Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Governments in many countries have supported programmes of collaborative, pre-competitive R & D in enabling
or generic technologies. The paper is based on 6 years of research into the UK Alvey advanced information
technology (IT) programme, augmented by research on the Swedish IT4 programme. Our focus is the relationship
between pre-competitive, collaborative R & D and wider firm strategies and processes. The underlying premises of
the paper are that the benefits of pre-competitive R & D are long-term rather than short-term, systemic rather than
discrete, and accessible only through analysis of processes rather than by counting outputs or calculating return on
investment. The research provides insights into the strategies and mechanisms of firms' participation, modes of
collaboration, and the processes of technology transfer, knowledge assimilation and application within a firm.
tion, and the processes of technology transfer, kets. 3 Here 'enabling' technologies are mainly
knowledge assimilation and application within a process technologies--e.g, techniques, tools,
firm. methods and equipment--which enable a multi-
Alvey resulted from government recognition of plicity of product markets to be satisfied down-
declining IT supply-side competitiveness, market stream. Although the programme covered a spec-
failure to support longer-term R & D , the success trum of work from applied research through to
of previous Japanese R & D programmes (particu- near-market development, in the latter case it
larly in memory semiconductors) and the threat was not expected to produce commercially usable
of another, the so-called Fifth Generation pro- process technologies or products, but rather to
gramme. The aim was to coordinate effort, re- reach the stage of demonstrating feasibility or
duce duplication, maximise the return on scarce providing research prototypes. These would re-
resources and hopefully create synergistic bene- quire further investment and combination with
f i t s - t h e scale and scope economies of R & D firm-specific competences in order to bring them
coordination identified by Nelson [34]. through to the market.
In general terms, R & D collaboration in the IT The underlying premise of this paper and the
sector had become necessary because of the pace research upon which it is based is that it is not
of technological change and the increasing scale feasible to analyse the success or failure of long-
and complexity of systems, requiring ever-increas- term, pre-competitive R & D in terms of conven-
ing competences across a widening range of disci- tional performance measures such as financial
plines [30,36,54]. This has led firms to seek access return on investment, or quantitative analysis of
to technology from external sources in order to discrete outputs. The benefits from knowledge
reduce the cost of R & D , to share resources generation, new collaborative research structures,
(especially scarce skilled personnel), to partici- and pre-competitive enabling technologies are not
pate in the development of industry standards, to be found in the short term. Therefore, the
and to reduce risks and uncertainty in the R & D benefits and costs of initiatives such as Alvey are
process. Even the largest international companies best understood, at the present time, through an
may not possess all the leading-edge skills and analysis of the processes occurring within partici-
expertise covering the waterfront of technologies pant firms. In particular, these processes include
required to develop new complex technological the strategies adopted by firms towards Alvey,
systems [30,54]. the organisation of firms' Alvey participation, the
For political and economic reasons Alvey, like dynamics and mechanisms of collaboration, the
the E u r o p e a n Commission's E S P R I T Pro- processes of technology and knowledge acquisi-
gramme 2, was largely confined to 'pre-competi- tion, and the internal processes by which technol-
tive' R & D ; i.e. R & D which is distanced from ogy and knowledge are assimilated and applied
the market, being focused on 'generic' or 'en- within the firm.
abling' technologies rather than the development These are complex issues which cut across
of final-use products targeted on specific mar- many disciplines and are informed by many bod-
ies of literature. Because of the empirical focus of
this paper and the need for brevity, this is not an
appropriate vehicle for a comprehensive review
of the literature and theoretical perspectives on
R & D policy, inter-firm transactions and collabo-
Unlike most such programme names, 'Alvey' is not an
acronym, but is named after John Alvey, former Research
Director of British Telecom, who headed the eponymous
committee which proposed the programme.
2 ESPRIT is the European Strategic Programme for Re- 3 The pragmatic if atheoretical working definition of 'pre-
search and Development in Information Technologies, cur- competitive' R&D that emerged in the 1980s was 'that R&D
rently in Phase III (Phase 1 1984-1987; Phase II 1988-1992). which competing firms will agree to collaborate on'.
P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348 327
ration, technology transfer and the internal cor- ments and to assimilate knowledge or technology
porate processes of technology acquisition, learn- from outside the firm boundary, as is recognised
ing and assimilation. 4 It is necessary, however, by many authors [1,20,27,29-31,49]. This function
briefly to highlight the central concerns underpin- of R & D has been noted in relation both to
ning the questions and hypotheses which form scientific knowledge [50] and to the transfer of
the basis of the empirical enquiry. technology, as has been shown by Evanson and
The relationship between public policy and Kislev [15] in the context of agricultural technol-
corporate technology strategy is of primary inter- ogy transfer. Building on this body of evidence,
est. It has long been accepted that, unaided, the Cohen and Levinthal's empirical analysis [11]
market invests sub-optimally in research [7,32,39]. confirms that R & D has a dual role: in addition
Through the 1980s, even the UK Conservative to the generation of information and innovations,
government under Margaret Thatcher (extreme its function is to enable the firm to learn from its
espousers of the sovereignty of the market) con- environment.
tinued to acknowledge that market mechanisms This process is not only dependent on the
fail to ensure that adequate resources are allo- ability of the organisation to access, assimilate
cated to R & D [14]. The case for the Alvey Pro- and learn, but is also conditional on the types of
gramme was largely formulated in terms of mar- knowledge being transferred. Much of the knowl-
ket failure arguments, as we describe below. edge generated by R & D is tacit knowledge, which
However, political considerations imposed con- tends to build cumulatively within the organisa-
straints on the type of intervention sanctioned. In tion concerned [35]. The key distinction between
particular, and in addition to the focus on pre- codifiable and tacit knowledge was first articu-
competitive R & D, the UK government sought to lated by Polanyi [42]. Codifiable knowledge can
protect the interest of the tax-payer by ensuring be expressed and transferred in written and other
that firms participating in such R & D pro- recorded forms (designs, formulae, specifications,
grammes use public funding for additional work; etc.) whereas tacit knowledge resides within the
that is, for R & D which would not have occurred R & D personnel and may be embedded in organ-
in the absence of government support. This re- isational and social processes [56]. Such knowl-
quirement for 'additionality' clearly raises ques- edge is difficult to transfer between organisa-
tions about the relevance of such research to tions, as is aptly illustrated by a study of collabo-
firms' broader technology strategies and business ration between Western and Japanese firms.
objectives, an issue returned to in Section 4. Hamel et al. [22] found that Western companies
Alvey provides an opportunity to analyse R & D tended to bring easily imitated technology to a
collaboration at the level of the participant firms. collaboration, whereas Japanese firms' strengths
Such an inquiry must be located within the were often 'difficult to unravel' competences
framework of an understanding of the function of which were less transferable.
R&D, such as that provided by Freeman [18]. In The difficulties associated with the transfer
particular, we know that firms, in addition to the and assimilation of knowledge and technology,
pursuit of wholly internal projects, undertake R& including questions of transaction costs, appropri-
D in order to be able to track external develop- ability, and particularly the problems associated
with the transfer of tacit knowledge, are argued
by many authors to be driving firms to seek
4 A comprehensive introduction to many of the issues relat- collaborative relationships [8,24,56]. 5 There are
ing to inter-firm cooperation may be found In Contractor and
Lorange [13]. See also Mowery [29,30]. Badaracco [8] contains
insights into competitiveness through collaboration. Watkins
[56] presents a concise review of the literature relating to 5 These arguments draw on the more general theory of
R&D cooperation. Technological learning within organisa- transaction costs (Williamson [57,58]) which suggests that
tions is addressed in Argyris and Schon [5] and Fiol and Lyles market relationships between firms may fail to minimise the
[16]. For a review of IT R&D policy see Arnold and Guy [6]. cost of inter-firm transfers.
