Midterm Evaluation Report CIR

(1)

Midterm Evaluation Report CIR

2011

(2)

(3)

Report on CIR site visit dd. July 4, 2011

I. Introduction

This note reports the major findings and conclusions of the research assessment site visit of the Center for Innovation Research (CIR) at the University of Tilburg.

The report is based on the following sources of information: 1) Self-assessment report made by CIR-Tilburg;

2) Guidelines provided by the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009 - 2015 for research assessment in the Netherlands by KNAW, VSNU and NOW;

3) Interviews conducted on July 4th_{2011 with faculty members, Ph.D. and M.S.}

students, postdocs and fellows, vice-deans and the rector.

The report was prepared by Dr. Gautam Ahuja, Dr. Koenraad Debackere, Dr. Brian Silverman.

The following thematic interviews were conducted, each interview focusing on a set of core questions:

With CIR Management team:

[Dr. Xavier Martin, Dr. Marius Meeus, Dr. Niels Noorderhaven, Dr. Leon Oerlemans, J.M. Dumas, MSc.]

- What is working well; what isn’t?

- Overview with citation indexes

- Clarification budget /allocation

- Benefits for the researchers

- Relationship with Eindhoven

With CIR PhD’s/CIR Research master students:

[Thijs Peeters, Aukje Leufkens, Stefan Keijl, Roland Levering, Rik Ligthart, Gertjan Lucas, Nicoleta Meslec, Sander Smit, Steffie Janssen, Linda Rademaker]

- Structure of the programme/what is different as compared to other programmes

- Plans of the group/expectations from individuals on future careers

- Interactions with faculty

- Is there sufficient supervision capacity?

(4)

With CIR Science Council: Prof. dr. Joseph Lampel

- Data strategy

- Major programme lines – focus on the long term

- Funding issues for going forward With the Rector: Prof. dr. Philip Eijlander

- His view of how this fits in the university strategy

- What are his expectations from the center

- Future funding

With the Vice-deans of the Schools: [Dr. Frans de Roon, Dr. Klaas Sijtsma]

- Relation with School of Economics and Management/Tias With the CIR fellows/CIR postdocs:

[Elena Golovko, Joris Knoben, Louis Mulotte, Wolfgang Sofka, Patrick Vermeulen, Daniela Blettner, Daniela Defazio]

- Experience on the benefits

- Improvement suggestions

With the CIR Management team (2nd_meeting):

- Relations with Economics faculty; there might be some fruitful interaction

- TiasNimbas business school – interaction?

- Eindhoven – Tilburg collaboration (or competitors)

- What benefits do you get out of participating in CIR; is there money available?

- Are there mechanisms that allow the staff number to grow

- Main external partners now are local/regional, which partners are you looking for in a European context?

- What is your strategy for acquiring European funding

- Allocation of funding; where is the money being spent (ask for directions)

- What is your strategy as related to databases; creating an infrastructure; having building blocks

- What are your benchmarks when comparing to others

In this report we provide numerical ratings of specific aspects of the Centre’s activities using the Standard Evaluation Protocol for Research Organisations. We also provide a descriptive evaluation of the Centre that elaborates upon these ratings, and provide suggestions for the future direction of the Centre.

The scale of the evaluation protocol runs from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent). Our overall rating of the Institute’s work and performance since its start is, on this scale, 4.64, i.e. between “very good” and “excellent”, and definitely somewhat closer to “excellent” than to “very good”.

(5)

II. The objectives of the Institute and its programmes

CIR was established with the aim to generate top-quality academic research in the area of innovation. The Centre’s initial vision was “to be internationally recognized as an influential and dynamic centre of research in the field of innovation strategy and organization of innovation.” Toward this end, CIR has focused its research efforts on three inter-related programs: innovation strategy, inter-organizational collaboration, and organizational learning. In its first three years of existence, CIR has made substantial progress in each of these programs. It has become a visible and recognized player in each of those areas, demonstrating the ability to publish in the top journals relevant to these endeavours.

The “innovation strategy” program focuses on strategic challenges associated with developing and commercializing new innovations – how to allocate R&D effort, whether and when to introduce new products, and how to govern the introduction of such products. CIR researchers have collaborated with a wide range of international scholars from both the EU and North America to explore these issues, and have already published relevant articles in several prominent academic journals.

