What motivates firms to engage in shared innovation activities in complex technologies, where appropriation of value is interdependent on others? Transaction cost economics prescribes that innovations that are complex and systemic in nature should not be distributed among several actors. Here the firm is clearly the locus of innovation. Opposed to this, the network-based view suggests that a distributed organization may be the most efficient way to organize innovative processes under uncertain and rapidly changing conditions and that, because the locus of innovation is the collaborative network, firms are forced to join in order to stay informed. However, these two contrasting views both overlook the complexities of real-life activities. Understanding that firms' motives and propensity to collaborate are contingent on and evolve as industries evolve is the key to understanding their attitude towards sharing and co-developing knowledge.
Afuah, A. (2006) `Transaction Cost Economics Meets Evolutionary Economic Theory in the Face of Radical Technological Change', paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 11—16 August.
2.
Andersen, P.H. and Drejer, I. (2006) Danmark som Wind Power Hub — Mellem virkelighed og mulighed [Denmark as Wind Power Hub — Between Reality and Possibility] . Copenhagen: Vindmølleindustrien .
3.
Barnett, M.L., Starbuck, W.H. and Pant, P.N. (2003) `Which Dreams Come True? Endogeneity, Industry Structure and Forecasting Accuracy', Industrial and Corporate Change12(4): 653—72.
4.
Benson, K.J. (1975) `The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy', Administrative Science Quarterly20(2): 229—49.
5.
Bourdieu, P. and Waquant, L.J.D. (1992) Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6.
Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B.J. (1998) Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
7.
Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M. and Rickne, A. (2002) `Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issues', Research Policy31: 233—45.
9.
Chesbrough, H.W. and Teece, D.J. (1996) `When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation ', Harvard Business Review, January—February: 65—73.
10.
Chesbrough, H.W. and Teece, D.J. (2002) `Organizing for Innovation: When is Virtual Virtuous?' (HBR Classic), Harvard Business Review August: 127—34.
11.
Christensen, P.R. and Munksgaard, K.B. (2002) Når Mælk bliver til Stål — den rustfri stålindustri i trekantsområdet 1880—2002 [When Milk Turns to Steel — The Stainless Steel Industry in the Triangle Region 1880—2002] . Kolding: University of Southern Denmark.
12.
Conolly, T., Conlon, E.J. and Deutsch, S.J. (1980) `Organizational Effectiveness: A Multiple Constituency Approach', Academy of Management Review5: 211—17.
13.
Danish Wind Industry Association (2006) Annual Report — March 2006, URL http://www.wind-power.org/media(1034,1030)/aarsberetning_-_annual_report_2005.pdf .
14.
Dei Ottati, G. (1994) `Cooperation and Competition in the Industrial Districts as an Organization Model', European Planning Studies2: 463—84.
15.
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000) `Creating and Managing a High-Perfomance Knowledge Sharing Network: The Toyote Case', Strategic Management Journal21: 345—67.
16.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) `Building Theories Form Case Study Research', Academy of Management Review14: 532—50.
17.
Foss, N.J. and Eriksen, B. (1995) `Competitive Advantage and Industry Capabilities ', in C. A. Montgomery (ed.) Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis , pp. 43—69. Dordrecht and Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
18.
Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (1995) `Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution', Strategic Management Journal16 (Special Issue on Technological Transformation and the New Competitive Landscape): 93—109.
19.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
20.
Gilbert, L.S. (2002) `Going the Distance: Closeness in Qualitative Data Analysis Software', Social Research Methodology5(3): 215—28.
21.
Hagg, I. and Johanson, J. (1983) Firms in Networks. Stockholm : Business and Social Research Institute.
22.
Håkansson, H. (1987) Industrial Technological Development: A Network Perspective. London: Croom Helm .
23.
Hamel, G. (1990) `Competing for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning within International Strategic Alliances', Strategic Management Journal12: 83—103.
24.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990) `Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms', Administrative Science Quarterly35: 9—30.
25.
Hoffman, A.J. (1999) `Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism and the US Chemical Industry', Academy of Management Journal42(4): 351—71.
Kaplan, S., Schenkel, A., von Krogh, G. and Weber, C. (2001) `Knowledge-Based Theories of the Firm in Strategic Management: A Review and Extension', MIT Sloan Working Paper 4216—01.
28.
Karnøe, P. (1991) Dansk vindmølleindustri — en overraskende international success: Innovation, teknologipolitik og industriudvikling [Danish Wind Turbine Industry — A Surprisingly International Success: Innovation, Technology Policy and Industrial Development]. Copenhagen : Samfundslitteratur.
29.
Karnøe, P. (1999) `When Low-Tech Becomes High-Tech: The Social Construction of Technological Learning Processes in the Danish and the American Wind Turbine Industry', in P. Karnøe, P. H. Kristensen and P. H. Andersen (eds) Mobilizing Resources and Generating Competences , pp.139—85. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
30.
Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) `An Overview of Innovation', in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds) The Positive Sum Strategy, pp. 275—305. Washington: National Academy Press.
31.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) `Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology', Organization Science3(3): 383—97.
32.
Latour, B. (1989) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Lawrence, T., Hardy, B. and Phillips, N. (2002) `Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-Institutions', Academy of Management Journal45(1): 281—91.
34.
Lorenz, E. (1999) `Trust, Contract and Economic Cooperation', Cambridge Journal of Economics23: 301—15.
35.
Lounsbury, M. (2007) `A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds', Academy of Management Journal50(2): 289—308.
36.
Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001) `Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources', Strategic Management Journal22(6—7): 545—64.
37.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
38.
Martin, J.L. (2003) `What is Field Theory?', American Journal of Sociology33(2): 27—54.
39.
Maskell, P. (2001) `Towards a Knowledge-based Theory of the Geographical Cluster', Industrial and Corporate Change10(4): 921—43.
40.
Merriam, S. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
41.
Meyer, N.I. and Koefoed, A.L. (2003) `Danish Energy Reform: Policy Implications for Renewables', Energy Policy597—607.
42.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA.
44.
Nooteboom, B. (2000) Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economics . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
45.
Powell, W.W. (1990) `Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization', Research in Organizational Behavior12: 295—336.
46.
Powell, W.W. (1992) `Competitive Cooperation in Biotechnology: Learning Through Networks?', in N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles (eds) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, pp. 366—94. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
47.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) `Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biology', Administrative Science Quarterly41: 116—45.
48.
Richardson, G.B. (2003) `The Organization of Industry Re-visited', paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, 12—14 June.
49.
Seo, M.-G. and Creed W.E.D. (2002) `Institutional Contradictions, Praxis and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective', Academy of Management Review27(2): 222—47.
50.
Spender, J.-C. and Grant, R.M. (1996) `Knowledge and the Firm: Overview', Strategic Management Journal17: 5—9.
51.
Teece, D.J. (1986) `Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy', Research Policy15: 285—305.
52.
Thorelli, H.B. (1986) `Networks: Between Markets and Hierarchies', Strategic Management Journal7(1): 37—51.
53.
Weick, K.E. (1976) `Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems ', Administrative Science Quarterly March: 1—11.
54.
Williamson, O.E. (1974) `The Economics of Antitrust: Transaction Cost Considerations ', University of Pennsylvania Law Review122 (June): 1439—96.
55.
Williamson, O.E. (2002) `The Theory of the Firm as a Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract', Journal of Economic Perspectives3(16): 171—95.
56.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
