1. Constance E. Helfat– 1997, SMJ KNOW-HOW AND ASSET COMPLEMENTARITY AND DYNAMIC CAPABILITY ACCUMULATION: THE CASE OF R&D

2.  Dynamic capabilities – “The subset of the competences/ capabilities which allow the firm to create new products and processes and respond to changing market circumstances” (Teece & Pisano)  The Question - “When firms seek to alter their stock of knowledge in response to change in the environment, do such efforts depend on the firms’ existing stocks of complementary know-how and other assets?” DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES

3.  26 largest US energy firms (1976 to 1981)  Experienced two large spikes in oil price & OPEC supply restrictions  Industry responded in many ways, including research into synthetic oil production  Efforts to create new processes and products involved a high amount of rapid R&D investments THE STUDY

4.  Two types of R&D  The attempt to make incremental improvements to conventional technologies  The attempt to create major improvements to less developed technologies  The US energy industry spent time and money on both  Conventional – Resource location & extraction  Novel – Gasification/liquefaction  Nearly 6x was spent on coal over shale or tar R&D: CONVENTIONAL VS. NOVEL

6. 1a: Firms that had larger stocks of knowledge from past refining R&D were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D 1b: Firms that had larger accumulated refinery assets were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D 1c: Firms that had larger stocks of knowledge from past R&D on other synthetic fuels were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D 2: Firms that had larger accumulated coal assets were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D HYPOTHESES Basically: Dierickx and Cool were correct in saying that ‘firms must accumulate assets such as technological expertise over time (by undertaking R&D) and that increments to asset stocks may depend on the level of complementary asset stocks within the firm’.

7. VARIABLES TESTED

8.  R&D into coal conversion rose during 1976 through 1981, partly in response to higher oil prices  The industry as a whole looked to benefit from complementary knowledge acquired from past refining R&D (rather, prior refining knowledge led to greater R&D spending)  Larger preexisting stocks of coal assets led to higher coal conversion R&D spending  Prior R&D into coal conversion had a significant impact on coal conversion R&D spending REGRESSION FINDINGS

9. 1a: Firms that had larger stocks of knowledge from past refining R&D were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D 1b: Firms that had larger accumulated refinery assets were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D 1c: Firms that had larger stocks of knowledge from past R&D on other synthetic fuels were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D 2: Firms that had larger accumulated coal assets were likely to have undertaken larger amounts of coal gasification/liquefaction R&D RESULTS

10.  In response to rising oil costs, firms with larger amounts of complementary technological knowledge and physical assets also undertook larger amounts of R&D on coal conversion  For the large diversified US energy firms, novel R&D benefited from complementary R&D-based knowledge and assets  Results of this study may not apply to smaller, more focused firms performing R&D  Results may also not hold outside of the unique environment experienced by energy firms during the 1970s energy crisis CONCLUSION