Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Evgeny Blagov
is 0.573), while <strong>the</strong> coefficients for <strong>the</strong> results congruence and necessity <strong>of</strong> support and fur<strong>the</strong>r
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> focal knowledge resource are significant with <strong>the</strong> coefficients <strong>of</strong> respectively 0.346
and -0.385. The equation for acquiring <strong>the</strong> necessary knowledge provider is partly supported because
<strong>the</strong> independent variable <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> focal firm’s ability to control <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> potential counterparty is
not significant (with <strong>the</strong> p-value <strong>of</strong> 0.490) while <strong>the</strong> significant variables (results congruence and
necessity <strong>of</strong> support and fur<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> focal knowledge) have coefficients <strong>of</strong> respectively
0.485 and -0.074. Finally, <strong>the</strong> equation for creating a long-term alliance relationship with <strong>the</strong>
necessary knowledge provider is supporting <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis with <strong>the</strong> coefficients <strong>of</strong> 0.339, 0.441 and -
0.506 for <strong>the</strong> independent variables <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> results congruence, ability to control and necessity <strong>of</strong>
support and fur<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> focal knowledge resource respectively.
5. Discussion
Although <strong>the</strong> comparative analysis <strong>of</strong> empirical boundaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm studies based on <strong>the</strong>
Williamson’s framework show that <strong>the</strong> most significant factor from those included in <strong>the</strong> framework is
<strong>the</strong> asset specificity, <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this study are not directly supporting this. From <strong>the</strong> factors
analyzed in <strong>the</strong> study being direct proxies to asset specificity (three “uniqueness” factors) only one
(namely <strong>the</strong> uniqueness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> focal knowledge resource in comparison with <strong>the</strong> respective market
and industry) appears to exert statistically significant influence on <strong>the</strong> firms’ inclination to choose only
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technological knowledge renovation sources, namely, <strong>the</strong> long-term alliance relationship
creation with <strong>the</strong> necessary knowledge provider. However, this influence does not follow <strong>the</strong>
respective hypo<strong>the</strong>sis suggestion: even in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ability to control <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> this
provider, this factor doesn’t show <strong>the</strong> positive influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm’s inclination to create such
relationships.
It can be suggested that such result is caused by specific traits <strong>of</strong> knowledge resources that differ
<strong>the</strong>se from o<strong>the</strong>r kinds <strong>of</strong> resources. Several authors (e.g., D. Teece (see, e.g., [Teece, 1998], H.
Varian (e.g., [Varian, 2000]), G. Roos et al. ([Roos et al., 2005]) point out such properties <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
knowledge resources as <strong>the</strong>ir non-exclusivity and non-diminishing marginal revenue that sharpen <strong>the</strong>
time constraints <strong>of</strong> making decisions about <strong>the</strong> boundaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm ([Teece, 1998]). This can be
supposed to lower <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> asset specificity for such decisions, at least in <strong>the</strong> static view,
and make <strong>the</strong> asset specificity more an issue <strong>of</strong> time, for example, <strong>of</strong> time advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firstmovers
in <strong>the</strong> commercial implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> (focal) knowledge resource.
In <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this study this suggestion is supported by <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> factor <strong>of</strong> necessity <strong>of</strong>
support and fur<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> focal knowledge resource. As <strong>the</strong> increase in this factor increases
<strong>the</strong> firm’s inclination to create necessary knowledge by own strength and counteracts <strong>the</strong> results
congruence factor’s pro-externalization influence, it can be suggested that in <strong>the</strong> dynamic context <strong>the</strong>
knowledge resources follow <strong>the</strong> transaction cost <strong>the</strong>ory considerations. So, <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r directions <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> research development could contain a deeper inquiry into <strong>the</strong> temporal aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
technological knowledge renovation process, for example, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> first-mover advantages and
standard-setting in <strong>the</strong> decisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heavy engineering companies about technological renovation
sources. Beside that, possible directions <strong>of</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> this research could be a
comparative study <strong>of</strong> firms belonging to different industries to analyze possible influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
industrial specificity on <strong>the</strong> researched interdependencies.
6. Conclusions
Following <strong>the</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> studying <strong>the</strong> factors influencing a company’s choice <strong>of</strong> technological knowledge
renovation sources in <strong>the</strong> Russian heavy engineering industry a set <strong>of</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>ses adapting R.
Coase’s and O. Williamson’s frameworks to <strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> knowledge boundaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm was
created and tested on a sample <strong>of</strong> 30 Russian heavy engineering firms. The main founding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
study is that <strong>the</strong> factor mostly influencing <strong>the</strong> technological knowledge renovation sources choice from
<strong>the</strong> factors tested is <strong>the</strong> necessity <strong>of</strong> support and fur<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> focal knowledge resource
that increases <strong>the</strong> probability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firms’ inclination to internalization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technological knowledge
renovation. This result can be interpreted as supporting <strong>the</strong> suggestions <strong>of</strong> R. Coase’s and O.
Williamson’s frameworks in <strong>the</strong> dynamic temporal settings, thus leading to such possible fur<strong>the</strong>r
directions <strong>of</strong> research development as deeper inquiry into <strong>the</strong> temporal aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technological
knowledge renovation process, for example, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> first-mover advantages and standard-setting
in <strong>the</strong> decisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> heavy engineering companies about technological renovation sources.
1039