Globalization of R&D Enters New Stage as Firms Learn to Integrate Technology Operations on World Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".