The “inter-organizational collaboration” program focuses on the role of alliances and networks in supporting the development and commercialization of innovation. This is one of the “hottest” issues in innovation research today. We are impressed by the contributions that CIR researchers have made to the discussion about this issue. CIR researchers in this area have engaged with scholars from other institutions in the Netherlands as well as with scholars from other countries in the EU. This work has already yielded several articles in top field journals.

The “organizational learning” program focuses on the dynamics of an organization’s absorptive capacity for innovation. Mechanisms and contexts are studied that allow an organization to efficiently access and/or absorb knowledge both from internal and external sources. CIR researchers have been making highly valuable contributions to this issue. Visible publication output has been achieved so far and we are convinced that this CIR research agenda will create a CIR footprint in the area of innovation and organizational learning.

As far as educational programs are concerned, the research master either at TiSEM on business and organization strategy or at TiSBeS on organization studies is perceived a highly relevant pre-doctoral activity. The research master programmes are judged to be of high quality and relevance, thus contributing to the effectiveness of the PhD trajectory that follows.

Another striking aspect of the CIR is its multi-disciplinary and collaborative nature. Besides the multi-disciplinary origins of CIR within Tilburg University, a strong collaborative eco-system is emerging, both locally and internationally. As far as the local dimension is concerned, there are relations with Eindhoven, amongst others,

(6)

through the director of the Brabant Centre of Entrepreneurship (BCE), who is also a fellow of CIR. Stronger links between CIR, BCE and TU Eindhoven are now being explored and developed. In addition, collaborations with industrial sectors are taking shape (e.g. the ship building industry), thus fostering the interaction between academic research and industrial application. As far as the international dimension is concerned, CIR is increasingly involved in a myriad of international collaborations and programs, including the delivery at Tilburg University of a high-quality conference with substantial international participation. We were impressed both by the numbers and the depth of this international involvement. The case of the interactions with Bocconi University was a particular interesting and relevant one. We find that CIR further adds value for Tilburg University along three major axes: (1) community building in the area of innovation and organization, (2) attracting high-potential PhD students and (3) building a strong international research network. To conclude, we are very much impressed by the depth, the international visibility and the quality of the research programme that has been developed at CIR since its start a couple of years ago. We are therefore convinced that CIR will meet the ambitions set out in its initial business plan.

III. Staffing and leadership

We have found the centre to be well managed. PhD students and postdocs are enthusiastic about the way CIR operates. Funding is adequate and allows for the development of creative and novel research agenda’s. The current period for the funding provided by the university is five years. After that, the continuation of the Centre will depend both on externally acquired funding and/or on being selected as one of the limited number of “centres of excellence” at Tilburg University. It is good to see that already a few large external sources of funding have been attracted. This is a fine starting point allowing for a larger variety in funding sources to be achieved in the near future. This will make the Centre less dependent on a limited number of funding sources and projects and hence financially less vulnerable. As always, this diversification of funding will be challenging and should not affect the basic objectives and mission of CIR, in particular as more funding from industry sources is sought after. In addition, CIR leadership has been able to build a strong international dimension to CIR. It is important to make sure that attracting international scholars and fundraising from local industry should co-exist and reinforce one another. We are convinced that the current leadership at CIR is able to meet that challenge, however this means that it will have to rely on an appropriate mix of funding mechanisms, including sufficient funding for fundamental research. As we note later, it will be crucial that CIR continue to have access to substantial non-industry funds, either through competitive grants or other sources, to support its research agenda.

(7)

During the interviews with the students and postdocs, it became clear that academic leadership at the Centre is very strong and highly appreciated. The faculty involved in CIR is highly committed, interactions on research agendas and research projects are evaluated to be highly valuable and constructive, communication amongst all members of the CIR community is judged efficient and effective, intense mentoring is one of the major critical success factors at CIR.

We were very much impressed by the good job done by CIR leadership in increasing the international visibility of the PhD and postdoc activities. The students do benefit much from this approach.

To conclude: we find CIR leadership to be strong and effective, the staff to be highly motivated, and the interactions between staff and leadership to be exemplary.