328 P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
many different forms of inter-firm collaboration. business and production units within the firms
Hennart argues that tacit knowledge is " . . . more undertaking the R&D. The linkages between
efficiently transferred if the transferor and the Alvey R & D and other functional areas of the
recipient are linked through common ownership" firm are thus important factors determining the
(i.e. equity joint ventures) rather than licensing ultimate value of Alvey work. The provision of
agreements [24, p. 366]. The efficiency of R & D horizontal links between the functional areas of
collaboration with respect to overcoming appro- the firm, often involving pro-active internal
priability problems is emphasised by Ouchi and 'gatekeepers' and the transfer of individuals be-
Bolton [37] and Watkins [56]. Drawing on tween R & D and production, has been identified
second-source material, Watkins suggests that R as being of key importance in the successful man-
& D consortia provide an effective mechanism for agement of innovation [4,10,18,28,40,48,55]. In the
firms to overcome the shortcomings of market latter sections of the paper, we analyse these firm
relationships in the inter-firm transfer of infor- processes in relation to outcomes of the research
mation and technology [56]. Reviewing high-tech- projects.
nology policies, Nelson concludes that R & D con- The paper is organised as follows. Broadly, we
sortia are a particularly appropriate mechanism move from participation strategy, through the
for R & D in the case of generic or enabling process of collaboration (accessing external
technologies [33]. This is the form of collabora- knowledge and technology) to the internal pro-
tion focused on in this paper. cesses of technology and knowledge assimilation
The question addressed here is not just and use. First, the main features of the Alvey
whether the special case of pre-competitive R & D Programme are briefly described. We then dis-
collaboration provides an effective opportunity cuss firms' strategies towards Alvey and the loca-
for knowledge and technology transfer, but also tion of Alvey R & D within the wider perspective
whether such collaboration enables participant of firms' technology strategies, and draw out the
firms to assimilate and utilise the knowledge and implications for firms of the constraints imposed
technology generated. This necessitates that we on the programme by government. Following this,
take a close look at corporate structure and or- we use empirical data on project outcomes to
ganisation in relation to R & D and the internal analyse key aspects of firm participation strategy
transfer and assimilation of knowledge. Current and R & D organisation. The processes of tech-
understanding of the innovation process suggests nology and knowledge transfer via collaboration
a number of questions regarding interventions are then discussed, and different collaboration
such as Alvey. For example, empirical evidence models identified. This is followed by an exami-
shows that the involvement of customers, users nation of intra-firm processes surrounding the
and marketing departments is a key factor in transfer, assimilation and use of Alvey R & D
determining success or failure of the innovation results.
process as observed in many sectors [25,26,51,53].
In line with pre-competitive R & D policy, which,
as Watkins [56] points out, tends to assume an
outmoded linear model of innovation, most Alvey 2. Methodology and data sources
R& D projects did not involve user organisations
or support the participation of customers for final The paper draws on many hundreds of contact
products, although projects often contained part- hours with R & D personnel, senior management
ners linked in vertical chains that were expected and business unit representatives, in participant
to promote technology and knowledge transfers. firms over the period of the 'real-time' Alvey
Within participant firms, Alvey's concentration Programme evaluation, 1984-1990. This research
on enabling technologies (e.g. techniques, tools, generated questions and hypotheses which formed
process technologies) meant that the envisaged the basis for the final Science Policy Research
'customers' for Alvey outputs were often the Unit (SPRU) questionnaire, undertaken at the
P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348 329
end of the programme in 1989-90. This received tronics, packaged software and semiconductor
responses from 350 research teams, representing markets. The UK balance of trade in IT goods
over 60% of Alvey projects, and provides quanti- moved from a surplus of £100 million in 1975 to a
tative data to support the qualitative interview- deficit of £300 million in 1980 [6]. Moreover, the
based data. The paper also draws on the final future looked bleak. The Alvey Committee, set
interviews with 90% of fully collaborative project up to propose a response, warned that the IT
managers, carried out by colleagues at PREST 6, trade deficit would reach £1 billion in 1990, a
University of Manchester. The interim [19] and level which was in fact exceeded in 1984. Analysis
final [21] Alvey evaluation reports summarise the of UK IT firms' patenting performance in the US
main findings of the evaluation and detail the market showed that UK relative technological
numerous evaluation reports produced during the strength in key IT areas such as semiconductors,
period. Additional material, and support for the computers, and image and sound equipment de-
validity of the concepts and questions pursued clined over the two decades to 1984 [38]. More
here, is provided by the evaluation by Technopo- significantly, UK firms were patenting relatively
lis Ltd. of the Swedish IT4 programme. less frequently in the fastest growing IT fields
than were their overseas competitors [38].
Principally aimed at improving competitive-
3. The UK Alvey Programme ness, but also including a Ministry of Defence
(MoD)-driven semiconductor programme and
Throughout the 1980s, government and indus- longer-term academic research, Alvey ostensibly
try in many countries supported programmes of attempted all three types of government support
collaborative R & D in IT, involving firms, re- programme as identified by Nelson [34]: basic
search institutes and academic institutions [6]. research; programmes tied to procurement needs;
Examples include the US Microelectronics and programmes aimed at improving the competitive-
Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), the ness of a particular industry. The fundamental
US Semiconductor Manufacturing Project (Sema- aims of Alvey [19] were:
tech), the Japanese TRON, Sigma, and Fifth - to increase the competitiveness of the UK IT
Generation Programmes, the European Commu- suppliers;
nity's ESPRIT, RACE and other programmes, - to ensure a measure of self-reliance in key
and the pan-European Eureka Programme [6]. In technological areas for commercial and de-
this paper, the focus is on the UK Alvey Pro- fence purposes;
gramme, which ran from 1983 to 1989. 7 - to strengthen the R & D base of the UK by
Alvey was a national programme launched by rationalising and uniting fragmented resources,
the UK government largely in response to the and particularly by encouraging academia and
Japanese Fifth Generation Computer Programme industry to work together;
announced in 1981. The Japanese strategy gal- - to achieve specific technical targets in each of
vanised action in many countries by threatening a the enabling technology areas.
quantum leap to next-generation computing. In Alvey was therefore focused on economic,
the UK the announcement coincided with con- strategic and structural objectives. The aims were
cern over the competitive failure of much of the ambitious and long-term; improving competitive-
IT supply industry. The UK IT sector had been in ness could not be expected within the lifetime of
relative decline for over a decade, performing a 'pre-competitive' R & D programme. Thus
especially poorly in the computer, consumer elec- achievement of the competitiveness objectives
could only be assessed over a longer time-frame
than the 5-year programme duration. Moreover,
6 PREST is the Programme of Policy Research in Engineer-
ing Science and Technology. the extent to which the Alvey management could
7 Due to late starts and extensions, some projects continued direct the programme to achieve these aims was
until 1991. significantly reduced by the decision to restrict
330 P. Quintas, K. Guy~Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
public support for firms to 50% of their costs. the differences in the relative maturity of the
Industry invested approximately £150 million out technology areas, and the relative position of the
of the programme total of £350 million. The UK vis-a-vis international competition.
