|
...development intellectual properties. But such arrangements should entered into carefully with extensive due diligence. Court cases underscore the importance of having valid nondisclosure and noncompete agreements prior to exchanging proprietary information.
Introduction
Intellectual properties (IPs) have been identified as comprising approximately 85% of the overall economic value of a corporation (Smith and Parr, 2000). As represented by patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and trademarks, IPs constitutes a strategic resource that can assist organizations in the development of core competencies and sustainable competitive advantage (Mason, 2003; Fitzpatrick and DiLullo, 2004). Models of knowledge management have documented the evolutionary manner in which organizations have developed and strategically exploited IPs. During much of the last century, IP development was often the province of large vertically integrated firms. Vertical integration permitted many firms to capitalize upon their extensive resources, exploit value chain control/synergies, and utilize government enforced patent-trade-mark-copyright laws to develop, market, and protect intellectual properties (Chesbrough, 2004; Fitzpatrick and DiLullo, 2004). However, the strategic viability of these vertically integrated models of IP management began to decline due to the combined effects of reverse engineering and the rapid erosion of product and technology life cycles (Cringley and Sen, 1996). Organizations have responded by introducing new models of IP management that rely on the extensive use of strategic alliances and partnerships to facilitate the more rapid creation and commercialization of intellectual properties (Johnston and Lawrence, 1988; Rackham, Freidman and Ruff, 1996; Chesbrough, 2004; Fitzpatrick and DiLullo, 2004).
Despite these advantages, IP-based strategic alliances and partnerships are subject to a number of control, security, and anti-trust issues arising from interorganizational sharing, development, ownership, and exploitation of intellectual properties (Anthony, 2000; Saunders, 2003; Boni, 1999; Fitzpatrick and Burke, 2003). This paper discusses these knowledge management issues and their mitigation through effective partner screening, contracting, and partnership administration activities. A model highlighting these activities and their relevance for managing IPs across organizational boundaries is also presented.
Establishing IP-Based Organizational Alliances
Types of IP-based strategic alliances and partnerships
Outsourcing/subcontracting, R &D teaming and R & D joint ventures are popular methodologies that permit partnering organizations to harness, exchange, or synergistically develop IPs to achieve competitive objectives (Dickerson, 1998; Grover, 1995; Rackham et al, 1996). The firm initiating these partnering methodologies is often classified as a HUB organization (Dickerson, 1998; Fitzpatrick and DiLullo, 2004). HUBs seek out subcontractors or other business partners to secure access to strategic capabilities they lack. To manage these partnering relationships, HUBs assume the responsibility for developing all the administrative infrastructures needed to coordinate the exchanges of IPs among members of their partner cadre (Dickerson, 1998; Fitzpatrick and Burke, 2000).
When engaged in outsourcing, HUBs transfer their IPs to partners with the expectation that cadre members will utilize their own unique capabilities to refine, produce, distribute, or market the transformed IP (Buono, 1997). IP transfers to R & D teams are generally implemented when HUBs wish to use the capabilities of the partner cadre to develop new products or technologies based upon proprietary knowledge contained in IPs contributed by the HUB. R & D joint ventures are a form of relational partnering. In this partnership form, HUBs and their partner cadre mutually contribute proprietary knowledge or trade secrets and other strategic capabilities to the partnership to create and competitively exploit new or jointly owned IPs (Rackham et al., 1996).
Knowledge management issues in IP-based alliances and partnerships
A key knowledge management issue confronting these types of partnerships is the degree to which cadre members can selectively protect and use contributed or jointly developed IPs to achieve competitive advantage. For example, when using both outsourcing and R & D teaming, HUBs organize partner cadres to perform "work-for-hire" (Fitzpatrick and DiLullo, 2004). Under work-for-hire, HUBs retain exclusive ownership of work product developed or derived from their original IP contributions (U.S. Copyfight Law, 1976). However, despite these ownership rights, HUBs must take active steps to (1) protect their intellectual properties and trade secrets from being disclosed to potential competitors by the current or former employees of business partners (Fitzpatrick and DiLullo, 2004; Speech Technology Associates v. Adaptive Communications, Inc. et al, 1994)),...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