IV. Research outputs

CIR has been able to demonstrate a strong productivity profile, notwithstanding its young age. With 9 PhD students enrolled in 2010, CIR is well on its way to develop a sufficient critical mass of PhD research in the field of innovation. The growth since its inception has been continuous and significant, thus meeting expectations and definitely enabling the programme to achieve its aims as articulated in the original CIR business plan.

In terms of publication output, a steady rise is to be seen. Journal publication output has doubled between 2008 and 2010: from 21 to 42 publications. Book publications have decreased, though the increase in journal publication output more than compensates for this. We are impressed by the increasing presence of CIR researchers in the top-10% and the top-25% of the management journals. In 2009, 28 out of 30 publications were in the 25% of their fields, 6 out of 30 in the top-10%. We agree with the statement in the self-evaluation report that the fact that CIR scholars have been able to publish their innovation research results in the top journals in the field of general management is a remarkable achievement --- highlighting the quality and the relevance of the work done at CIR. This feat is even more impressive than the mere quantification of the publication output as it underlines the high quality levels that are being reached at CIR.

This high quality level is further corroborated by the prizes and awards bestowed upon CIR researchers. Despite CIR’s young age, the prize list is growing to be impressive and highly international --- thus further fuelling the international exposure and visibility of the Centre.

Finally, we also point to the editorships, the invited speeches and the conference organization activities by CIR members. Once again, the volume and frequency of those activities points to the quantity and the quality of the innovation research undertaken at CIR. One can only be impressed by what has been achieved so far.

(8)

This track record signals and forebodes well for what is yet to come in the years ahead.

V. Doctoral research

The PhD programme is the cornerstone of the CIR research agenda. The inflow into the doctoral program has been rising steadily and the focus on high-quality doctoral students is visibly paying off. The steady increase in research publication output as well as prizes and rewards goes hand in hand with the growth of the doctoral programme. Also, the intensity and the quality of faculty-student interactions and the mentorship provided by the faculty are perceived high. In addition, blending the postdocs into this process definitely adds value.

The international ambition and focus of the doctoral program, as can also be seen from the many international relations that have been developed and that are described in the self-evaluation report, will support both the growth in visibility of the CIR research and the position of the PhD students on the international academic job market.

Thanks to the starting grants it has received, CIR is able to maintain a steady inflow into the PhD programme. The number of students may not be huge, but certainly allows for the development of an innovation research community with sufficient critical mass. The fact that the PhD programme takes three years, instead of the usual four years at many other places, offers CIR an advantage. It also is in line with recent evolutions at the European level.

The preparation via the research masters allows for a deep knowledge on relevant subject matters in economics, econometrics, organization theory and social studies. It is positive to see that a dedicated innovation course has now been added to the research master, thus blending the core focus of CIR into this important pre-doctoral activity and process. Exchange programmes are not mandatory, but the students are stimulated to go abroad for half a year. The exchange partner is usually connected to Tilburg University. Exchange can also be arranged on the basis of relevant personal connections of the supervisor.

Clearly, the PhD students, we have seen, aim high. They understand the world of competitive, international research and they want to deliver work of high quality and visibility. The achievement of this ambition can be seen in the rising research output and in the awards and prizes CIR obtains. In this context, we refer to the 2 awards CIR PhD students have obtained at this year’s Academy of Management Conference in San Antonio.

Besides this ambition for top research output, we found that PhD students also understand the potential added value of designing, building and developing unique data infrastructures that can fuel several doctoral research projects and that may

(9)

further help CIR to achieve a unique international position as a research partner in consortia and collaborative endeavours. Today, there is an emerging awareness at CIR as to the relevance and timeliness of such data-oriented endeavours. It is strongly recommended that CIR would pursue and further articulate its efforts in this area. The doctoral students, but also the postdocs and the faculty, will fare well by such an evolution.

Depending on the department the PhD students are belonging to (TiSEM or TiSBeS), teaching may involve one (academic skills) course and supervision of bachelor theses. Teaching takes about 10% of the available time. PhD students participate in a training to acquire the necessary teaching skills. This activity is well appreciated by the students.

As far as the organization of the PhD process is concerned, the PhD committee is fully composed during the last year of PhD work. The members participate in the pre-defence. PhD students receive feedback from the PhD committee and have ample and frequent chance to discuss their papers with the members. All faculty members are involved in supervising PhD research and their interventions are clearly appreciated by the PhD students.