ability of government directly to address its eco- The VLSI programme had a clear objective: to
nomic objective was therefore constrained by re- transfer 1 ~m feature-size semiconductor process
liance on corporate investment decisions, in rela- technology to pilot production by 1989. In line
tion to both project selection and post-pro- with UK capabilities and corporate strategies, the
gramme exploitation. programme focused on process technology for
The structural objectives were more readily ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits)
approached. Firms had to collaborate with others rather than for mass market memory and micro-
a n d / o r with academic researchers in order to processor Chips. VLSI was the closest to the
qualify for funding. Collaboration was expected market of all the Alvey areas, and was essentially
to help promote structural change through the a catch-up exercise for the UK. One Alvey pro-
establishment of R & D communities, linkages be- ject manager described the work as 'unspectac-
tween firms, academia and government research ular engineering'. In contrast, the IKBS pro-
institutions, and the rationalisation of research gramme aimed at promoting an industrial IKBS
efforts. community where this was almost non-existent
Over the 5 years, Alvey supported 198 collabo- pre-Alvey. The programme sought to forge links
rative R & D projects, each project lasting 2 or 3 between industry and the academic AI commu-
years on average. Unlike the Japanese Fifth Gen- nity, increase the skills base and stimulate a UK
eration Programme, Alvey R & D was undertaken IKBS market. The contrast with VLSI is acute: in
at split sites, each participant working in their IKBS both the market and the industrial R & D
own premises, and collaboration being effected community had to be 'boot strapped' by Alvey.
through meetings, telephone and electronic mail. In Software Engineering (SE), Alvey sup-
A total of 115 firms, 68 academic institutions and ported R & D into radical process innovations
27 government research laboratories participated. (tools, techniques, methods) for subsequent use
The average full collaborative project involved 3.9 by software developers. Prototype tools and tech-
participating organisations [3]. In addition to full niques were expected to benefit industry in the
industrial collaborative R& D, Alvey supported post-Alvey period. The challenge facing the SE
113 'Uncle' projects, which were those under- programme was therefore not one of promoting
taken by academic researchers, with a non-paying the creation of an industrial community, as in
'avuncular' industrial partner assigned to each to IKBS, but of developing radical new methods and
provide an industrial perspective. This device en- techniques for use within the established, labour-
abled academic research to proceed irrespective intensive software development process.
of whether industrial investment could be gener- The heterogeneous MMI area had different
ated. The main focus of this paper, however, is initial conditions pertaining in each of the four
the 198 full industrial collaborative R & D pro- main constituent areas: Human Interface (HI);
jects. Speech; Image Processing; Displays. The HI pro-
The programme focused on four principal gramme aimed at raising awareness of human
technology areas: VLSI (Very Large Scale Inte- factors in industry and at uniting a fragmented
gration) semiconductor technology; IKBS (Intelli- industrial capability. Speech and Image Process-
gent Knowledge-Based Systems), an approximate ing aimed at strengthening long-term research,
euphemism for AI (Artificial Intelligence); SE and Displays at promoting a formerly weak area
(Software Engineering); MMI (Man-Machine In- that was nearer to development than research.
terface). Subsequently, Systems Architecture The Systems Architecture programme was
emerged as a fifth sub-programme, focused on concerned with research into concepts and tech-
parallel processing. There was considerable varia- niques, as well as prototype parallel architecture
tion in the aims of these sub-programmes due to systems research. It aimed at providing a UK
P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348 331
base for further R & D, particularly within a Eu- was the principal customer. Such companies were
ropean collaborative context. In a departure from therefore well placed to seek Alvey portfolios
the pre-competitive focus, Alvey also supported which matched the core R & D strategies of their
five Large Scale Demonstrator projects which firms. The other Alvey technology areas were less
were intended to provide exploitation-led goals influenced by the needs of any one single cus-
for Alvey R & D projects, and to demonstrate the tomer, e.g. the MoD, and were more diffuse in
results of Alvey within the programme's lifetime. nature, although not diffuse enough to span all
Some dissemination and awareness activity was the core R & D elements of the main industrial
also pursued on a small scale, the most successful actors. Whilst it was feasible for some firms to
mechanisms being technology-specific clubs which seek Alvey project portfolios which closely re-
provided fora for interaction. flected their core R & D interests, it was less
Government support for R & D collaboration likely that all participants would be able to do
between firms raises a number of issues relating this.
to corporate R & D strategy. The following sec- Small firms and those larger companies which
tion discusses the interaction between govern- were excluded from the Alvey Committee were
ment policy and R & D strategy at the level of the less able to influence the overall strategic direc-
participant firm. tion of the programme than the large IT compa-
nies. A few participated in the development of
the technology area strategies, and comments on
4. Alvey and firm technology strategy the strategy documents were invited from a broad
spectrum of industry. However, the extent to
In this section we look at the relationship which the wider IT community influenced the
between firms' Alvey R & D participation and programme was necessarily very limited; the ma-
their broader technology strategies. How do pre- jority of participants had to respond to the tech-
competitive, collaborative R & D projects fit into nology strategies as formulated.
corporate and business-funded R & D activities? The relationship between firms' Alvey partici-
The first point to acknowledge is that the formu- pation and their existing R & D strategies was
lation of the Alvey programme strategy itself in- further constrained by political considerations.
volved industrial contributors. UK IT companies The UK government was concerned that public
GEC, Plessey, ICL, Logica, Inmos and British funds should not directly substitute for corporate
Telecom were represented on the Alvey Commit- investment in R&D; that is, that Alvey work
tee and involved in the process which led to the should be somehow additional to that which
production of the Alvey Report [2]. For some of would have happened anyway. This is a signifi-
these firms, a close relationship existed between cant and controversial point, since strict compli-
their own corporate R & D strategies and the ance with the 'additionality' criterion would sug-
development of technology strategies within the gest that Alvey R & D was non-essential for firms'
Alvey programme. overall business and technology strategies; other-
This was particularly the case in the VLSI wise, logically, they would fund the R & D them-
area, where the needs of the UK Ministry of selves. Moreover, the fact that they were pre-
Defence (MoD) played a crucial role in influenc- pared to collaborate with other companies might
ing the shape and direction of the programme. be taken to imply that the work was not commer-
The VLSI programme replaced the planned VH- cially significant.
PIC (Very High Performance Integrated Circuit) Discussing this issue in relation to Alvey and
programme, which the MoD would almost cer- ESPRIT, Sciberras [52] contends that firms were
tainly have funded without Alvey. Because the "most prepared to engage in those research pro-
VLSI strategy reflected the needs of the MoD, it jects ... upon which they themselves place only
also mirrored the interests of the major players in marginal value" [52, p. 21]. He suggests that as
the UK semiconductor sector, for whom the MoD long as projects are funded from the public purse,
332 P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
firms will be prepared to undertake research pro- today may, over time, become the basis of the
jects which on strict commercial criteria they do core business.
not themselves consider worthwhile. Such pro- Therefore, the greater the area of technology
jects are therefore marginal, as argued by IT covered by the firm, the less vulnerable it is to
industrialist Rob Wilmot (former chief executive technology-based competition [9]. The need to
of ICL), who states that there is no point in continuously track emergent technologies has
governments "bringing marginal projects into life been emphasised in a number of studies [17,23],
with subsidies" precisely because they are, by with early awareness of technological develop-
definition, not central to the firms' core activities ments conferring competitive advantage [9,33].
