Globalization of R&D Enters New Stage as Firms Learn to Integrate Technology Operations on World Scale
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Multinational companies from United States, Europe, and Asia are accelerating pace of their direct investments in overseas R&D. As we observed in our latest report to United States Department of Commerce, Globalizing Industrial Research and Development, more than 100 multinational companies have acquired multiple laboratories abroad and are increasingly tapping into these laboratories for new sources of technologies (see p. 61, this issue). Impressive as raw data are, however, we believe their real significance lies in what they reveal about evolution of R&D globalization. Previously, companies expanded their R&D operations overseas primarily to support local manufacturing and marketing operations. But now, companies are making overseas investments to complement their domestic research, technology and product strengths. Overseas R&D operations are thus becoming important sources of new science and technology for entire global corporation. For example: A large Canadian multinational invests in an R&D laboratory in U.S. in order to strengthen Canadian parent's technological and new product development base in wide-area networking products and remote access solutions in telecommunications industry. A Japanese R&D organization searches U.S. for leading-edge electronics and imaging technology to complement its expertise in optics. A European pharmaceutical company invests in U.S. drug/biotechnology industry in order to expand its pipeline for new products and to access expertise in biotechnology research. Companies like these do more than simply acquire science and technology. They are integrating their domestic and overseas R&D facilities into global R&D networks. Integration Worldwide We see this move from simple geographic expansion to integration as representing a new stage in global management of R&D, defined in a 1996 study by Industrial Research Institute and Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the ability of technology development organization to recognize and respond to technology and market signals from all strategically important locations. Eleanor Westney, principal investigator for IRI/MIT study, noted that globalization was both a core competence and a process. We expect this competence to be even more critical for this new stage. The United States appears to be major host-country beneficiary of globalization of R&D. According to Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. affiliates of foreign companies spent $19.7 billion on R&D in United States in 1997, compared with $6.5 billion in 1987. Since 1987, R&D expenditures of U.S. affiliates of foreign companies have increased at an annual average rate of 11.6 percent or more. Lion's Share to United States Moreover, U.S. has received lion's share of inward foreign direct investments in R&D and is host to a large and growing number of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories. In 1997, there were 695 R&D facilities in U.S. owned by 363 foreign parent companies from various countries, including Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, and South Korea. The U.S. is not only a major beneficiary of foreign-funded R&D but continues to be a major source of R&D investments abroad and of expatriate R&D funding. United States companies increased their R&D spending abroad from $5.2 billion in 1987 to $14.1 billion in 1997, representing nearly 11 percent of R&D performed in United States. Similarly, U.S. companies have established or acquired R&D laboratories abroad. The Department of Commerce identified 84 U.S. companies with 186 R&D facilities abroad in 1997 (88 in Europe, 45 in Japan, and 26 in Canada). These R&D facilities cover a wide range of industries, including computer hardware, computer software, consumer electronics, motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and chemicals. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle