par Buisson, Bernard
Président du jury Kirchsteiger, Georg
Promoteur Van Pottelsberghe, Bruno
Publication Non publié, 2016-07-15
Thèse de doctorat
Résumé : Abstract for Chapter 2:Most of the debate related to innovation now focuses on the disruption theory.This theory is the result of years of research and multiple contributions over the last forty years, the most important ones coming from Clayton Christensen.Still it comes with limitations. This paper therefore examines the usefulness of the theory compared with the contributions of the strategy literature.It concludes that the disruption theory is mostly descriptive, that using it as a prescriptive theory to build a strategy can be quite dangerous, and that incumbents could probably design more relevant strategies using contributions from the strategy literature. Abstract for Chapter 3:Innovation is widely recognized as a major driver of long-term corporate growth. Successful innovators who manage to dominate new markets enjoy Schumpeterian rents for their inventions. How then can a firm dominate a new market? Two streams of literature have proposed opposite answers to this question.The First Mover approach indicates that by setting up a strong differentiation strategy,companies are supposed to create a new area where profits abound. This approach issupported especially by Kim and Mauborgne (2004) who coined the term Blue Ocean to describe it.The Fast Second approach, defended by Markides and Geroski (2005), contends, onthe contrary, that companies should not try to become pioneers, but should target the newly created market in second position, and colonize it.But neither Blue Ocean nor Fast Second are able to convincingly explain successfulmarket domination. Our study of 24 innovation cases suggests that innovation which leads to market domination is instead achieved by using four kinds of breakthroughs, separately of simultaneously.Abstract for Chapter 4:The question addressed in this study is: "Is there a relationship between the level of R&D internationalization and the innovation performance?"Using a sample of 237 companies, representing 126,824 priority patents with country information, it turns out that no link can be found between innovation performance and the proportion of foreign R&D (the proportion of patents which were not invented in the company home country), but that innovation performance is positively related to the geographical dispersion of R&D (the number of countries where a given company invented patents), and that this relationship is statistically significant at the 1% level. This paper also discards the possibility of any reverse causality.Abstract for Chapter 5:This paper investigates the dynamics of innovation, profits and economic performance of multinational corporations. Using a panel of 1130 companies with financial data over a three-year period (2011, 2012 and 2013), this paper confirms that contemporaneous relationships exist between innovation performance and profits, but comes up with two unexpected results: 1) innovation performance is positively related to profits and 2) profits are negatively related to innovation performance.Models are estimated using alternative methods as suggested by the literature. The modelling methods are not implemented to suggest a simultaneous structure per se, and are implemented to mitigate concerns related to circularity (endogeneity) issues. Innovation performance and profits are used as independent variables including a proxy for economic performance as dependent variable. Empirically, this paper indicates that economic performance is positively related to both innovation performance and profits, and that this relationship is statistically significant at the 1% level.

Documents en relation