MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coordination Structures and Innovative Performance in Global R&D Labs

2002· article· en· W2112890044 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ajax Persaud, Uma Kumar, Vinod Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationSocializationAutonomyHumanitiesSociologyPolitical scienceManagementBusiness administrationBusinessSocial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, multinational corporations have been globalizing their research and development (R&D) activities as a way to harness and leverage the scientific and technological capabilities residing in their subsidiary labs around the world and to tap into the knowledge base of overseas locations. Prior research suggests that proper coordination and control mechanisms are critical for the realization of this goal. An empirical study was undertaken to ascertain the extent to which four coordination and control mechanisms—autonomy, socialization, formalization, and communication—enhance the innovative capabilities of multinationals. R&D executives from 79 research facilities of 27 North American, European, and Japanese multinational corporations participated in this study. The results from multivariate regression and factor analysis indicate that innovative capability is influenced by the level of autonomy of the labs, the extent of socialization, and the effectiveness of in‐person communication between the HQ and subsidiary labs. Résumé Récemment, les corporations multinationales ont mondialisé leurs activités de recherche et développement afin d'exploiter et de retenir les capacités scientifiques et technologiques au coeur de leurs laboratoires auxiliaires autour du monde. Des recherches antérieures suggèrent qu'une bonne coordination et qu'un bon contrôle est critique pour la réalisation de ce but. Une recherche empirique a été effectué pour évaluer jusqu'à quel point les quatre mécanismes de coordination et de contrôle—autonomie, socialisation, formalisation, et communication—pourraient améliorer les capacités innovatrices des compagnies multinationales. Les directeurs de recherche et développement parvenant de 79 laboratoires de recherche de 27 corporations nord‐américaines, européennes, et japonaises ont participé à cette étude. Les résultats de régressions multivariées et d'analyse de facteurs indiquent que les capacités innovatrices sont influencées par le niveau d'autonomie dans les laboratoires, les limites de la socialisation, et par l'efficacité de l'intercommunication entre le siège social de l'entreprise et les laboratoires auxiliaires.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207