OMEGA, The Int. Jl of Mgmt Sci., Vol. 5, No. 1, 1977. Pergamon Press.

Printed in Great Britain

Interdependence and Innovation 1

A GERSTENFELD
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts
(Received June 1976; in revised form July 1976)

This article analyzes the relationships beyond the firm for their effects upon innova-
tion. It is argued that as technology becomes increasingly complex close interfirm
cooperation will be needed. In this study, twenty-two innovations were examined
particularly focusing on the interaction between the firm and the environment. It
was found that there was a significant correlation between innovation success and
the firms' use of other firms. The role of government, universities, and outside
inventors on innovation within the firm is also discussed.

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N
THE IMPORTANCE of the organization's dependency on external relationships
is receiving increased attention by authors. Similarly the subject of innovation
and the management of R & D has been the focus of many studies. The purpose
of this paper is to attempt to combine those two thrusts and consider the subject
of innovation by focusing on the firm's external linkages.
There are many examples in which the individual firm is no longer able to
have the necessary technological breadth essential for the development of
current complex products and processes. In the US a close working relationship
between K o d a k and Sylvania was necessary for the development of a highly
reliable flash cube for use with the 'instamatic' camera. Similarly a close organ-
izational interdependence exists today between the Zenith Radio Corporation
and the C o m i n g Glass Works for the development of a widely discussed new
color TV picture tube. This R & D project has involved an investment in excess
of $15 million to date.
I mean in no way to underestimate the importance of the firm's internal
organization and its effects upon innovation. Clearly, firm size, structure,
R & D intensiveness, source of ideas, degree of internal integration, as well as
other factors, are vitally important in affecting success or failure for R&D.
What I have set out to do in this paper is to add another dimension which I
feel has not received the attention that it should, namely the effects of external
linkages upon innovation within the firm.
1 Presented at the combined meeting of the Operations Research Society and the Institute
of Management Science, April 1976, in Philadelphia, PA.
35
 Gerstenfeld--Interdependence and Innovation

In doing so, I shall examine 22 innovations and trace the relationship beyond
the firm to outside entities. The particular external linkages that I shall consider
are:
• the firm's relationship with a university or consulting organization on a
particular R&D project;
• the firm's relationship with a government agency or laboratory on a
particular R&D project;
• the firm's relationship with other firms on a particular R&D project;
• the firm's relationship with an outside independent inventor on a parti-
cular R&D project.
The use of these external sources will be related to successful and unsuccessful
projects to enable the reader to focus on the possible value of particular inter-
organizational relationships for innovation.

II. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Many previous studies have emphasized the importance of understanding
communication barriers within the firm [9]. For example, I reported earlier on
project failures due to poor communications between marketing and R&D
[4, 5]. Similarly, Mansfield states, " . . . there is considerable evidence that the
probability of commercialization (given technical completion) is directly related
to the degree to which R&D and marketing are integrated." [8] It has perhaps
now become time to examine the importance of integration beyond the firm.
Rothwell et al. [11] reviewed the SAPPHO data and among other findings
showed the aggregate results for 22 pairs of innovations in the chemical pro-
cesses industry and 21 in scientific instruments. On the subject of inter-organiza-
tional linkages the article shows that there was a significant relationship
between the successful innovations and those that used outside technology
during production. Similarly, Rothwell et al. showed the positive relationship
between successful firms and those that have better external communication.
In another study, Rothwell and Robertson analyzed nine cases and focused
on the contribution of poor communication to innovative failure [12]. Most of
the cases cited showed poor use of outside sources as well as poor internal
communication. One case involved an independent inventor as the inter-
organizational link and the failure is similar to an example cited later in this
paper.
A recent paper by Pavitt and Walker summed up three studies of innovations
undertaken in the U K which focused on the firms' use of outside sources [I0].
In two of the three studies it was found that inter-industry relationships were
predominant.
Von Hippel found in a recent MIT study that the organizational link between
user and supplier indicated that the innovation often came from the user rather
than the supplier [19]. That study consisted of an examination of industrial
36
 Omega, Vol. 5, No. 1

good innovations from four important types or families of scientific instruments.