The students particularly like following features of the PhD process at CIR:

- The option of working together in a project team;

- The explicit possibilities to relate to each others’ work --- there really is a “CIR community”;

- The CIR seminars;

- The visiting scholars programme;

- The video conference class;

- The quality of the supervision;

- The students like that they get acquainted with the whole range of research related activities, like research seminar presentations etc.

The PhD students also see development and growth opportunities such as:

- Increasing the exposure to another research environment and developing a personal network at other universities. Therefore, structural stays abroad may be intensified. A mandatory semester abroad might help;

- Cross-fertilization opportunities (leading to truly interdisciplinary research efforts) are present at the moment, though their frequency may increase further;

- Institutionalizing unique larger scale data collection opportunities, so that continuity and critical mass in data work can be achieved. New PhD students will then have the possibility to work on data sets collected by current and previous project teams.

Overall, we were impressed by the quality of the discussion with the students. Our conclusions on strengths and opportunities of the doctoral ambitions at CIR can be summarized as follows:

(10)

Strengths:

- Serious, hardworking individuals;

- The group is diverse, and there is a high level of interaction and collaboration;

- We spent quite a bit of time with the younger persons and we were quite impressed by their creative ideas;

- Projecting visibility, publication targeting; selection of topics appear to us as major strong points;

- The conference organized by CIR was very successful; a very good job was done.

- The aspiration levels of the PhD students and their understanding of what it will take to get there are impressively high and clear, respectively. CIR faculty have clearly done a tremendous job in communicating and inspiring a high standard of intellectual leadership.

Opportunities:

- Everyone definitely is scholarly engaged – however, a next step should be for CIR to more visibly become an agenda setter – thus developing and

articulating a unique forward looking agenda in the field of innovation and organization research. This “agenda setting” is happening at this very moment --- there is a lot of work on: Knowledge based organizations; Temporary organizations --- and should hence be pushed further in the three years to come.

VI. Role and impact of the scientific advisory council

The CIR management team has assembled a very impressive scientific council that includes some of the world’s most prestigious scholars of innovation strategy. The scientific council, which meets once or twice a year, has a positive and reinforcing impact on developing the CIR ambitions. Although there is no formal or explicit task description for the council, a best-practice approach (based on documentation and conversation) has developed. The activities of the council involve brainstorming rather than directly impacting the CIR research agenda. It is a service mode, rather than an intervention mode. This approach has worked well during the first 2.5 years of CIR. We believe that this approach could benefit from becoming a bit more formal in the years to come. Specifically, below we suggest, although not firmly, that the council could become involved in (certain) internal research debates. However, it is clear that the scientific council should not set the agenda.

The council is definitely positive on the PhD training offered:

o Students get multiple feedback;

(11)

o Principal investigator is strongly involved;

o Scholarly literature is followed well and is intimately understood; o The students are never allowed to stay in their comfort zones.

VII. Social relevance

Innovation is one of the focal items on managerial and policymaking agendas today. At the same time, many intricate dimensions of the successful organization of innovation need further insight and understanding. The CIR research agenda is right at the heart of those themes. Given the focus and the quality of the research agenda developed at CIR, we are convinced of the promising contributions that have been and will be made.

The PhD programme adds further to this relevance given that it will provide a continuous outflow of talented people who will assume career opportunities and responsibilities that will contribute to the more effective articulation of innovation agenda’s in business and society.

Finally, CIR has now started to successfully attract interesting collaborative projects with industry sectors and companies. This will allow for a beneficial interaction between theory and practice, transferring research insights to industry and thus increasing the effectiveness of industrial innovation practices --- while at the same time feeding the CIR research agenda with relevant questions and themes.

Hence, we see a promising evolution that blends insights from research, PhD education and knowledge transfer throughout the portfolio of CIR activities.

VIII. Institutional view and relations

CIR has been working hard to engage in connections at three levels: (1) within Tilburg University where the relationship with TIAS and the marketing group may offer a clear added value to the CIR agenda, (2) within the Netherlands where relations with TU Eindhoven and BCE are pursued, and (3) internationally where CIR can already rely on a strong network of partnerships and collaborations.

