ways in which patents can be beneficial. They can accelerate research (such as through patent pools) or ensure greater access to innovations (such as with compulsory licensing). Fourth, we notice that the whole STI ecosystem has been rapidly refocusing on SARS-CoV-2 in a way similar to mission-oriented R&D (MOR) programs such as the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. We highlight the fundamental differences between MOR and the present situation. Today’s response is characterized by a proliferation of a wide range of innovative solutions offered by a complex set of institutions and actors with great intellectual freedom and decentralized competition. The third part of the report assesses some potential long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We firstly discuss its impact on R&D investment. We explain how innovation might be negatively affected by a prolonged economic downturn and highlight the crucial role of stimulus packages in confronting the recession. We also address the influence of the crisis on ICT, arguing that it has been a formidable catalyst for ICT adoption. Next, we focus on clean technologies, another major societal challenge besides the pandemic. There are strong reasons for why cleantech investment may suffer. However, the crisis also offers significant opportunities to accelerate the green transition. Finally, we focus on open science, in particular on open access and open data. The current crisis could be a catalyst for the adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Data Practices. The last part of the report offers some concluding thoughts. The STI policy response cannot be limited to the urgent need for ‘technological fixes.’ A second line of response involves the production of new knowledge to prevent outbreaks (ex-ante) or mitigate their effects (ex-post). Furthermore, the current crisis is a reminder that all branches of science matter. The pandemic has many facets, and a significant number of scientific disciplines can contribute to dealing with it. We conclude with a forward-looking note, arguing that the most substantial impact of the pandemic may lie outside of the public health realm or the science system. It offers a unique opportunity to adapt the set of rules that govern our society. |
| Date: | 2020–04–14 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:b5zae&r=all |