Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management Series Editor Elias G Carayannis, George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8124 Manlio Del Giudice · Maria Rosaria Della Peruta · Elias G Carayannis Knowledge and the Family Business The Governance and Management of Family Firms in the New Knowledge Economy 123 Manlio Del Giudice Faculty of Economics Second University of Naples I-81043 Capua (CE), Italy manlio.delgiudice@unina2.it Maria Rosaria Della Peruta Faculty of Economics Second University of Naples I-81043 Capua (CE), Italy mariarosaria.dellaperuta@unina2.it Elias G Carayannis School of Business George Washington University Washington, DC 20052, USA caraye@gwu.edu ISBN 978-1-4419-7352-8 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-7353-5 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7353-5 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2010938139 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 All rights reserved This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Series Foreword The Springer Book Series on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management was launched in March 2008 as a forum and intellectual, scholarly “podium” for global/local (gloCal), transdisciplinary, transsectoral, public–private, leading/ “bleeding”-edge ideas, theories and perspectives on these topics The book series is accompanied by the Springer Journal of the Knowledge Economy which was launched in 2009 with the same editorial leadership The series showcases provocative views that diverge from the current “conventional wisdom”, which are properly grounded in theory and practice, and which consider the concepts of robust competitiveness,1 sustainable entrepreneurship2 and democratic capitalism,3 central to its philosophy and objectives More specifically, the aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of these fields, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth Books that are part of the series explore the impact of innovation at the “macro” (economies, markets), “meso” (industries, firms) and “micro” levels (teams, individuals), drawing from such related disciplines as finance, organizational psychology, R&D, science policy, information systems and strategy, with the underlying theme that in order for innovation to be useful it must involve the sharing and application of knowledge Some of the key anchoring concepts of the series are outlined in the figure below and the definitions that follow (all definitions are from EG Carayannis and DFJ Campbell, International Journal of Technology Management 46: 3–4, 2009) v vi Series Foreword Global Systemic Macro-Level: Structural and Organizational Meso-Level: Mode Quadruple Helix Democracy of Knowledge Democratic Capitalism Knowledge Clusters Innovation Networks Entrepreneurial University Academic Firm gloCal Sustainable Entrepreneurship Individual Micro-Level: Creative Milieus Entrepreneur/ Employee Matrix Local Conceptual profile of the Series on Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management • The “MODE 3” Systems Approach for knowledge creation, diffusion and use “Mode 3” is a multilateral, multinodal, multimodal and multilevel systems approach to the conceptualization, design and management of real and virtual, “knowledge-stock” and “knowledge-flow”, modalities that catalyze, accelerate and support the creation, diffusion, sharing, absorption and use of co-specialized knowledge assets “Mode 3” is based on a system-theoretic perspective of socioeconomic, political, technological and cultural trends and conditions that shape the co-evolution of knowledge with the “knowledge-based and knowledge-driven, gloCal economy and society” • Quadruple Helix Quadruple Helix, in this context, means to add to the triple helix of government, university and industry a “fourth helix” that we identify as the “media-based and culture-based public” This fourth helix associates with “media”, “creative industries”, “culture”, “values”, “life styles”, “art”, and perhaps also the notion of the “creative class” • Innovation Networks Innovation Networks are real and virtual infrastructures and infra-technologies that serve to nurture creativity, trigger invention and catalyze innovation in a public and/or private domain context (for instance, government-university-industry public-private research and technology development co-opetitive partnerships) • Knowledge Clusters Knowledge Clusters are agglomerations of co-specialized, mutually complementary and reinforcing knowledge assets in the form of Series Foreword vii “knowledge stocks” and “knowledge flows” that exhibit self-organizing, learning-driven, dynamically adaptive competencies and trends in the context of an open systems perspective • Twenty-first Century Innovation Ecosystem: A twenty-first century Innovation Ecosystem is a multilevel, multimodal, multinodal and multiagent system of systems The constituent systems consist of innovation meta-networks (networks of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) and knowledge meta-clusters (clusters of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) as building blocks and organized in a self-referential or chaotic fractal knowledge and innovation architecture, which in turn constitute agglomerations of human, social, intellectual and financial capital stocks and flows as well as cultural and technological artifacts and modalities, continually co-evolving, o-specializing and co-opeting These innovation networks and knowledge clusters also form, re-form and dissolve within diverse institutional, political, technological and socioeconomic domains including government, university, industry, non-governmental