[59]. This argument is in direct opposition to Firms must therefore find ways of tracking new
government's desire for R & D to be 'additional'. technological developments whilst maintaining
The distinction between core and marginal competence in their core technology areas. This
R&D, and the related 'additionality' question, presents challenges in generating the resources
thus require discussion. Pavitt et al. [41] show and developing the expertise to do this. Collabo-
empirically that in most UK industrial sectors, rative R & D offers an opportunity to pursue a
firms' innovative activity is concentrated within wider spread of technologies and access a broader
their principal sector of competence. The authors range of expertise than would otherwise be possi-
conclude that technological knowledge is cumula- ble, whilst maintaining core R & D effort.
tive and differentiated, and that "firms' techno- How, then, did firms structure their involve-
logical strategies are heavily constrained by their ment in Alvey in terms of the core-peripheral
core activities, their size, and their forms of or- divide? An interesting way of viewing the kind of
ganisation" [41, p. 64]. However, concentration R & D Alvey allowed firms to undertake can be
on current core technologies may make the firm seen in fig. 1. This depicts core versus peripheral
vulnerable to threats from new technologies (e.g. technology along the left-hand dimension, and
semiconductors for 1950s vacuum tube makers, the time horizon (i.e. short to long term) of R & D
laser technology for 1970s photocopier manufac- projects along the right-hand dimension. The
turers). Technology regarded as being peripheral left-hand scale provides a spectrum between core
Number of Respons
40
30
20
10
C
Long Term
Core Technology
. . . . . . . . . . II
Peripheral Technology 5
Fig. 1. The nature of Alvey R&D.
P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348 333
Number of Respon:
30
20
10
Long T e r m
Core Technology
.......... ;i
Peripheral Technology
Fig. 2. The nature of IT4 R & D .
technologies, which are the current central tech- possible only because there is an element of
nological concerns of firms, and peripheral tech- subsidy involved.
nologies, here defined as possible replacement Now contrast this with the remaining work
technologies, i.e. alternative technological trajec- undertaken within Alvey. This falls predomi-
tories. The right-hand scale shows a spectrum of nantly into the long-term/peripheral technology
work running from R & D with very short-term sector. It is insurance R & D . 8 Such R & D allows
objectives to work which has much longer-term firms to cover or explore alternative technological
horizons. Participant firms were asked to charac- options normally out of their reach, providing
terise their Alvey projects along these two dimen- information and capability which may prove in-
sions using 1-5 scales as indicated. valuable should these technologies assume greater
With firms characterising their own in-house importance to the business than is presently be-
R & D in this fashion, we might expect the bulk of lieved. It is not directly relevant to firms in the
R & D projects to lie in the core technology/ same way that short-term/core technology re-
short-term sector (i.e. the left-hand corner), with search is, and it is not first-choice R & D if a little
some of the richer, larger a n d / o r more innova- extra money becomes available, i.e. it is not lux-
tive firms supporting longer-term work in core ury R & D as defined above, but again it is not
areas. In contrast to expectations, fig. 1 demon- marginal or unimportant R & D . It is more accu-
strates that Alvey allowed firms to expand their rate to say that it is normally inaccessible, for
R &D portfolios in two major ways. In the first although it may be of great import to firms in
instance, the programme allowed firms to con- determining long-term technological options and
duct more long-term R & D in their core areas, as strategies, it is usually ruled out because of the
illustrated by the cluster at the back of the ma- expense incurred in conducting such work in ar-
trix. This is the kind of work that is on the 'wish eas where internal capabilities are weak (by deft-
list' of firms; usually it is only financial or other
resource constraints which limit a firm's ability to
undertake this work. It is mistaken to think of
such R & D as unimportant or marginal; rather, it s Freeman [18] discusses the insurance value of R&D within
is more fitting to think of it as luxury R & D , firms' defensive innovation strategies.
334 P. Quintas, K. Guy~Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
of the need to maintain profits in a particular different technology areas, to the structural posi-
financial year in order to keep City predators at tion and strategic orientation of R & D within
bay. companies, and to the size of projects--large
High interest rates in the mid-1980s promoted commitments requiring higher-level decision-
a climate of shrinking investment horizons in making. In particular, the central core of the
which R & D of longer than 2 years to market (9 VLSI programme required a 'top down' approach
months in one case) became 'marginal'. Firms' by participant firms--a coherent set of projects
failure to fund R & D was therefore by no means clustered around whole-process projects, as shown
indicative of that R& D being irrelevant to their in fig. 3. This represents the portfolio of VLSI
core technology needs. The additional benefits of projects of one firm, showing how six smaller
Alvey are therefore not solely to be found in projects feed into the large whole process project
wholly new R & D areas, but in added achieve- over time. This coherent approach contrasts with
ments in existing areas: accelerating R & D , firms that had numerous isolated Alvey participa-
broadening and deepening knowledge, building tions, each driven by one or two researchers with
critical mass and protecting R & D from cutbacks. little wider support within the firm. Coherent
strategies were not restricted to the VLSI area.
ICL's involvement in the Systems Architectures
5. Alvey participation strategy and outcomes sub-programme, which had significantly more dis-
tant horizons than VLSI R & D, featured a cluster
In this section we analyse companies' strate- of related projects, including several long-term
gies towards Alvey, linking these to project out- research projects addressing alternative techno-
comes. First, companies' strategies towards Alvey logical paths.
can be differentiated in terms of the way they A second way of looking at firms' Alvey strate-
constructed their Alvey project portfolios. Some gies is to focus on structural and organisational
firms set out to attain a coherent group of inter- factors within the firm, in particular, the degree
related Alvey projects; others had much more ad of integration or autonomy of the R & D depart-
hoc, uncoordinated approaches which resulted in ment undertaking the Alvey work. One indication
relatively isolated and disconnected projects. of R & D departmental autonomy is control over
The way in which firms constructed their Alvey funding decisions. Alvey project budgets were
portfolios is related to the characteristics of the approved by the firms' R & D management (as
projects
o,, etchn.°,oj°c,k
Lithography project~\
and R & D autonomy is that the Alvey work may Expected outputs Percentage Mean
of teams output
be isolated from broader operating company
expecting achieve-
needs. outputs ~ ment
Conversely, in some large firms Alvey propos- scores c
Table 4 Table 5
R & D locational separation and R & D performance a Links to other Alvey projects and R & D performance a
Location of R & D Rating of project performance Alvey project links Rating of project
and production within the firm performance b
Unsatis- Satis- Total
factory factory Unsatis- Satis- Total
factory factory
Located on the same site 23 27 50
Located on different sites 9 41 50 Few or no links with other 47 17 64
Alvey projects
Total 32 68 100
Part of a coherent portfolio 15 21 36
a Data are for projects aimed at 'new methods and tech- of Alvey projects
niques'.
Total 62 38 100
b Percentage of industrial teams rating their project output
performance satisfactory or unsatisfactory. a Data are for projects aimed at 'development-oriented' ob-
Statistical significance: X 2 = 6.4; significance = 0.011. j e c t i v e s - p r o t o t y p e s and marketable products.
Source: S P R U Final Alvey Questionnaire [21]. b Percentage of industrial teams rating their project output
performance satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Statistical significance: X 2 = 3.5; significance = 0.062.
Source: S P R U Final Alvey Questionnaire [21].
knowledge base and skills, and the development Interviews with Alvey project managers at the
of tools, techniques, process technologies, sub- end of the programme found that the most com-
systems and even marketable products. Partici- monly cited reason for collaboration (78% of
pants also expected benefits through the develop- project managers) was the acquisition of comple-
ment of national linkages with industrial and mentary expertise, including familiarity with tech-
academic researchers, and the leverage of addi- nology, techniques or access to equipment [21].
tional resources through collaboration accessing a The second most common reason, cited by over a
larger resource base than one firm alone could quarter of project managers, was to comply with
support. Additionally, a minority believed that Alvey funding criteria. The third (under 15%)
Alvey would enable them to participate in the was to spread risks. This was particularly the case
development or application of emerging IT indus- in projects where alternative research avenues
try standards [46]. were being followed and compared, or different
Sixty per cent of participants considered that techniques (or materials in the case of VLSI
collaboration was essential, the R & D being fea- research) being evaluated. In these projects all
sible only in conjunction with partners. Con- participants benefited from shared results, with
versely, around a quarter of all participants in those entering the 'blind alleys' not being disad-
collaborative projects considered that the R & D vantaged. Cost reduction is closely linked to risk
would have been feasible, and even desirable, reduction, and was the fourth most frequently
without their Alvey collaboration partners. R & D mentioned reason for collaboration (under 10%
collaboration was novel in the UK in the early of respondents). Gaining market contacts, the
1980s. Some participants were undoubtedly drawn establishment of standards and the development
into Alvey collaboration without having a clear of future collaborative links were each cited as
idea of the benefits to be expected, but being reasons by less than 5% of project managers [21].
