We analyse the impact of R&D cooperation on firm performance differentiating between four types of R&D partners (competitors, suppliers, customers, and universities & research institutes), and considering two performance measures: labour productivity and productivity in innovative (new to the market) sales. Using data on a large sample of Dutch innovating firms in two waves of the Community Innovation Survey (1996, 1998), we examine the impact of R&D (collaboration) in 1996 on subsequent productivity growth in 1996-1998. We find that supplier and competitor cooperation have a significant impact on labour productivity growth, while competitor cooperation and collaboration with universities & research institutes positively affects growth in innovative sales per employee. Innovative sales are furthermore stimulated by incoming spillovers (not due to collaboration) from customers and universities. The results confirm a major heterogeneity in the rationales and goals of R&D cooperation, with competitor and supplier cooperation focused on incremental innovations improving the productivity performance of firms, while university cooperation and again competitor cooperation are instrumental in creating and bringing to market radical innovations generating sales or products that are novel to the market, improving the growth performance of firms.

We explore heterogeneities in the determinants of innovating firms' decisions to engage in R&D cooperation, differentiating between four types of cooperation partners: competitors, suppliers, customers, and universities and research institutes (institutional cooperation). We use two matched waves of the Dutch Community Innovation Survey (in 1996 and 1998) and apply system probit estimation. We find that determinants of R&D cooperation differ significantly across cooperation types. The positive impact of firm size, R&D intensity, and incoming source-specific spillovers is weaker for competitor cooperation, reflecting greater appropriability concerns. Institutional spillovers are more generic in nature and positively impact all cooperation types. The results appear robust to potential simultaneity bias. D

EXTENDED ABSTRACTThis paper analyzes the consequences for financial performance of technology strategies categorized along two dimensions: (1) explorative versus exploitative and (2) solitary versus collaborative. The financial performance implications of firms' positioning along these two dimensions has important managerial implications, but has received only limited attention in prior studies. Drawing on organizational learning theory and technology alliances literature, a set of hypotheses on the performance implications of firms' technology strategies are derived. These hypotheses are tested empirically on a panel dataset (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003) of 168 R&D-intensive firms based in Japan, the US and Europe and situated in five different industries (chemicals, pharmaceuticals, ICT, electronics, non-electrical machinery). Patent data are used to construct indicators of explorative versus exploitative technological activities (activities in new or existing technology domains) and collaborative versus solitary technological activities (joint versus single patent ownership). The financial performance of firms is measured via a market value indicator: Tobin's Q index.The analyses confirm the existence of an inverted U-shape relationship between the share of explorative technological activities and financial performance. In addition, it is observed that most sample firms do not reach the optimal level of explorative technological activities. These findings point to the relevance of creating a balance between exploitation and exploration in the context of technological activities. Moreover, they suggest that, for the majority of R&D intensive firms, reaching such a balance between exploration and exploitation implies investing additional efforts and resources in exploring new knowledge domains. The analyses also show that firms, engaging more intensively in collaboration, perform relatively stronger in explorative activities. At the same time, a negative relationship between the share of collaborative technological activities and a firm's market value is observed. Contrary to our expectations, it is collaboration in explorative technological activities, rather than collaboration in exploitative technological activities, that leads to a reduction in firm value. These findings question the relevance of open business models for technological activities. In particular, they suggest that the potential advantages of collaboration for (explorative) technological activities (i.e. access to complementary knowledge from other partners, sharing of technological costs and risks) might not compensate for the potential disadvantages, such as the incurred increase in coordination costs and the need to share innovation rewards across innovation partners.5

We examine the impact of internal and external R&D on labor productivity in a 6-year panel of Dutch manufacturing firms. We apply a dynamic linear panel data model that allows for decreasing or increasing returns to scale in internal and external R&D and for economies of scope. We find complementarity between internal and external R&D, with a positive impact of external R&D only evident in case of sufficient internal R&D. These findings confirm the role of internal R&D in enhancing absorptive capacity and hence the effective utilization of external knowledge. The scope economies due the combination of internal and external R&D are accentuated by decreasing results to scale at high levels of internal and external R&D. The analysis indicates that on average productivity grows by increasing the share of external R&D in total R&D.