organizations and involving information and communication technologies, biotechnologies, advanced materials, nanotechnologies and next-generation energy technologies Who is this book series published for? – The book series addresses a diversity of audiences in different settings: Academic communities: Academic communities worldwide represent a core group of readers This follows from the theoretical/conceptual interest of the book series to influence academic discourses in the fields of knowledge, also carried by the claim of a certain saturation of academia with the current concepts and the postulate of a window of opportunity for new or at least additional concepts Thus it represents a key challenge for the series to exercise a certain impact on discourses in academia In principle, all academic communities that are interested in knowledge (knowledge and innovation) could be tackled by the book series The interdisciplinary (transdisciplinary) nature of the book series underscores that the scope of the book series is not limited a priori to a specific basket of disciplines From a radical viewpoint, one could create the hypothesis that there is no discipline where knowledge is of no importance Decision makers – private/academic entrepreneurs and public (governmental, sub-governmental) actors: Two different groups of decision makers are being addressed simultaneously: (1) private entrepreneurs (firms, commercial firms, academic firms) and academic entrepreneurs (universities), interested in optimizing knowledge management and in developing heterogeneously composed knowledge-based research networks; and (2) public (governmental, subgovernmental) actors that are interested in optimizing and further developing their policies and policy strategies that target knowledge and innovation One purpose of public knowledge and innovation policy is to enhance the performance and competitiveness of advanced economies viii Series Foreword Decision makers in general: Decision makers are systematically being supplied with crucial information on how to optimize knowledge-referring and knowledge-enhancing decision-making The nature of this “crucial information” is conceptual as well as empirical (case study-based) Empirical information highlights practical examples and points towards practical solutions (perhaps remedies), conceptual information offers the advantage of further-driving and further-carrying tools of understanding Different groups of addressed decision makers could be decision makers at private firms and multinational corporations responsible for the knowledge portfolio of companies; knowledge and knowledge management consultants; globalization experts, focusing on the internationalization of R&D, S&T and innovation; experts in university/business research networks; and political scientists, economists, business professionals Interested global readership: Finally, the Springer book series addresses a whole global readership composed of members who are generally interested in knowledge and innovation The global readership could partially coincide with the communities, as described above (“academic communities,” “decision makers”), but could also refer to other constituencies and groups Notes We define sustainable entrepreneurship as the creation of viable, profitable and scalable firms Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems), leading towards robust competitiveness (EG Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3): 235–254, 2009) We understand robust competitiveness to be a state of economic being and becoming that avails systematic and defensible “unfair advantages” to the entities that are part of the economy Such competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low-, medium- and high-technology and public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, universities and non-governmental organizations) (EG Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3): 235–254, 2009) The concepts of robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship are pillars of a regime that we call democratic capitalism (as opposed to “popular or casino capitalism”) in which real opportunities for education and economic prosperity are available to all, especially – but not only – younger people These are the direct derivatives of a collection of top-down policies as well as bottom-up initiatives (including strong R&D policies and funding, but going beyond these to include the development of innovation networks and knowledge clusters across regions and sectors) (EG Carayannis and A Kaloudis, Japan Economic Currents, January 2009, pp 6–10) Washington, District of Columbia Elias G Carayannis Contents Introduction: Mapping the Paths Through the Handbook Manlio Del Giudice, Maria Rosaria Della Peruta, and Elias G Carayannis Part I Family Businesses in the New Knowledge Economy: Governance and Management Knowledge Management and Family Business Manlio Del Giudice Learning Processes and Social Implications in Family Organizations Maria Rosaria Della Peruta 11 47 Family Business: Leadership and Succession Maria Rosaria Della Peruta 73 Family Business in the World Manlio Del Giudice 109 The Italian Entrepreneurial Outlook Manlio Del Giudice 125 Part II Family Business Entrepreneurs as Creative Destroyers and “Knowledge Weavers” Definition of Terms and Concepts Elias G Carayannis 189 Insights from Theory and Practice Elias G Carayannis 229 Critical Success and Failure Factors and Lessons Learned Elias G Carayannis 251 Index 261 ix Chapter Introduction: Mapping the Paths Through the Handbook Manlio Del Giudice, Maria Rosaria Della Peruta, and Elias G Carayannis For long time management and organizational research ignored family firms, even if they were dominant in many national economies Only in the last decade the importance of the question was increasingly recognized Apart from the fundamental research stream that aimed to understand the definitive essence and nature of family firms and how they differ from non-family firms, researchers were also interested in approaching practical managerial issues and real strategic matters The study of family business management started from modest origins, as the limited content of a general management course in business schools, but has now acquired the value of a well-established field in the study of business and organizations Over a brief period of time, the number and variety of topics and research methods employed in this field has grown considerably While the increase in topics and methods is commonly regarded as a positive fact because it expresses the vitality of the field, rebuilding of the methodological and ideological coordinates in which the various contributions that have written the history of this young subject are inscribed is a very difficult task Many have attempted, but their outcomes have almost always been compromised by the noble yet unrealistic ambition of adjusting, simplifying and enclosing in matrix various research projects, labelling, classifying and embalming them Rather than continuing in this sterile exercise of exhausting research of theoretical reference models, it would be desirable to maintain a constructive exchange of ideas, in which you try to learn from one another, discover an intimate understanding of the theoretical processes and of the vast mass of empirical evidence that has been accumulated over time We have tried to seize this invitation, pointing out those contributions that have seemed more meaningful to us, without the pretension of being exhaustive and devolving their examination upon authors of various origins, without precluding any schools or viewpoints and without being concerned about not reaching an overall consistency The handbook starts from a series of contributions of economic formulation, which have undeniably represented an advancement not only of both thinking and, in some ways, business practice but also of the enhancement of a certain “enlightened” vision, in which knowledge and organization are essentially treated as a “deterministic” phenomenon that sends back to the observation of several real cases M Del Giudice et al., Knowledge and the Family Business, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7353-5_1, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Introduction: Mapping the Paths Through the Handbook Part I, which is directed at recognizing factors and conditions that shape organizational learning in family business, aims at offering a theoretical reference frame that allows to bind and understand knowledge properties that govern its production and transfer, as well as the institutional conditions that determine knowledge management in a family business What we mean when referring to knowledge is basically an attribute of cognitive ability: who has it is given the ability to act, physically or intellectually (Chapter 2) Knowledge transfer is a critical process, because cognitive abilities are difficult to articulate explicitly and transfer to others Consequently, the reproduction of knowledge has been based, for long time, on the relationship between master and apprentice (in which the competencies of a youngster were developed through observation, imitation, listening) or on the transactions among members of the same community or profession These means of reproduction are still significant in many professions and traditions, but they can easily fail, at the time that social bonds deteriorate, when contacts between old and new generations become rarer and when professional communities lose their ability to stabilize, preserve and transfer knowledge In these cases, reproduction halts and there is the risk that the knowledge in question is lost and forgotten Even if organizational learning occurs, by definition, within an organizational context, that context has not always been suitably considered (Chapter 3) The social constitution of the organizations within which these processes occur fosters moulds and limits learning and knowledge creation In short, distinct organizational elements, such as departments or hierarchical levels, are characterized by a diverse structuring of roles, interests and power: this causes many paradoxes and tensions that activate a series of dynamics which have an effect on learning processes These dynamics are closely connected to the sense of social identity people have and can generate intense emotions: according to the type of emotion and the typical context involved, learning may be encouraged or prevented As a consequence, we can assert that significant successes and failures organizations may have experienced in the past not offer a secure learning basis Therefore, we can assume that the study of the processes by which organizations learn and the study of leadership are connected by the need for organizations to adjust to environmental change and leaders must play their part in encouraging organizational learning (Chapter 4) In a balanced family system, instead, leadership is more open and communicative, roles are shared and more distinctly established Decisions are made on an open basis and interpersonal exchange is essential This type of system will ensure devotion and gratification A predominant focus on leadership as a key attribute in management of the family business is not unreasonable to expect, given that the literature has identified leadership as a critical variable of the often difficult and detrimental