Management control of collaborative innovation: design and structuring mode

Abstract

PurposeThis paper addresses the issue of management control (MC) of collaborative innovation. It attempts to fill this gap in MC literature by considering both contingency and internal consistency perspectives influencing the MC setting, especially in the context of R&D alliances. Opening the boundaries of R&D has implications for the design of MC. It involves particular challenges and raises specific tensions of competing demands between control and innovation.Design/methodology/approachBased on a quantitative survey of sponsored European consortia and using the structural equation modeling method, we design an interfirm MC model to support collaborative innovation.FindingsOur results show that the innovation ecosystem plays a critical role as an institutional element shaping the MC design. We also infer based on our findings that the package approach is more suitable than the system one to set up control practices within a collaborative innovation context. Thus, the package allows several configurations of MC in an ongoing process that, in turn, leads to deal with organizational tensions and conflicting pressures in a dynamic way. Accordingly, the package's effectiveness seems to be related to its “fit” with the alliance context rather than its “internal consistency”.Research limitations/implicationsThis study advances MC literature by combining two theoretical perspectives to address interfirm MC, especially in the field of innovation that raises specific challenges. The findings lead also to build a bridge with a new perspective, i.e. evolutionary perspective, as the package suggests an ongoing process of resolving dynamic tensions between control requirements and innovation needs.Practical implicationsThe study suggests a model of MC package that provides managers with a range of viable configurations and alternatives to support collaborative innovation, control activities, adapt to changes, resolve tensions and drive performance.Originality/valueInstead of prior studies, the study relies upon both contingency and internal consistency perspectives to examine the MC design and structuring mode. In addition, the empirical part of this research deals with the case of European sponsored R&D consortia as a form of collaborative innovation. Unlike traditional R&D alliances, management control within sponsored consortia seems to be more complex to address as the consortium is multilateral, the grants are public and the goals may diverge given the broad variety of organizations the consortium involves.

Exploring Taxonomies and Governance Challenges of Sponsored R&D Consortia: Evidence from the EU Framework Program

“…Scope (horizontal) Extent to which partners perceive the level of heterogeneity of the consortium taking into account the profile of its members (Kherrazi, 2021). The (horizontal) scope of the consortium is high when it includes a variety of members including industrials, research institutions, universities, start-ups, associations, research firms, etc.…”

“…This allows to benefit from the advantage of each control practice. Following this reasoning, a recent quantitative investigation (Kherrazi, 2021) shows that the control practices, outcome, behavior, and social controls, used within EU-sponsored R&D consortia are not interrelated with each other, which would match the package approach. The study concludes that the package approach could be more suitable for collaborative innovation projects that require independent and flexible controls than interrelated or system-based controls.…”

“…In the third place, public sponsorship influences the organizational control of sponsored R&D consortia in many ways. It influences the choice as well as the design of the control mechanisms (Kherrazi, 2021). Some formal mechanisms, such as legal contracts, must be implemented before receiving the funds (Haustein et al, 2014;Matt et al, 2012).…”

“…Then concerns arise about interest convergence, spillover effects, ownership issues, opportunistic behavior, etc. (Yang, 2020;Kherrazi, 2021;Mannak et al, 2020). Universities, for example, are motivated by time-to-journal publication, while industry members seek to deliver products to their customers (time-to-market).…”

Scientific mapping in Scopus with Biblioshiny: A bibliometric analysis of organizational tensions

“…The application of quantitative or mixed methods is still inexpressive, being identified in only 12% of the articles that make up the database. Hypothesis tests, structural equation modeling, scale development (Beus, Lucianetti & Arthur, 2020;Kherrazi, 2020;Miron-Spektor et al, 2018), among other quantitative techniques, appear moderately in the analyzed studies. For this reason, represent promising research opportunities that can help in the development of the field of organizational tensions (Lewis & Smith, 2014;Wendy Smith et al, 2017).…”