The ambitions for CIR at Tilburg University are clear:

- Enhance cooperation between the two “CIR founding” schools on the campus, and visibly strengthen the innovation research agenda by this cooperation. In addition, connecting to TiasNimbas in order to increase the outreach of CIR and to researchers at Tilburg University who focus on marketing, new products and innovation, offers another opportunity to further strengthen the CIR group;

(12)

- Build a strong international research network around CIR;

- Connect to society and to companies, especially since the research is addressing innovation within companies. It is important therefore that companies are willing to participate/invest in this kind of research. The institutional view is that a promising research centre will display:

- Trust

- Reputation

- Longer term investigations

From an institutional point of view, CIR should thus attain a visible and measurable impact on the field of innovation (recognised by peers); further institutionalization therefore requires visible and high profile agenda setting.

Our investigation reveals that CIR leadership definitely understands these ambitions, is willing to go for them and has already made significant strides to achieve them.

Finally, the funding issue is highly relevant and important in this respect. In the years to come, CIR should find and strike a balance between the internal grant funding by Tilburg University and external funding from research agencies, companies and other competitive funding bodies like the European Framework Programs. CIR has now received a significant amount of seed funding (for a 5 year period). After the initial grant period, a necessary condition for sustainability will be the ability to acquire sufficient levels of external funding. Steps have been taken in that direction, though continuous action and further growth will be needed. To our knowledge, CIR leadership is fully aware of this challenge and is working diligently to cope with it. However, we recognize that excessive reliance on industry funding can distort CIR’s academic agenda in at least two ways. First, such funding could lead to a focus on research that reflects narrow, private interests rather than socially relevant issues. Second, one of CIR’s great achievements is to attract excellent scholars from around the world; yet it is often difficult for expatriates to obtain industry funding for research. Thus, we do wish to encourage Tilburg University, and the two “parent” schools, to remain committed to doing what they can to see that CIR receive sufficient non-industry funds, either internal or external.

VIII. The Standard Evaluation Protocol

Based on consultation amongst the members of the visiting team, the overall assessment ranges between “very good” and “excellent” --- with an average of 4.64 out of 5; i.e. a score that is definitely closer to “excellent” than to “very good”.

(13)

Assessment criteria: scores

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA SCORE

Quality A1. Quality and

scientific relevance of the research 5 A2. Leadership 5 A3. Academic reputation 5 A4. Resources 4 A5 PhD training 5 Productivity B1. Productivity strategy 5 B2. Productivity 5

Relevance C Societal relevance 4

Vitality and feasibility D1. Strategy 4 D2. SWOT-analysis 4 D3. Robustness and stability 5

IX. Overall impression and conclusions for the next 2,5 year period

The site visit team was impressed by the quality of the research, the research talent present, the current research achievements and the ambitions set by the Centre. Thus far, CIR has clearly lived up to the expectations set out at its creation. Given the current level of achievement, we are convinced that CIR will live up to (and is likely to surpass) the ambitions outlined in its initial business plan. In order to build and develop the Centre during the second stage of the grant, we offer some final advice as to what the road ahead might look like:

1. Keep increasing the international visibility of the Centre: CIR will then be a visible landmark of innovation research in Europe. To that end, make the uniqueness of the innovation agenda of CIR more explicit still. What are the research themes for which CIR wants to be known as the originator?

2. Continue to enrich the variety and intensity of international contacts. Make sure the students keep going abroad as a structural part of their doctoral education. They should spend some time with and should work with the best of the best in the areas relevant to their research.

3. Increase the “flow” of researchers through Tilburg to provide an even richer environment for the faculty and doctoral students. Multiple pathways can be

(14)

conceived for this including visiting faculty seminars, short term secondments, seminars abroad for Tilburg students, etc,

4. Continue to develop an exhaustive and encompassing data strategy and infrastructure: this should put CIR in a unique and enriched partnering position.

5. Pay attention to embed CIR further within the university: develop and build the relationship with TIAS. Connect to the marketing group that also has a high level of activity in the area of new product development and innovation. 6. The aim of CIR should be to consolidate a top (3-to-5) European position in the relevant fields within the three years to come. This will be achieved by further stressing the interdisciplinary research agenda, focusing on the continued increase of high-level and high-impact output, while further developing the link with industry and achieving a sufficient level of financial sustainability and independence.

7. Use the scientific council as a sounding board and testing ground for the main research options taken by CIR; solicit input on the CIR’s trajectory from the scientific council.

