How SMEs protect critical knowledge in joint innovation activities with external partners

Master's Thesis , 2011 , 101 Pages , Grade: Sehr gut

Business economics - Business Management, Corporate Governance

For small firms, knowledge leakage, loss and theft are counted among the greatest risks in inter-firm collaborations. SMEs are more vulnerable, because they suffer from a number of structural disadvantages when collaborating with larger companies, and yet, they need to collaborate with external partners to overcome their lack of resources.

Therefore, this study investigates how SMEs can most effectively protect critical knowledge in collaborations with external partners, for that they can prevent knowledge loss, leakage and theft, while maximizing the performance of the collaboration. Based on a comprehensive review of existing literature, and a qualitative multiple-case study evaluation, where highly innovative and successful SMEs in Germany contributed their experiences, I have derived valuable insights for practice and theory.

Overall, the most commonly used means of protecting critical knowledge were secrecy, patents, the systematic selection of partners, and contracts. Despite the importance given to these mechanisms, not all of them proved to be effective. In fact, trust, secrecy and the systematic selection of partners were considered to be most effective, while initial secrecy and patents were concluded to overprotect knowledge, thus, limiting the possible overall innovative performance. Complementary assets, rotating personnel, oligopolistic market structures, equity relationships, technical means of protection, and employee contracts were found to be entirely ineffective for SMEs.

When analyzing the relations of protection mechanisms, a significant correlation between the type of protection and the openness to external innovation emerged: companies, which used initial secrecy and patents to protect knowledge, did not collaborate with external partners to co-develop new ideas, while companies, which focused on trust as a means of protection, were much more likely to do so. What is more, SMEs did not differentiate these strategies for different types of partners and they generally preferred to collaborate with smaller firms. In fact, it turned out that strategies are influenced by a number of factors including experiences made in previous collaborations.

Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)

• ABSTRACT
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
• LIST OF NAMES AND ABBREVIATIONS
• 1. INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH QUESTION
  • 1.1. Background
  • 1.2. Research question
  • 1.3. Outline of the report
• 2. THEORY
  • 2.1. Means of protecting critical knowledge
    • 2.1.1. Long term (strategic) means of protection
    • 2.1.2. Medium term (tactical) means of protection
    • 2.1.3. Short term (operational) means of protection
    • 2.1.4. Overarching factors
    • 2.1.5. Other
  • 2.2. Strategies of protecting critical knowledge
    • 2.2.1. Dilemma of openness and protection
    • 2.2.2. Factors and determinants
    • 2.2.3. Unique opportunities and challenges of smaller companies
    • 2.2.4. Interrelations and trade off of protection mechanisms
    • 2.2.5. Current best practices
• 3. METHODOLOGY
  • 3.1. Research Design: Building theory from case studies
  • 3.2. Research field
    • 3.2.1. "Top 100 Unternehmen"
    • 3.2.2. Research sample
  • 3.3. Data collection: Interviews and secondary sources
  • 3.4. Data analysis
• 4. FINDINGS
  • 4.1. Protection strategies
    • 4.1.1. Formal vs. informal means of protection
    • 4.1.2. Means of protection vs. openness to external partners
    • 4.1.3. Strategic groups
  • 4.2. Cross-case patterns and relationships
    • 4.2.1. Initial secrecy and patents reduce possible innovative performance
    • 4.2.2. Influencing factors and the relevance of personal experiences
    • 4.2.3. Strategies do not differ for different collaboration partners
    • 4.2.4. SMEs prefer to collaborate with small partners
    • 4.2.5. Large companies can protect knowledge better
  • 4.3. Protection mechanisms
    • 4.3.1. Distribution of protection mechanisms
    • 4.3.2. Detailed evaluation of protection mechanisms
• 5. DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS
  • 5.1. Conclusion
  • 5.2. Managerial implications
  • 5.3. Further research
  • 5.4. Limitations
• 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• 7. APPENDIX
  • 7.1. MAXQDA code system
  • 7.2. Interview guideline – preliminary version
  • 7.3. Interview guideline – final version
  • 7.4. Relationships of different protection mechanisms

Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)

This study investigates how SMEs can most effectively protect critical knowledge in collaborations with external partners. The study aims to identify strategies and mechanisms that enable SMEs to prevent knowledge loss, leakage, and theft while maximizing the performance of their collaborations. It explores the challenges faced by SMEs in protecting their knowledge, particularly when collaborating with larger companies, and analyzes the effectiveness of various protection mechanisms.

• Knowledge protection strategies in SME collaborations
• Balancing openness and protection in innovation partnerships
• Effectiveness of different protection mechanisms
• Impact of partner selection and collaboration dynamics on knowledge protection
• The role of trust and experience in knowledge protection strategies

Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)

The study begins by introducing the research question and providing background information on the challenges faced by SMEs in protecting critical knowledge during collaborations. Chapter 2 delves into the theoretical framework, exploring various means and strategies for protecting critical knowledge, including long-term, medium-term, and short-term protection mechanisms. It also examines the dilemma of openness and protection, the factors influencing knowledge protection strategies, and the unique challenges faced by smaller companies. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used in the study, including the research design, research field, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques. The study employed a qualitative multiple-case study approach, drawing on data from interviews with highly innovative and successful SMEs in Germany. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study, analyzing the protection strategies employed by the participating SMEs, the relationships between different protection mechanisms, and the factors influencing their choices. The chapter also examines the effectiveness of various protection mechanisms and the impact of partner selection on knowledge protection. Chapter 5 discusses the implications of the findings, drawing conclusions about the most effective strategies for protecting critical knowledge in SME collaborations. It also provides managerial implications for SMEs seeking to engage in collaborative innovation activities and identifies areas for further research. Finally, the study acknowledges its limitations and provides a comprehensive bibliography and appendix.

Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)

The keywords and focus themes of the text include knowledge protection, SME collaborations, innovation partnerships, critical knowledge, external partners, trust, secrecy, patents, openness, strategic groups, partner selection, and collaboration dynamics. The study explores the challenges and strategies for protecting critical knowledge in SME collaborations, emphasizing the importance of trust, partner selection, and the balancing of openness and protection in achieving successful innovation partnerships.

• College: Vienna University of Economics and Business (Entrepreneurship & Innovation)
• Grade: Sehr gut
• Author: Karl Tschetschonig (Author)
• Publication Year: 2011
• Pages: 101
• Catalog Number: V185044
• ISBN (eBook): 9783656098799
• ISBN (Book): 9783656099017
• Language: English
• Tags: SME, knowledge protection, alliances, collaboration, knowledge leakage, knowledge theft, secrecy, patents, trust, NDAs, openness, co-development, collaborative innovation, open innovation, dilemma of openness, best practice, co-creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing, Germany, case study, small firms