The network society Networks & circulation of knowledge 06-10-2009 Mila Davids

1. The network societyNetworks & circulation of knowledge06-10-2009Mila Davids

2. Networks & circulation of knowledge Arjan van Rooij Rudi Bekkers

3. Why networks & circulation of knowledge? • Relationships with other ‘The network society’ lectures? • Contribution to understanding of technological change • Overview lectures focusing ‘circulation of knowledge’ • Case study

4. Earlier lectures:Why networks & innovation? • Classic innovation studies focus mainly on characteristics of individuals or firms to explain innovation • e.g. firm size and innovativeness • However, innovation, is inherently social in nature • e.g. firms have relations with other firms and consequently access to additional external resources • Hence, networks of social relations between actors • (individuals and organizations) may be important factors in explaining innovation • and innovation may change networks of social relations as well

5. Innovativeness & learning • Resource based view of the firm • Edith Penrose (1959) • 1980s capabilities: historically determined; firm specific; difficult to imitate

6. Inovativeness & learning • The knowledge base view of the firm • Conner & Prahalad, Grant, Kogut & Zander • Dynamic capability perspective • Teece, Pisano, Shuen • Organizational learning & routines • Nelson & Winter • Nonaka

7. Networks & circulation of knowledge • Knowledge (& transfer) • Explicit knowledge / information <-> Tacit knowledge / know-how • General knowledge <-> specific knowledge • Innovation & capability development: Various kind of knowledge • Knowledge transfer • Documents, publications, patents, licences • Personal contacts .. • Knowledge sources • Universities -> lecture 13/10 & 17/11 • Consumers • Suppliers • competitors ..

8. Networks & circulation of knowledge • Knowledge flows via -informal / personal relations -education -licensing -alliances -co-operation / co-design .. • Networks • Specific relations: alliance networks • Sources: consumer network; supplier network -> lecture 1/12 .. • Focus on specific innovation - firm: Various knowledge sharing networks; knowledge; knowledge flows, sources, carriers -> lecture 6/10, 1/12 & 8/12

9. University – industry relations International knowledge flows Knowledge networks and societal transition Universities Arjan van Rooij (13-10) Ac Ind researchers Rudi Bekkers (17-11) Globalisation & Learning in networks Contribution to societal change

10. Why networks and alliance management? The knowledge economy is a network economy Third Industrial Revolution Second Industrial Revolution CEO • Networked model: • Economies of skill: • access to knowledge • co-development • leverage knowledge • focus on core competences • learn and innovate Staff Divisions Guild Master Pupil Master Pupil Master Pupil • ‘Stand alone’ model: • Economies of scale • Optimize assets Organizational models are transforming from “stand alone” to “networked”

11. Case study: Philips & solid-state technology • constraints for networking • actual networkbuilding • internal knowledge building • expectations • path-dependency

13. Patrick Dixon: future trends … • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99p-pWW7ljI

14. Case study: Philips & solid-state technology • constraints for networking • actual networkbuilding • internal knowledge building • expectations • path-dependency

15. 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor Importance in innovation process high External knowledge mid 1950s- High frequency transistor 1950s/1960s Silicon/IC low Internal knowledge low high

16. …????… • Why did Philips’ attitude towards external knowledge change?

17. Argument: Expectations largely influenced the searching for and acquiring of knowledge They influenced Philips’ attitude & company approached

18. Knowledge base Receptivity Expectations Necessary …. External knowledge acquisition

19. Expectations related to: • future technological possibilities, with regard to the artefact, material or process • market expectations and • ideas about broad technological trends. 4. character of the licence agreement (Van Lente)

20. Knowledge base Receptivity Self-confidence Expectations External knowledge acquisition External knowledge acquisition Coherence

21. Overview • three periods: 1. End 1940s – begin 1950s Germanium transistor 2. Mid 1950s High frequency transistor 3. End 1950s – begin 1960s Silicon / IC • aspects: -external knowledge and internal knowledge -expectations * receptivity & knowledge base * self-confidence & coherence

23. End 1940s – begin 1950sGermanium transistor • 1930s semiconductors • Selenium & copper oxide (selenium rectifiers) Natlab research • after WOII: American companies Selenium, germanium & silicon • Philis -> germanium (germanium rectifiers) experience • 1948: Bell • Transistor effect (point contact transistor) publications • 1952: Bell • layer transistor: double doping technique Bell symposium & licence agreement • Natlab versus production department: RCA (alloy junction) publications

24. Importance in innovation process high 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor External knowledge Internal knowledge low low high Importance in ‘knowledge acquisition’ Importance of expectations determined by: strong high 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor Receptivity Self-confidence 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor coherence low Knowledge base weak low high weak strong

25. Mid 1950s High frequency transistor • Mid 1950s: high frequency transistors • Philips: in-house development (POB transistors) own development • Instead of Philco’s knowledge (surface base transistor / jet etching process) Reasons: • Technical • Expected profitability • Future semiconductor companies : tube manufacturing capabilities

26. mid 1950s- High frequency transistor mid 1950s- High frequency transistor mid 1950s- High frequency transistor Importance in innovation process high 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor External knowledge Internal knowledge low low high Importance in knowlege acquisition Importance of expectations determined by: strong high 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor Receptivity Self-confidence 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor coherence low Knowledge base weak low high weak strong

27. End 1950s – begin 1960s Silicon / IC • Philips: own capabilities • End 1950s: Am. companies: silicon • Philips: germanium (silicon diodes) • Passive attitude towards silicon transistors • POB transistor / market expectations • Agreement with Texas Instruments • End 1950s: Am. Companies: ICs • Focus on germanium / poor market prospects • IBM preference (thin film versus planar process) • Underestimation of TI • Acquisition of Wembly lab (General Electric Company): not sufficient • Westinghouse

28. mid 1950s- High frequency transistor 1950s/1960s Silicon/IC 1950s/1960s Silicon/IC mid 1950s- High frequency transistor mid 1950s- High frequency transistor 1950s/1960s Silicon/IC Importance in innovation process high 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor External knowledge Internal knowledge low low high Importance in knowledge acquisition Importance of expectations determined by: strong high 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor Receptivity Self-confidence 1940s/1950s Germanium/transistor coherence low Knowledge base weak low high weak strong

29. Concluding remarks • Interaction internal knowledge building and external knowledge acquisition • In-house knowledge building important • Success -> self-confidence + coherence => external orientation • Importance market expectations (IBM) => germanium • Expected market dominance former tube companies => TI • Expectations TI licence agreement => alertness & active search • Path dependence : techniques & networking • Institutional context

30. Thank you for your attention