8. Additional funding, as described above, is at present coming in. Therefore, confidence in the self-supporting character of CIR is warranted and should grow.

9. Maintain the strong internal communication at CIR.

10.Make sure you have your key comparative figures ready. Benchmark CIR against relevant peers in terms of scope, goals, size, output and impact. We are convinced that CIR is able to cope with the 10 items listed above. They should enable a Centre that has already reached research visibility and impact, to further pursue and achieve its ambition to become a European thought leader and agenda setter in the field of innovation research.

(15)

Appendix I. CVs of the external committee members

CV of Brian Silverman

Dr. Brian Silverman is a full professor of Strategic Management at the Rotman School of Management (University of Toronto). He also holds the J.R.S. Prichard and Ann Wilson Chair in Management at the same school. He obtained his PhD from University of California at Berkeley. His research interests include competitive and cooperative strategy, management of innovation and theory of the firm. In his research he aims to shed light on the ways that firms' strategies and organizational structures interact to affect their performance - in particular, their ability to access and exploit technological capabilities. His work has been published across the range of top management journals, such as Strategic Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Strategic Organization, and Research Policy. Some of his work has also been featured in New York Times and Business Week. He serves as the Advisory Editor of Research Policy and sits on the Editorial Boards of Organization Science and Strategic Organization.

Key publications:

1. Oxley, J.E., Sampson, R.C. & Silverman, B.S. (2009). Arms race or détente? How interfirm alliance announcements change the stock market valuation of rivals. Management Science, 55(8): 1321-1337.

2. Figueiredo, J.M. de. & Silverman, B.S. (2007). Churn baby, churn: Strategic dynamics among dominant and fringe firms in a segmented industry. Management Science, 53(4): 632-650.

3. McGahan, A.M. & Silverman, B.S. (2006). Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitors patenting on firm value. Research Policy, 35(8): 1222-1242.

4. Argyres, N.S. & Silverman, B.S. (2004). R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 929 – 958.

5. Baum, J.A.C. & Silverman, B.S. (2004) Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3): 411-436.

6. Nickerson, J.A. & Silverman, B.S. (2003). Why firms want to organize efficiently and what keeps them from doing so: Inappropriate governance, performance, and adaptation in a deregulated industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(3): 43-465.

(16)

7. Silverman, B.S. & Baum, J.A.C. (2002). Alliance-based competitive dynamics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 791-806.

8. Silverman, B.S. (2002). Technological change and the evolution of corporate innovation: The structure of patenting 1890-1990. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 311-313.

9. McGahan, A.M. & Silverman, B.S. (2001). How does innovative activity change as industries mature? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19(7): 1141-1160.

10. Baum, J.A.C., Calabrese, T. & Silverman, B.S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 267-294.

11. Silverman, B.S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8): 1109-1124.

12. Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. & Silverman, B.S. (1998). Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27(5): 507-523.

13. Silverman, B.S., Nickerson, J.A. & Freeman, J. (1997). Profitability, transactional alignment, and organizational mortality in the U.S. trucking industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (Summer Special Issue): 31-52.

14. Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. & Silverman, B.S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 77-91.

CV of Gautam Ahuja

Dr. Gautam Ahuja is Professor of Strategy and a Hallman Faculty Fellow at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. He is the Chairperson of the Strategy group at the Ross School. Prior to joining the University of Michigan in 2001 he was on the faculty of the Red McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin. He obtained his doctoral degree from The University of Michigan in 1996. His work experience includes co-founding and running his own company and several years in various managerial positions with Pond's/Unilever, a global consumer products company.

Gautam Ahuja's research interests focus on how firms use technology to gain and exploit competitive advantage. His work has been published in top management journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Strategic Management Journal, and Academy of Management Journal among others, and has been cited by various

(17)

federal and international bodies such as the EPA, OECD and UNEP. Some of his recent work on acquisitions has been profiled in Sloan Management Review. He is an Associate Editor for the journal, Management Science, a Senior Editor for the journal Organization Science and a member of the Editorial Board for the journals, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Strategic Organization. Professor Ahuja has also been widely involved in executive development and education and management seminars for leading organizations in many different industries including insurance, telecommunications, healthcare, medical diagnostics, and not-for-profit sectors.