concerned not to be left out of a new funding Regardless of whether reduced risks and costs
regime. were thought of as motives for collaboration, the
There were four principal modes of collabora- SPRU questionnaire survey revealed that 24% of
tion adopted by participant firms. firms concluded that Alvey had been an impor-
(1) Close collaboration, with commonly-held tant means of reducing risks, and 36% acknowl-
objectives, interdependent work packages, and edged that Alvey had enabled them to cut R & D
working towards an integration of the whole pro- costs.
ject. Collaboration has disadvantages as well as ad-
(2) Shared parallel work, such as an evalua- vantages for firms. The costs associated with col-
tion of a number of possible options, e.g. tech- laborative overheads were cited by 51% of indus-
niques or materials, the division of work between trial teams as having a negative effect on project
the collaborators leading to shared results and a progress. 'Overheads' include the time and re-
reduced risk of wasted effort. source costs of meetings, information exchange
(3) Loose collaboration, with work divided into and travel, as well as the cost of the compromises
discrete packages or areas of most interest to necessary in collaborative partnerships. However,
each partner. Some technology and knowledge the most common factor negatively affecting pro-
transfer is possible, but there is no final 'bolting ject progress (cited by 56% of questionnaire re-
together' of the whole. spondents) was 'changes affecting collaborators'.
(4) No real collaboration, participants working These were usually changes beyond the control of
independently with minimal contact. Such pro- the R & D units involved in the project, such as
jects are often the result of 'forced marriages' changes in ownership or business strategy, result-
a n d / o r are affected by clashes over objectives, ing in partners moving off in a different research
personalities and different cultures. In some direction, taking staff away from projects, or, in
cases, transfer of results occurred 'in spite of' the extreme cases, withdrawing from projects.
collaboration. The process of negotiating intellectual prop-
340 P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
R & D is a function of many factors, including: tion units. Other outputs primarily serve to
- the capability and compatibility of collabora- strengthen R & D capabilities generally and have
tive partners (i.e. expertise levels at the start more indirect impacts on production units. Some
need to be roughly on a par); forms of knowledge, such as that resulting from
- the nature of the collaboration: how work is insurance R& D which may help rule out certain
divided, mechanisms for integration, the chan- unfruitful development lines, is of direct rele-
nels of communication (see the four modes of vance to production units but difficult to 'count'
collaboration in Section 6); as transferable outputs, since its utility lies in
- the nature of the technology or knowledge negative results and the subsequent adoption of
being generated and transferred (e.g. codified alternative technological routes. In Alvey, it
knowledge such as software modules are easier should always be remembered that only a small
to transfer than tacit knowledge); proportion of the work was expected to be di-
- the relative maturity of the technology area rectly transferable or of direct utility to produc-
(e.g. the comparatively low incidence of partic- tion units without a significant commitment of
ipants accessing know-how from industrial resources for further development.
partners in the IKBS area, which may be ex- It is also the case that the political constraints
plained by the low level of industrial IKBS on the programme directly framed the agenda for
capability in the UK at the time); R & D usage. The Alvey focus on pre-competitive
stability within participant organisations (e.g.
- R & D stressed a distancing from the market. The
in terms of ownership, business and technology programme remit did not ensure the involvement
strategy, and continuity of personnel active in of product development and production person-
the project); nel, or of marketing departments or final users.
- the ability of the recipient firm to understand Alvey aimed at technology generation, but was
and internalise the technology and know-how not intended to support the complete innovation
(i.e. their ability to learn). process. How far did this inhibit the internal
The extent to which firms can internalise tech- process of technology assimilation and use, and
nology and knowledge, and how far these benefits how far were firms able to effectively bridge the
can be transferred internally within the firm and gap between Alvey pre-competitive R & D and
combined with firm-specific competences remain other functional areas of the firm?
crucial questions. An important aspect of the Table 8 presents findings on the extent and
nature of the know-how being assimilated is its nature of technology and knowledge transfers
inherent utility; i.e. the ways in which it is possi- identified by Alvey industrial participants. Two
ble to use it. Some R & D outputs are capable of functional areas of the firm are shown; the R & D
being directly taken up and exploited by produc- unit concerned with Alvey, and production or
business units. Within these a range of technol-
Table 8 ogy transfer modes are shown. 'Output demon-
Transfers from Alvey industrial teams
stration' indicates an attempt to communicate
Recipient Type of output transfer a and raise awareness through a demonstration of
environment
Output Out- Output Output the technology. 'Evaluation of outputs' indicates
demon- put further in an active participation by the recipient depart-
strated evalu- developed regular
ment. 'Further development' would be the ex-
ated use
pected action following satisfactory pre-competi-
Within own R&D unit 44 34 43 29
rive R&D. The 'regular use' of outputs shows
Within own business/ 27 22 15 17
production units that elements of Alvey R & D have already fed
into current practice, either in the R & D depart-
Figures are the percentage of all industrial teams indicating
each type of transfer.
ment or the business unit.
a Transfer categories are not mutually exclusive. Table 8 shows that 43% of industrial teams
Source: SPRU Final Alvey Questionnaire [21]. were further developing their Alvey R & D within
342 P. Quintas, K~ Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
the R & D unit, and 29% reported outputs in SE was pursuing radical change, and in IKBS
regular R & D use at the end of the programme. industrial business capability was at an embryonic
Business unit awareness of the Alvey R&D, and stage. The technology transfer problems of the
subsequent development and use of results, are Alvey Software Engineering programme are dis-
particularly important indicators of effective link- cussed elsewhere [43,45,47]. Commercial software
age and resource commitment. Demonstration of development is highly labour- and skills-intensive,
results in business or production units occurred and there are a range of factors that inhibit
in 27% of participant firms, and one-fifth of radical change. The adoption of advanced soft-
project outputs have been evaluated in business ware engineering tools and methods has implica-
units. Fourteen per cent of industrial teams' out- tions for organisational and institutional struc-
puts were being further developed in business tures, the organisation of work, skills require-
units, and 18% reported outputs in regular use. ments, developer autonomy and career paths of
Further analysis shows that there is consider- IT professionals.