Scientific instruments were selected to be studied primarily because previous
research on the innovation process had ascertained that innovation in response
to user need was prominent in scientific instruments [17]. In the Von Hippel
study, it was found that the instrument manufacturer utilizes information from
the user, and that commercially successful innovations are often derived from
prototypes built by the users. It is believed that scientific instrumentation is not
the only industry for which this user-dominated pattern is typical. The im-
portance of the inter-firm dependency is stressed.
Johnston and Gibbons point out that the most significant and often cited
finding on relationships beyond the firm has been the importance of com-
munication through personal contacts [6]. In my earlier text, I argue for porous
organizational boundaries [2]. The organization must receive information
from the environment and in turn the organization has effects upon the environ-
ment.
Mansfield points out that an enormous amount has been written concerning
the management of industrial research and development [8]. He emphasizes
that the rate of technological change could be increased materially, without any
substantial increase in R&D expenditures, if intrafirm barriers to the utilization
of R&D results could be reduced. I would support that argument but, indeed,
would like to take it a step further and propose that the reduction of interfirm
barriers can likewise lead to more effective results from R&D.
It has been pointed out by writers that long-term R&D commitments can be
taken on more easily by large firms than by small [18]. The small firms in the
future will find it increasingly difficult to afford the required R&D expenditure
for innovation. I would argue that inflationary forces as well as increased
technological complexity, will encourage interfirm R&D and that the successful
innovators will be those who adopt such strategies.

lII. D A T A COLLECTION
The data was gathered by the author while teaching in West Germany and
partially sponsored under an NSF grant to the MIT Center for Policy Alterna-
tives. I limited my sample to the three most R&D intensive industries in West
Germany; namely, automotives, chemicals, and electronics. The total number
of companies interviewed was 11, although the total number of interviews was
55 or an average of 5 persons per firm. The interviews were with R&D managers,
engineers, and scientists.
While I used a carefully constructed and tested interview guide in the field
research, the range of questions usually discussed during the interviews was
more encompassing than that included in the formal interview guide. My work
was part of a large Five Country Study being conducted by MIT, but for the
purposes of this paper, I would like to focus only on the subject of the relation-
37
 Gerstenfeld--Interdependence and Innovation

ship between specific innovations and the firms' use of external sources. The
distribution of firms I investigated consisted of the two largest chemical com-
panies in West Germany, five automotive companies, and four electronics
companies.
The total number of innovations discussed during the interviews were 22, or
2 per firm and were generally more developmental than research oriented. The
critical incident approach was used, i.e. each firm was asked to describe a
successful and an unsuccessful innovation. For any number of reasons, res-
pondents might consciously or unconsciously bias their results when asked their
opinions concerning innovation and a firm's external linkages. To reduce this
bias, respondents were not asked for their opinions, but rather were asked to
recount what had happened in a specific incident. Innovation was defined as a
technological change that is new for the company.
For the definition of successful, the innovation was to have been complete,
the product or process on the market, or in use, with every expectation of
continuing sales [13]. The unsuccessful innovation was to have been a project
in which a minimum of one man year was expended and the project is now
stopped with no expectation of continuing. Each of the innovations was to
have taken place recently with no project starting more than five years ago.
The innovations are not necessarily representative. However, the critical incident
approach does permit one to examine certain relationships.
Although many questions were asked regarding the relationship between the
firm and the external environment for a particular innovation, the key questions
were as follows:
• For this particular innovation, was outside assistance sought from any of the following:
a. Universities and consulting organizations ?
b. Government organizations (agencies and laboratories)?
c. Other firms ?
• Did the idea for the project come from an outside inventor ?

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Universities and consulting organizations
Only one of the 22 innovations used assistance from a university. In my
discussions with the firms, there seemed to be general agreement that there is
little direct linkage between the firm and the university. The one case of direct
technical assistance from a university to a firm involved the design of a turbo
motor modification requiring testing in a large wind tunnel. For this work, the
university facilities and faculty assistance was used. This use of university
facilities by firms in West Germany appears to be generally infrequent, although
it is not unusual for a company to invite a university professor to speak to a
technical group regarding some general principles.
N o n e of the innovations investigated used assistance from technical con-
sultants. In my discussions, it appeared that the companies felt that they had
38
 Omega, Vol. 5, No. 1

more expertise inhouse, and, therefore, seldom used consultants for technical
problems. (It was, however, pointed out that the use of consultants for manage-
ment issues is common.) It must also be remembered that the companies
sampled were large and that for smaller companies, it is possible that different
findings might have resulted.

Government organizations (agencies and laboratories)

None of the 11 successful innovations used the help of a government agency
or laboratory, and none of the 11 unsuccessful innovations used government
assistance. When I explored this more deeply, the explanations seemed to be
that the large West German firms have good research facilities and there is
seldom need to go to the government for assistance on the development of new
products or processes. The most probable implication of this is that the more
basic work being performed by the government was of little applied use for the
firms' new product and process developments.

Other firms
It was found that outside assistance from other firms was used often and was
associated with successful projects in nine out of eleven successful innovations
(see Table 1). Needless to say, this may not be cause and effect, but the data
TABLEI. ASSISTANCE OF OTHER FIRMS IN INNOVATION

Project Project
success failure
Use of other firms 9 1 10
No use of other firms 2 10 12
11 11 22
The Fisher exact probability test shows P < 0.005.

seems to show a high use of other firms which is statistically significant. These
findings are consistent with Allen's findings showing the importance of outside
firms to innovation [I]. The use of other firms by the innovating firm was
generally a substantial part of the total research effort.

The independent inventor

The role of the independent outside inventor as an organizational link
affecting innovation was also investigated. It is known that today's research
efforts require teams, and it has been argued that most innovation comes from
the use of cross disciplinary efforts [I 5]. Of the 22 projects I examined, only two
came from outside inventors. Of the two, both were unsuccessful innovations.
During the presentation of these findings at a leading German university
(University of Saarlandes), it was suggested that perhaps this low use of outside
39
 Gerstenfeld--Interdependence and Innovation

inventions is due to the fact that the companies sampled were large companies.
The argument was that large companies can afford their own inventors and
research groups so one might expect to find a low frequency of outside inventors.
That is, of course, possible, and one can only conjecture what the results would
be with smaller companies. My belief is that the use of independent inventors
is very limited although perhaps not quite as limited in small companies as in
larger ones. It has been found in other studies that 80-90 ~ of all inventions
are made by employed inventors [14].
Mansfield states, " . . . independent inventors continue to produce a significant
share of the important inventions, although their relative importance seems to
have declined." [7] I found that the decline is even more significant than
suggested, although none of the companies I interviewed were willing to close
the doors to the possibility of the use of outside inventions.
As another issue regarding the use of outside inventors, it is important to
consider that the invention is but a small part of the innovative process [3]. As
such, it represents a small portion of the cost of innovation. Since innovation is
defined as a given technological change, innovation can exist with or without
invention. Schmookler points out that "Society generally uses far more of its
resources to disseminate technology than to advance it. This is plain from the
far greater manpower, including that of students, devoted to formal and informal
technological education than to discovery and invention." [16] We can dis-
tinguish four kinds of technology-producing activities: research, inventive
activity, development, and marketing. It is clear that the inventive activity may
or may not be present in innovation, but the major costs are generally in
development and marketing. The firms may, therefore, hesitate to invest the
larger costs on a technological change from an outside invention in which they
have limited confidence. This is rightly so since the 'in-house' invention is better
understood by the personnel. Perhaps equally important is the strong commit-
ment that is concomitant with one's own invention. Funds can then be
invested in the more expensive portions of the innovative process.
The well established concept of internal commitment also adds to the diffi-
culty faced by the firms when trying to use outside inventions. It is too often
that this commitment is lacking when the invention is from the outside. In my
investigation of the cases in which an outside invention was used and the
project was unsuccessful, I had further evidence of the 'not-invented-here'
syndrome which I am afraid is still often used as the excuse for failure.