Key publications:

1. Ahuja, G., Plidoro, F. Jr. & Mitchell, W. (2009). Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9): 941-958.

2. Ahuja, G., Lampert, C.M. & Tandon. V. (2008). Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management Research on the Determinants of Technological Innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 1-98.

3. Sai, Y. & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in Knowledge Structures and Its Impact on the Usefulness of Inventions and Knowledge-base Malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2): 333-362.

4. Ahuja, G. (2007). Managing network resources: Alliance, affiliation, and other relational assets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 471-481.

5. Ahuja, G., Soda, G, & Zaheer, A. (2007). The genesis and dynamics of networks. Organization Science, 18(6): 1024-1025.

6. Ahuja, G, Coff, R.W. & Lee, P.M. (2005). Managerial foresight and attempted rent appropriation: insider trading on knowledge of imminent breakthroughs. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9): 791-808.

7. Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8/9): 887-907.

8. Katila, R. & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183 – 1194)

9. Ahuja, G. & Lampert, C.M. (2001). Entreprenuership in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 521-543.

10. Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 197-220.

(18)

11. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425-455.

12. Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 317-343.

CV of Koenraad Debackere

Dr. Ir. Koenraad Debackere has been with K.U. Leuven since 1995. He obtained his Ph.D. in Management with an ICM-fellowship at the University of Gent after stays as an ICM-fellow and an ICRMOT research assistant at MIT Sloan School of Management. He was a Fulbright-Hays post-doctoral fellow at MIT in 1991-1992. Since 1992 he was for two years an assistant professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam before becoming an NFWO-Post-Doctoral Researcher in 1993. In 1995 he became professor at K.U.Leuven where he teaches Technology and Innovation Management (Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation (MSI)).

His research has focused on the area of technology and innovation management and policy. His work has been published in a variety or top scholarly journals, including International Journal of Management Reviews, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, Academy of Management Journal, Technovation and Scientometrics. He is also actively engaged in technology transfer activities as managing director of K.U. Leuven Research & Development and Chairman of the Gemma Frisius Fonds (the venture fund) of the K.U.Leuven. He is the co-founder and chairman of Leuven.Inc, the innovation network of Leuven high-tech entrepreneurs. He is a board member of IWT-Vlaanderen, the Flemish government agency that supports science and technology development in Flemish industry. Since 2005, he is the general manager of K.U.Leuven.

Key publications:

1. Berends, H., Garud, R. & Debackere, K. (2011). Thinking along: A process for tapping into knowledge across boudaries. International Journal of Technology, 53(1): 69-88.

2. Gorraiz, J., Gumpunberger, C., Glanzel, W., Debackere, K., Hornbostel, S. & Hinze, S. (2011). Esss2010: A review of the inaugurational European Summer School for Scientometrics in Berlin. Scientometrics, 86(1): 235-236.

3. Meyer, M., Debackere, K. & Glanzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationships between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2): 527-539.

(19)

4. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K. & Meyer, M. (2008). 'Triad' or 'tetrad'? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1): 71-88.

5. Rodriguez, V., Janssens, F. & Debackere, K. (2007). Material transfer agreements and collaborative publication activity: The case of biotechnology network. Research Evaluation, 16(2): 123-136.

6. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J. & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research policy, 35(4): 596-608.

7. Berends, H., van der Bij, H., Debackere, K. & Weggeman, M. (2006). Knowledge sharing mechanisms in industrial research. R & D Management, 36(1): 85-95.

8. Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tijssen, R. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66(2): 295-310.

9. Debackere, K. & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34 (3): 321-342. 10. Faems, D., Van Looy, B. & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3): 238-250.

11. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K. & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3): 425-441.

12. Ranga, L., Debackere, K. & von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2): 301-320.

13. Van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J. & Debackere, K. (2003). Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? An exploratory investigation of 10 science-intensive technology domains. Scientometrics, 57(3): 355-367.

14. Debackere, K., Buyens, D. & Vandenbossche, T. (1997). Strategic career development for R&D professionals: Lessons from field research. Technovation, 17(2): 53-62.

15. Clarysse, B., Debackere, K. & Rappa, M. (1996). Modeling the persistence of organizations in an emerging field: The case of hepatitis C. Research policy, 25(5): 671-687.