able variation in technology and knowledge trans- Additional data reveal that a lack of business
fers between different technology areas. This is unit interest in the Alvey R & D adversely af-
shown in table 9. In general, the transfer of fected exploitation chances for 32% of industrial
technology and knowledge from R & D to busi- participants. In the case of SE projects, 56%
ness units is dependent on the relative maturity reported that a lack of interest affected exploita-
of the technology, and also on the relative ambi- tion, emphasising the particular problems with
tion of the strategy in each Alvey technology software engineering: for Large Demonstrator
area. Over half of VLSI teams reported regular projects the figure was 36%, for VLSI 28%, for
use of their outputs in R&D, and a quarter had MMI 27% and for IKBS 22%. Commenting on
transferred technology into production. VLSI was the exploitation process, 20% of all respondents
closely allied to the business interests of partici- noted that the cost of further development was
pants and was pursuing incremental change within prohibitively high. Changes in corporate strategic
an established technological trajectory. In con- direction were thought to account for exploitation
trast, the Software Engineering and IKBS pro- problems by a quarter of all industrial respon-
grammes had particularly ambitious objectives. dents. Lack of technology and knowledge transfer
Table 9
Technology area variation in transfers
Recipient Type of output transfer a
environment
Output Output Output Output in
demonstrated evaluated further regular
developed use
Within own R & D unit VLSI 40 VLSI 33 VLSI 50 VLSI 53
SE 38 SE 24 SE 43 SE 14
IKBS 27 IKBS 23 IKBS 50 IKBS 19
MMI 56 MMI 44 MMI 31 MMI 22
mechanisms was also a factor. Only 15% of all search following up Alvey Software Engineering
respondents stated that there were well-identified R & D projects suggests that the 'exploitation' of
gatekeepers in business units whom they could pre-competitive R & D may be far more serendip-
contact. Informal channels of communication itous, unpredictable and essentially non-linear
were thought to be more effective than existing than was previously suspected. 9
formal channels by a third of respondents. A For example, one large software engineering
quarter stated that R & D personnel had to try to project team spun-off from the parent firm to
generate interest in the R & D by proactively form a management buy-out company. Their
'knocking on the doors' of business unit staff. business strategy was to turn the embryonic soft-
Only 5% said that business unit personnel were ware technology into a product-a software meta-
actively seeking promising R & D outputs. tool (i.e. a tool to build tools). This had not been
A further indicator of post-Alvey exploitation the objective of the Alvey project, but the meta-
is the extent of personnel transfers from R & D to tool drew heavily on the Alvey R & D. In a second
other business areas. Alvey involved approxi- example, technology resulting from an Alvey soft-
mately 5000 researchers over its lifetime, employ- ware development environment project has sub-
ing over 2000 at its peak, with each spending an sequently been developed into a process manage-
average of 1.5 years working on the programme ment tool aimed at applications outside of soft-
[21]. The movement of personnel from R & D into ware development. In a final example, a manager
business units and product development is known had seen Alvey work going on in his company,
to be an effective mechanism of technology trans- but was not personally involved. He later applied,
fer, particularly in the case of tacit knowledge. in another context, some of the ideas and princi-
However, Alvey research staff, especially those in ples he had seen the Alvey project team develop-
SE and IKBS, were often reluctant to move across ing. These are limited examples, but they confirm
to production departments. The majority of Alvey that the exploitation of pre-competitive R & D
researchers (60%) were working in their R & D may often be a non-linear process whose multiple
unit or department prior to its involvement in outcomes are far from predictable. The transfer
Alvey. At the end of the Alvey projects surveyed, of tacit knowledge is also confirmed, albeit with a
45% of research staff remained in that R & D very limited sample. Tracking these outcomes
unit. Nine per cent moved from Alvey R& D to presents a challenge, and further research is
other R & D units or departments in the same needed over an extended period in order to build
organisation, and 11% transferred to business or up a richer picture of the ways in which Alvey
production units (compared to the 13% of project pre-competitive R& D is exploited.
researchers that originated in these). There was, Finally, we should note the success of the
however, a flow of 18% of all Alvey project largest Alvey project, the systems architecture
personnel (including academics) to external in- project Flagship, which focused on developing
dustrial organisations. Commenting on the ex- parallel processing computer technology support-
ploitation process, 17% of all respondents agreed ing declarative systems. Flagship, together with a
with the statement that "technology transfer could cluster of related projects, was seen by ICL in
occur when R & D personnel move to production 1984 as being fundamental to the firm's long-term
and business units, but this rarely happens" [21, (10-15 years) strategy. Following Alvey, this work
p. 157]. continued in the European Declarative Systems
These data indicate that personnel movement (EDS) project as part of the ESPRIT II Pro-
occurred, but was not a major vehicle for Alvey
technology transfer within a firm, although there
was a significant outflow to external firms. It is 9 As part of the Programme for Information and Communi-
cation Technology (PICT) funded by the U K Economic and
difficult to assess the extent to which personnel
Social Research Council, Paul Quintas is following up some
movement results in Alvey technologies and Alvey Software Engineering projects in order to track post-
knowledge being utilised. However, recent re- programme technology transfer and use.
344 P. Qumtas, K~ Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
gramme. In October 1993, ICL announced the sational structure revealed that success was corre-
Goldrush parallel computer for shipment in lated with the relative autonomy of R & D units.
March 1994. This machine represents significant Isolated projects achieved the most satisfactory
exploitation of the R & D completed within Alvey outcomes for researchers. This suggests that dif-
and ESPRIT, and £42 million investment by ICL. ferent management strategies and policy mecha-
The process of exploitation of the R & D has nisms are required according to the focus of the
included the commercially crucial development of R&D.
software to support the market leading databases Alvey's encouragement of collaboration suc-
Oracle, Ingres, Adabas and Informix [12]. ceeded in uniting and focusing formerly frag-
mented resources, and building networks of re-
searchers. Many project teams have learned how
8. Conclusions to collaborate, and gone on to further R & D
alliances, particularly within European pro-
Drawing on the experience of the UK Alvey grammes. As a mechanism to enable participants
programme, this paper provides an analysis of the to access technology and absorb know-how from
conduct of collaborative, pre-competitive R & D their partners Alvey was a qualified success, with
at the level of the participant firm. Our purpose much variation between firms, collaboration types
has been to further current understanding of the and (in particular) between technology areas. Al-
strategies and processes which frame such R & D most half of the industrial participants stated that
within companies. Alvey collaboration had been very important in
We have differentiated a number of strategies enabling them to access technology and absorb
employed by firms in their approach to Alvey know-how from their academic partners, com-
R&D, and the analysis has linked strategy with pared with 22% when the source was a collabo-
R & D outcomes. In evaluating the benefits of rating industrial organisation. Success in access-
programmes such as Alvey, the added value is not ing knowledge and technology through collabora-
simply measured in terms of research undertaken tive R & D is a function of many factors, including
that would not otherwise have been funded; the the compatibility of collaborative partners, the
benefits are also the acceleration, broadening and mode of collaboration, whether codified or tacit
deepening of R&D, and the maintenance of R& knowledge is being transferred, the relative matu-
D which may have been cut. Alvey also enabled rity of the technology area, and stability within
firms to undertake longer-term R & D in core both supplier and participant organisations. We
technology areas, and increased their ability to have seen that Alvey collaborations took several
carry out insurance R & D in peripheral areas. forms, and it is clear that different arrangements
Alvey projects covered a wide range, from are appropriate for different project types.
'unspectacular engineering' aimed at the next It should be noted that responses to direct
incremental step straight down the technological questions concerning knowledge and technology
highway, to ambitious objectives, some located on transfer inevitably focus on codifiable knowledge,
the far horizon along the main route, and others tending to underestimate the extent to which
out in uncharted territory. There are significant personal contact and collaborative working leads
differences between the policies and R & D to transfers of tacit knowledge. Interviews both
strategies appropriate for these. For those pro- during and after the programme suggest that
jects aimed at the development end of the R & D Alvey did support tacit knowledge transfers, but
spectrum, a coherent strategy in which Alvey the extent of this is impossible to estimate. One
projects were clustered into a tight portfolio, or partial indicator is personnel movement. An out-
linked to in-house R&D, was correlated with flow of 18% of research staff from R & D units
successful achievements. In the case of research- undertaking Alvey projects to external firms indi-
oriented projects (i.e. those focused on enabling cates a potential for tacit knowledge flows be-
technology), analysis linking strategy with organi- tween organisations. Subsequent data suggest that
P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348 345
this is indeed occurring, but further research is ments and career paths of IT professionals and
required in order to establish the extent and others [43,45,47]. These are factors which Alvey
nature of the benefits. had no remit to address.