V. S U M M A R Y A N D CONCLUSIONS
This study focuses on the use of interorganizational links and innovation. It
was found that only a very small number of the projects studied used the direct
assistance of universities or consulting organizations. Furthermore, none of
the projects investigated used the assistance of government laboratories.
40
 Omega, Vol. 5, No. 1

H o w e v e r , it was f o u n d t h a t the use by the i n n o v a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n o f assistance

f r o m o t h e r firms was frequent a n d c o r r e l a t e d w i t h success.
T h e strong i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l link, n a m e l y interfirm, was associated with
a large p o r t i o n o f the research effort. T h e decision to seek assistance f r o m
a n o t h e r firm was generally b a s e d on skills which the second firm possessed
which were n o t within the expertise o f the i n n o v a t i n g organization. One c o u l d
argue t h a t a l t h o u g h these interfirm relationships m a y have been i m p o r t a n t for
some time, they b e c o m e even m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o d a y as the i n d i v i d u a l firm is
u n a b l e to m a i n t a i n the b r e a d t h essential for current technologies.
T h e relationship between the i n d e p e n d e n t outside i n v e n t o r a n d the i n n o v a t i n g
o r g a n i z a t i o n was examined. T o no surprise it was f o u n d that the use o f outside
inventors is limited, a n d it was surmised that, as t e c h n o l o g y becomes m o r e
c o m p l e x , this link m a y be expected to b e c o m e even further diminished.
It is believed t h a t these findings c o u p l e d with o t h e r investigations, are starting
to shed some light on the relationships, a n d p e r h a p s place m o r e e m p h a s i s on
the i m p o r t a n c e o f i n t e r - o r g a n i z a t i o n a l linkages a n d i n n o v a t i o n . Like m a n y
studies, several i m p o r t a n t questions r e m a i n u n a n s w e r e d a n d will hopefully be
the subject o f future investigations.

REFERENCES

1. ALLENTJ and COHENSI (1969) Information flow in research and development laboratories.
Admin. Sci. Q. 14, 12-19.
2. GERSTENFELDA (1970) Effective Management of Research and Development. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA, USA.
3. GERSTENFELDA (1976) Innovation: A Study of Technological Policy. University Press of
America, Washington, DC, USA.
4. GERSTENEELDA (1976) A study of successful projects, unsuccessful projects, and projects
in process in West Germany. IEEE Trans. Engng. Mgmt. ENI23.(3), 116-123.
5. GERSTENEELDA, TURK CD, FARROWR and SPICER R (1969) Marketing and R&D. Res.
Mgmt 12(6), 409-412.
6. JOHNSTONR and GmnoNs M (1975) Characteristics of information usage in technological
innovation. IEEE Trans. Engng Mgmt EM22(1), 27-34.
7. MANSFIELDE (1971) Technological Change. Norton, New York.
8. MANSFIELDE and WAGNERS (1975) Organizational and strategic factors associated with
probabilities of success in industrial research and development. J. Bus. 48(2), 179-198.
9. MEYERSS and MARQUISD (1969) Successful commercial innovations. National Science
Foundation, NSF 69-71.
10. PAVITTK and WALKERW (1976) Government policies towards industrial innovation: a
review. Res. Policy 5(1), 15-93.
11. ROTHWELLR, FREEMANC, HORLSEYA, JERVIS VTP, ROBERTSONAB and TOWNSEND J
(1974) SAPPHO Updated--project SAPPHO Phase II, Research Policy 3, 258-291.
12. ROTHWELLR and ROBERTSONAB (1975) The contribution of poor communication to
innovative failure. Workshop at Polytechnic of Central London.
13. RUBENSTEINA, CHAKRABARTIA and O'KEEFE R (1974) Final Technical Report on Field
Studies of the Technological Innovation Process. Northwestern Univ., USA.
14. SCHADEH (1972) Employees' inventions--law and practice in the Federal Republic of
Germany. Ind. Property, 249-254.
15. SCHERERFM (1967) Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers.
Am. Econ. Rev. 57, 529.
41
 Gerstenfeld--Interdependence and Innovation

16. SCHMOOKLERJ (1966) Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge, MA.
17. UTTERBACHJ (1971) The process of innovation: a study of the origin and development of
ideas for new scientific instruments. IEEE Trans. Engng Mgmt. 124-131.
18. VERNONR (1971) Sovereignty at Bay. Basic Books, New York.
19. VON I-IaPPEL E (1975) The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation
process. M I T Working Paper, 764-75.

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Professor A Gerstenfeld, Head o f the Department of

Management, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609, USA.

42