The Pros & Cons of In-House Versus Outsourced R&D Activity for Technology Firms - Assignment Example

Business Assignment: Pros and Cons of In-house Vs outsourcing R&D activities in technological firms submission Introduction There is recent evidence showing that firms no longer depend entirely on in-house R&D to maintain their technological competitiveness. Most recently, this has been brought to light by Veugelers 1997 et al. This development, in as much as it has been contended, in portions reflects technological and economical globalization, whereby there is an increasing correspondence in categories of technologies across countries of harmony. Consequently, cross border competition is growing which has resulted to fewer opportunities for profits despite higher costs in retaining technological resources to remain internationally competitive (Archibugi and Michie 1998). On the other hand, there is evidence that outsourcing research and development (R& D) activities is on the increase too, for instance in the R&D Magazine January 2001 Issue reports according to survey on the people reading, a significant portion of the total R&D would be outsourced. The term non – internal is a premeditated one, and is proposed to comprise of both outer activities (arms-length relationships that include licensing, R&D contracts, outsourcing and other customer supplier relationships) and quasi external activity like strategic alliances which is said to involve a good number of organizational methods (Nanela and Hargedoorn, 1999). Non- internal activities are advantageous as they are a ‘reversible’ asset as well as benefits of exploring new areas prompting radical transformation (Gambardella et al, 1998). The funds needed are smaller and the dangers are to a great extent reduced and, incase of organizational predicament of failure, limited damage is imposed on primary operations of the firm. Nonetheless, the implied nature of advance and the connected risks with failure of technological competitiveness, promotes a high level of in –house R&D activity. ANALYSIS I considered an environment where every firm in the production market is a creator of a distinguished product, the technology that is consistent. Like in the product cycle theory, the firms are seeking to lessen the cost of production through cost-reduction R&D. A technological firm can accomplish the cost-reduction improvements in-house by means of employing a researcher, or else it can outsource the R&D. Every firm is faced with a downward sloping inverse demand curve p(x) in a monopolistically competitive output market with a fixed number of firms. Consequently, the rate of transactions of a distinctive firm is xp(x). There is no access or way out provided that all the firms make positive working earnings at all times, which I presume to be the case. The life of the product begins at t = 0. The beginning research output date is t = I and the product cycle duration is T. That is to say, the life of the ends at t = T. With no reducing the future, the current value of sales discounted over the whole cycle of the product is: xp(x) (T − I).6 There are two probable ways wherein R&D activities can be completed, one by employing in-house researchers and the other by way of outsourcing to a subcontractor. There is an unrestricted workers supply who can operate as in-house researchers for the company and obtain a wage W IH over the whole cycle of product with the superscript IH indicating in-house, that is equipped to the exterior competitive wage W in stability. Therefore I used W IH and W interchangeably. Research subcontracting firms are driven by cooperative workers who are capable of cooperating with other research workers and in so doing have the benefit of affirmative knowledge spillovers. These research subcontractors are the managers, serving the proprietors of goods technological firms, or the other companies. Pros and cons of In-house Versus Outsourcing R&D activities in technological firms. By the use of this setup one can easily demonstrate three significant, easily recognized features of R&D activities, their disadvantages and advantages too. Adaptability R&D that is outsourced to the environment of the technological firm -In-house R&D does not have the problem of adaptability because in-house researchers are acquainted with the firm’s working environment however; R&D that is outsourced requires to be adapted to the mass firm’s working environment and this takes time. An individual may perhaps consider in-house R&D as that scrutinized in the predictable literature like Grossman and Helpman (1991), Aghion and Howitt (1992). For that reason, adaptability is a shortcoming of outsourcing, as outsourcing hinders the onset of customized advancements. Specialization of the subcontractor- Because the subcontractor have the benefit of ever-increasing income to accumulation of knowledge in addition to increasing profits to scale, it is extra efficient in the logic that it can build up the same advancement more rapidly than in in-house researchers at an agreed cost. For that reason, the rapidity of improvement is a pro of outsourcing. Additionally, advancement that is outsourced can generate added cost reduction profits for the technological firm than in in-house R&D because specialization lets the subcontractor produce advanced quality research production than in-house researchers. The suggestions are that the outsourcing curtails the advancement time for a particular cost reduction benefit. Leakage of Information –leakage of helpful information about the working of the technological firm is got by the subcontractor because of internal controls; in-house researchers are not as much of likely to leak information for investigative problem, and such potentials are implicated. Nonetheless, the subcontracting research firms can leak the information and may have a motivation to suitable proprietary information of the firm by promoting it to the prospective firm competitors. Therefore, entering information production as a competitor with assistance of the obtained information, would lead to wearing down of the largest part of the market share of the firm and they can stop R&D from being outsourced. Although I did not model this effect plainly, an individual may perhaps easily integrate it by following the technology implementation set up in Chen and Shimomura (1998) and Chen et al (2002) Conclusion My major conclusions are consequently connected to the problem of information leakage, which distinguish between R&D outsourcing and production outsourcing. I find that the optimal outsourcing contract could or could not be performance-based. In the first scenario, a revenue-sharing performance oriented contract is the balance outcome which ensures there is no leakage of information. In case number two, the equilibrium is a wholesome contract, and there is definitely room for information seepage. This is one of the two most suitable outcomes when information seepage is not monitored or verifiable. The provision for revenue-sharing between the principal and the agent raises the possibility of R&D outsourcing. From a managerial perspective; Quinn (2000) stresses the rewards from outsourcing R&D in scale economies, labor specialization, and innovation speed. Nonetheless, one can think of advancement explored in this paper as to increasing the value of the product (without changing the nature of the product) because it eliminates information leakage. Such a contractual arrangement therefore improves social efficiency. From the findings, performance based contracts are the most ideal especially in cases where a percentage of the principal’s loss is converted into a gain by the agent should there be any leakage. This scenario is true when the end market has enough organizations and because leakage minimizes possibility of outsourcing R&D, measures to reduce loses incurred by the principal or rewards the agent receives from making use of the principal’s proprietary data may help raise economic effectiveness. Having vigilant trade secret protection measures is a way of solving leakage problem. This can be more effective if Intellectual Protection system is strengthened to minimize theft of property rights, in so doing, R&D will no need to be induced and in house R&D affected by such developments that may require the lengthening of product life cycle. References Aghion, Philippe and Peter Howitt (1992), “A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction,” Archibugi, D.and Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalization, Research policy, Vol.28, pp, 317-336 Arora A. and Gambardella, A (1990) Complementary and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms on biotechnology, journal of industrial economics, vol.37 pp 361-379 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapter 4. Chen, Been-Lon and Koji Shimomura, 1998, Self-Fulfilling Expectations and Economic Chen, Been-Lon, Jie-Ping Mo and Ping Wang (2002), “Technology Adoption, Growth and Econometrica, 51, 7-45. Econometrica, 60, 323-351. Grossman, Gene and Elhanan Helpman (1992), Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, Grossman, Sanford J. and Oliver D. Hart (1983), “An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem,” Growth: A Model of Technology Adoption and Industrialization, International Economic Review, 39, 151-170. Hagedoorn J. (1996).Trends and patterns in strategic technology partnering since the early 70s, Review of industrial organization. Volume 11, page 601-616 Matching,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26, 1927-1954. R&D Magazine, January 2001. Real. Narula R and Hagedoorn J. (1999).Innovation through strategic alliances moving towards international partnership convergence imply and contractual agreement technovation vol.19, pp283-294 Veugellers, R. (199&) Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research policy, vol.26, pp 303-315. Read More