Ideation, entrepreneurship, and innovation

More recently, Fernald and Jones (2014, p. 4) built on this idea: “New ideas come from an idea production function that depends on the number of people looking for new ideas as well as on the existing stock of ideas.”

See Link and Wright (2015) for a discussion and analysis of the failure of R&D projects.

I am using the term technology to refer to the application of new knowledge, learned through science or even R&D, to some practical problem, and I am using the term innovation to refer to a technology put into use or commercialized.

Two examples that illustrate the genesis of an R&D idea and the success of the resulting R&D are in Link (1998) and in Hall et al. (2001).

For an example of the importance publication citations, see Di Guardo et al. (2012).

The act defined a “joint research and development venture” as: “The term ‘joint research and development venture’ means any group of activities, including attempting to make, making, or performing a contract, by two or more persons for the purpose of—(A) theoretical analysis, experimentation, or systematic study of phenomena or observable facts, (B) the development or testing of basic engineering techniques, (C) the extension of investigative findings or theory of a scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, prototypes, equipment, materials, and processes, (D) the collection, exchange, and analysis of research information, or (E) any combination of the purposes specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), and may include the establishment and operation of facilities for the conducting of research, the conducting of such venture on a protected and proprietary basis, and the prosecuting of applications for patents and the granting of licenses for the results of such venture…”.

See Hagedoorn et al. (2000) for a discussion of other databases on RJVs supported by NSF.

The act stated: “In any action under the antitrust laws … the conduct of any person in making or performing a contract to carry out a joint research and development venture [i.e., an RJV] shall not be deemed illegal per se; such conduct shall be judged on the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition, including, but not limited to, effects on competition in properly defined, relevant research and development markets.” And, should a rule of reason test fail, damages would be actual and not treble.

The National Science Board (2002, Chap. 4) drew explicitly on the CORE database in its discussion of US research alliances.

The 1984 act was amended by the National Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993 (Public Law 103–42) and by the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act (SDOAA) of 2004 (Public Law 108–237). Federal Register filings under SDOAA are not included in Fig. 1.

I am grateful to my long-time friend and frequent mentor, Edwin Mansfield, for discussions about how to identify key individuals in an RJV and the type of information that might reasonably be collected over time. See Link and Scherer (2005). Clearly, the NRJVD (discussed below) was constituted in a Mansfield-like manner.

These were filings under the NCRA of 1984 and under its amendment the National Research and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993.

As an example of the difficulties, one might encounter while trying to identify contact individuals in a RJV on the basis of only Federal Register information, see Link and Vonortas (2000).

I am using the word National because the only systematic information on RJVs in the USA comes from Federal Register filings. OECD showed though purposive omission in OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013 (p. 125–126) that the USA is the only major OECD country for which there are no official data on firms collaborating on innovation—a proxy for RJV-like activity.

OECD also showed though omission in OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2013, p. 124) that the USA is the only major OECD country for which there are no official data on firms’ sources of knowledge for innovation.

See also Cohen and Levinthal (1990).

To liberally interpret the selected literature in organizational theory, and such perceptiveness might be part of the culture of the firm (Stinchcombe 1965; Baron et al. 1999).