Collaboration is not a panacea, nor is it cost- The results presented here clearly have impli-
less, and as Mowery and Rosenberg [31] have cations for government policy issues that have
pointed out, research collaboration alone is insuf- been addressed in detail elsewhere [21,44]. At
ficient. In order to exploit the benefits of pre- first sight, the results might be interpreted as
competitive R & D collaboration, the products of suggesting that governments seeking a demon-
research need to be transferred and assimilated strable return on investment would be advised to
within participant firms. Utilisation of the bene- support R & D which is pursuing incremental
fits of collaborative R & D is thus a function of progress along an established technological tra-
internal processes. Regardless of whether good jectory and geared to the immediate business
communications existed between project partner needs of industry. However, this minimises addi-
research teams, many firms had inadequate tionality, and is unlikely to fulfil the underlying
mechanisms linking in-house R & D with business strategic objectives of a programme such as Alvey.
activities. Personnel transfer between R & D and Focus on short-term business needs cannot be
business units is one such mechanism, but this expected to regenerate the IT sector, given that
had not happened to any great extent by the end this short-term focus has, with a few notable
of the programme. Collaborative R & D pro- exceptions, been the prevailing business ethos,
grammes do not address firm-level internal prob- and the firms concerned are largely the same
lems focused on learning and technology transfer, firms which have experienced declines in interna-
which require investment and supportive struc- tional competitiveness in recent years. If firms
tures. Indeed, in some cases R & D collaboration are technological laggards, then more radical ap-
may exacerbate the problems by increasing the proaches are in order. It is also clear that collabo-
divide between R & D and business-unit person- rative R & D is an effective way for firms to track
nel. technological developments which may be on the
The relative maturity of the technology is a periphery of current requirements, but which may
major variable here. Where Alvey R & D featured shift into centre focus as markets or technological
incremental progress along well-charted routes developments unfold.
and was closely linked to shorter-term business There is, therefore, a case for (currently)
needs, as in the case of VLSI, the transfer of 'marginal' R&D, especially since what is consid-
technology and access to further investment pre- ered marginal depends on investment decisions
sented few problems. Where Alvey pursued more which are dictated by financial criteria rather
ambitious, radical technological goals, such as in than technological capability requirements. In
the Software Engineering and IKBS areas, tech- some cases, UK firms would have been unable to
nology transfer was more difficult and investment undertake or maintain R& D investment in vital
problematic. In Software Engineering, Alvey technology areas without Alvey support (e.g. CAD
technologies were intended to confront and radi- R & D for a semiconductor firm). Many UK IT
cally change current practice. In IKBS, Alvey firms' failure to fund R & D adequately in the
needed to boot-strap an industrial capability and 1980s was not necessarily indicative of that R& D
help create the market. Both technologies have being peripheral to their real needs, but was
encountered problems in bridging the gap be- rather a confirmation of the corporate financial
tween R & D and commercial practice. The trans- and investment climate.
fer and adoption of Software Engineering tools Moreover, core R & D which is highly depen-
and methods, in particular, has implications for dent on companies' current product-market
organisational and institutional structures and for strategies may be high-risk. Business strategies
social factors within the commercial software de- may change, as illustrated during Alvey by STC's
velopment workplace, including skills require- withdrawal from the merchant semiconductor
346 P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
market, GEC's withdrawal from CMOS semicon- emphasise that support for pre-competitive R & D
ductor technology, and the volatile conditions is a necessary but insufficient strategy [21,46].
generated by the series of takeovers and mergers Programmes which aim to improve competitive
in the IT sector. Counter to the Sciberras argu- performance through technological innovation
ment raised in Section 4, STC, GEC, Plessey and derived from investment in R & D need to tackle
Ferranti's VLSI strategies could hardly have been the organisational, social, economic and institu-
labelled 'marginal' R & D in 1984, but they were tional issues which condition the wider innova-
overtaken by business-driven change which, in tion process. In particular, we echo the view of
some cases, negated the investment. This again Mowery and Rosenberg that the "utilization and
suggests that a focus on enabling technologies diffusion of the results of scientific and engineer-
which maximise future flexibility is more appro- ing research should receive greater weight within
priate than targeting government investment to- R & D policy" [31, p. 292].
wards current core business areas. In the context of the innovation process within
Conversely, the success of ICL's Flagship pro- companies, technology and knowledge adoption
ject in leading (over 10 years and through addi- and utilisation requires that it is not just the
tional collaborative R & D within ESPRIT) to the R & D department that is involved, but the
Goldrush parallel computer illustrates the value broader functional areas of the firm. If govern-
of supporting long-term collaborative R & D in ments have a difficult role in encouraging firms to
core technology areas. However, much of the formulate technology strategies aimed at support-
R & D undertaken in Flagship and the cluster of ing the internal processes of technology and
projects surrounding it was pursuing enabling, knowledge assimilation and application [21], they
generic technologies (e.g. declarative systems) and at least need to ensure that their policy interven-
alternative paths leading into peripheral techno- tions do not have the reverse effect. A focus
logical areas. Not all of these paths were ulti- solely on pre-competitive R & D and an implicit
mately followed, but their pursuit was necessary assumption of a linear model of R & D and inno-
because the appropriate technological choices vation may be a less than helpful influence on
could not be predicted with certainty in 1984. firm strategy.
This raises a more general question concerning Further, we argue that more effort should be
the limitations of present-day assessment of the devoted to involving IT users, user organisations
benefits of pre-competitive R & D in enabling and departments in R & D programmes. This has
technologies. Whilst many projects reported at begun to happen in some European Community
the end of Alvey that their company was not programmes aimed at 'pulling through' the en-
interested in further investment in the R & D abling technologies developed in previous R & D
project and that 'exploitation' was not happening, programmes. However, rather than addressing
this is not necessarily the end of the story, as the application and use as separate issues that
recent research described in the previous section chronologically follow R&D, it may be more
has revealed. This indicates that the 'exploitation' appropriate in many circumstances to provide
of pre-competitive R & D may be a non-linear support for an iterative and integrated innovation
process involving serendipitous links and unpre- process that involves users (broadly defined) as
dictable outcomes. Therefore, assessment of the well as R & D personnel. Such a strategy, applied
benefits of Alvey cannot easily be bounded in for example to Alvey Software Engineering, would
time or scope. have involved system developers in R & D pro-
Whilst the particular circumstances pertaining jects as potential 'users' of the technology. This
in the UK, such as the investment climate and may have slowed down technical progress, but
prevailing business ethos, may not directly paral- would have ensured a more rapid movement of
lel experience elsewhere, the central lessons of knowledge and technology from R & D into use.
Alvey are nevertheless of relevance to other User involvement has significant costs, and should
countries. Our findings and recommendations be seen as part of the R & D process and there-
P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348 347
fore eligible for programme funding rather than [15] R.E. Evanson and Y. Kislev, Research and Productivity
being solely subject to commercial investment in Wheat and Maize, Journal of Political Economy 81
(1973) 1309-1329.
criteria. In this way policy initiatives may, in [16] C.M. Fiol and M.A. Lyles, Organizational Learning,
addition to providing best-practice exemplars, as- Academy of Management Review 10 (4) (1985) 803-813.
sist firms in finding a solution to the double-bind [17] R.N. Foster, Timing Technological Transitions, in M.
problem--the need to insulate longer-term R & D Horwich (Editor) Technology and the Modern Corpora-
from business investment criteria whilst ensuring tion: A Strategic Perspective (Pergamon Press, Oxford,
1986).
that such R & D is effectively linked into wider [18] C. Freeman, The Economics of Industrial Innovation
business functional areas and innovation pro- (Frances Pinter, London, 1982).
cesses. [19] L. Georghiou, K. Guy, H. Cameron, M. Hobday, T. Ray
and R. Duncombe, Evaluation of the Alvey Programme:
Interim Report (HMSO, London, 1987).
[20] M. Gibbons and R.D. Johnston, The Roles of Science in
9. References Technological Innovation, Research Policy 3 (3) (1974)
220-242.
[21] K Guy, L. Georghiou, P. Quintas, M. Hobday, H.
[1] T.J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Technology (MIT Press, Cameron and T. Ray Evaluation of the Alvey Programme
Cambridge, MA, 1977). for Advanced Information Technology (HMSO, London,
[2] Alvey Committee, A Programme for Advanced Informa- 1991).
tion Technology (Department of Industry, HMSO, Lon- [22] G. Hamel, Y.L. Doz and C.K. Prahalad, Collaborate with
don, 1982). your Competitors--and Win, Harvard Business Review
[3] Alvey Directorate, Alvey Programme Annual Report 1987 January-February (1989) 133-139.
(Department of Trade and Industry, London, 1987). [23] W.F. Hamilton, Corporate Strategies for Managing
[4] M. Aoki, Horizontal vs. Vertical Information Structure of Emerging Technologies, Technology and Society 7 (2/3)
the Firm, The American Economic Review 76 (5) (1986) (1985) 197-212.
971-983. [24] J.F. Hennart, A Transaction Cost Theory of Equity Joint
[5] C. Argyris and D.A. Schon, Organizational Learning: A Ventures, Strategic Management Journal 9 (4) (1988)
Theory of Action Perspective (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 361-374.
MA, 1978). [25] E. von Hippel, The Dominant Role of Users in the
[6] E. Arnold and K. Guy, Parallel Convergence: National Scientific Instrument Innovation Process, Research Policy
Strategies in Information Technology (Frances Pinter, 5 (3) (1976) 212-239.
London, 1986). [26] E. von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation (Oxford Uni-
[7] K.J. Arrow, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of versity Press, New York, 1988).
Resources for Invention, in: R. Nelson (Editor), The Rate [27] J. Langrish, M. Gibbons, W.G. Evans and F.R. Jevons,
and Direction of Inventive Activity (Princeton, University Wealth from Knowledge (Macmillan, London, 1972).
Press, Princeton NJ, 1962). [28] E. Mansfield, J. Rapoport, A. Romeo, E. Villani, S.
[8] J.L. Badaracco, The Knowledge Link: How Firms Com- Wagner and F. Husic, The Production and Application of
pete Through StrategicAlliances (Harvard Business School New Industrial Technologies (Norton, New York, 1977).
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991). [29] D.C. Mowery, International Collaborative Ventures in US
[9] R.A. Burgelman and R.S. Rosenbloom, Technology Manufacturing (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1988).
Strategy: An Evolutionary Process Perspective, Research [30] D.C. Mowery, Collaborative Ventures between US and
on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, Vol. Foreign Manufacturing Firms, Research Policy 18 (1)
4 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1988). (1989) 19-32.
[10] T. Burns and G.M. Stalker, The Management oflnnnova- [31] D.C. Mowery, and N. Rosenberg, Technology and the
tion (Tavistock, London, 1961). Pursuit of Economic Growth (Cambridge University Press,
[.11] W.M. Cohen and D.A. Levinthal, Innovation and Learn- Cambridge, 1989).
ing: The Two Faces of R&D--Implications for the Anal- [32] R. Nelson, The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific
ysis of R&D Investment, The Economic Journal 99 (1989) Research, Journal of Political Economy 67 (1959) 297-
569-596. 306.
[12] Computing, ICL Strikes Gold in Rush to Claim Parallel [33] R. Nelson, High Technology Policies: A Five-Nation Com-
Market, Computing 28 October (1993) 8. parison (American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC,
[13] F. Contractor and P. Lorange, Cooperative Strategies in 1984).
International Business (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, [34] R. Nelson, Institutions Supporting Technical Change in
1988). the United States, in: G. Dosi et al. (Editors), Technical
[14] Department of Trade and Industry, DTI: The Depart- Change and Economic Theory (Pinter, London, 1988, pp.
ment of Enterprise (HMSO EM278, London, 1988). 312-329).
348 P. Quintas, K. Guy/Research Policy 24 (1995) 325-348
[35] R. Nelson and S. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of [47] P. Quintas, M. Hobday and K. Guy, Evaluation of the
Economic Change (Belknap Press of Harvard University AIvey Software Engineering Programme, Report to the
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982). Department of Trade and Industry (Science Policy Re-
[36] K. Ohmae, The Global Logic of Strategic Alliances, search Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, 1990).
Harvard Business Review March-April (1989) 143-154. [48] E. Roberts, Stimulating Technological Innovation: Or-
[37] W.G. Ouchi and M.K. Bolton, The Logic of Joint Re- ganisational Approaches, Research Management Novem-
search and Development, California Management Review ber (1979) 26-30.
30 (1988) 9-33. [49] N. Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and
[38] P. Patel and K. Pavitt, The Elements of British Techno- Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
logical Competitiveness, National Institute Economic Re- 1982).
view November (1987) 72-83. [50] N. Rosenberg, Why do Firms do Basic Research (With
[39] K. Pavitt, What do we Know about the Usefulness of their Own Money)?, Research Policy 19 (2) (1990) 165-
Science: The Case for Diversity, DRC Discussion Paper 174.
No. 65, (Science Policy Research Unit, University of [51] R. Rothwell et al., SAPPHO Updated--Project SAP-
Sussex, Brighton, 1989). PHO Phase 2, Research Policy 3 (3) (1974) 258-291.
[40] K. Pavitt, Key Characteristics of the Large Innovating [52] E. Sciberras, Government Sponsored Programmes for
Firm, British Journal of Management 2 (1991) 41-50. International Technological Exchanges and Applied Col-
[41] K Pavitt, M. Robson and J. Townsend, Accumulation, lective Research, R&D Management 17 (1) (1987) 15-23.
Diversification and Organisation of Technological Activi- [53] Science Policy Research Unit, Success and Failure in
ties in UK Companies 1945-83, in: M. Dodgson (Editor), Industrial Innovation (Centre for the Study of Industrial
Technology Strategy and the Firm: Management and Pub- Innovation, London, 1972).
lic Policy (Longman, Harlow, 1989, pp. 38-67). [54] D.J. Teece, Profiting from Technological Innovation: Im-
[42] M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical plications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and
Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, Public Policy, Research Policy 15 (1986) 285-305.
1958). [55] D.J. Teece, Technological Change and the Nature of the
[43] P. Quintas, Engineering Solutions to Software Problems: Firm, in: G. Dosi et al. (Editors), Technical Change and
Some Institutional and Social Factors Shaping Change, Economic Theory (Pinter, London, 1988, pp. 256-281).
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 3 (4) [56] T.A. Watkins, A Technological Communications Costs
(1991). Model of R&D Consortia as Public Policy, Research
[44] P. Quintas, Software Engineering: The Policy Challenge Policy 20 (2) (1991) 87-107.
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- [57] O.E. Williamson, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and
ment, Paris, 1991). Antitrust Implications (The Free Press, London, 1975).
[45] P. Quintas, Software Engineering Policy and Practice: [58] O.E. Williamson, Organizational Innovation: The Trans-
Lessons from the Alvey Program, Journal of Systems and action-Cost Approach, in: J. Ronen (Editor), En-
Software 24 (1) (1994) 67-89. trepreneurship (Heath Lexington, Lexington, MA, 1983,
[46] P. Quintas and K. Guy, Alvey in Industry: Corporate pp. 101-134).
Strategies and the Alvey Programme, Report to the De- [59] R. Wilmot, Pushing Ahead for Quality, Computer Weekly
partment of Trade and Industry (Science Policy Research 14 January (1988) 22-23.
Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, 1989).