process of transferring power from one generation to another in the typical family business Chapters and Chapters originate from the consideration that in a large number of recently industrialized countries, the traditional family firm – in which property and control are closely connected, family members make decisions at all levels and the firm follows a dynastic line – represents the strategic element This is also true 9.1 Knowledge Sharing and International IPR for the Family Business 253 Strategies to advance protection should take a long-range approach, namely a 5–10 year time frame; An international agreement should recognize that new technologies enable the development of new protections; The entry of new nations into the global economy such as the former Soviet block countries and China requires an expansion of the negotiating framework to stress multilateralism Hence, emerging global technoeconomic trends that impact the international IPR regimes can be distilled in the following processes of convergence between technology and knowledge management, global trade and IPR issuance, protection and licensing and knowledge-enabled global competition: • Technology globalization and “niching” While IPR regimes across the world are becoming harmonized, specialized “niches” of expertise are developing in particular nations These pockets of expertise will need to link to each other through licensing and other mechanisms to mobilize their collective intellectual capital for global competition This will contribute to the organization and merging multinational networks of firms which will form the basic unit for global competition • Diffusion of IPR standards Standards for intellectual property are being spread across the world through multinational harmonization This means that the IPR policies and practices of the West will become more widely adopted, especially as non-Western firms develop sophisticated intellectual assets which require protection • Divergence of IPR enforcement practices At the same time that IPR legal regimes are converging, there is the remaining threat that enforcement practices will diverge, with each nation choosing to enforce IPR protection in ways which favour their national champions Thus, international trade negotiations must move from the establishment of a common legal regime to the more specific task of standardizing the way in which those regimes operate in practice • Knowledge-based global rivalries The identification and management of IC will enable firms to understand their own intellectual capabilities and assets with more accuracy, which in turn will enable them to identify appropriate partners with whom they can combine their common capabilities with gainsharing outcomes This will create new globe-spanning alliances which compete specifically through their knowledge capabilities, not simply through manufacturing or other competencies The implications of knowledge sharing for the new knowledge-based economy are substantial Knowledge-based competition is generally assumed to require that firms have different knowledge which they then use to create sustained competitive advantage But knowledge sharing allows firms to access the same basic knowledge to cooperate and compete simultaneously for greater productivity This, in 254 Critical Success and Failure Factors and Lessons Learned turn, changes the way that firms must operate, and the mechanisms for governing transactions in the new economy Intellectual property is thus emerging as the essential “currency” for global trade in strategic capabilities for market-based competition, whose use continues to grow As a result, firms increasingly view their intellectual property as their primary asset or form of capital which can be leveraged into future advantage in technology and products and in this context, the intellectual property audit is becoming an important tool to transforming firms from traditional storekeepers of intellectual capital to firms which strategically utilize and grow their intellectual capital and tap into the wealth of their proprietary and shared knowledge Moreover, there is a double paradigm shift process afoot, in terms of redefining both the knowledge management as well as the technology management paradigms as a result of the emerging role and significance of intellectual capital and the increasingly dynamic and virtual nature of the knowledge-based economy These shifts are especially manifested in the transition of the ways in which intellectual property is commercialized from large firms and formal interactions to entrepreneurial start-ups linked by informal networks and other virtual business enterprises that thrive on knowledge and zero overhead (Balachandra 1996, pp 625–638) The recurring pattern from these diverse case studies shows that the presence of internal and external champions, appropriate technology and patient risk capital make a difference in winning in a competitive environment However, part of the same pattern perhaps is the lack of any identifiable “recipes for success – critical factors appear to be situation-specific” 9.2 General Findings from Case Studies Using the framework discussed above, we can generate some preliminary findings about which metrics are significant in measuring the success of technology transfer For the NASA cases, the common element contributing to the success in all three cases was the presence of (internal and external) champions In two cases, government funding, equivalent technology and a license were also mentioned as keys A closer analysis of these cases reveals that champions, early government funding, equivalent technology and licenses were also crucial elements to successful technology transfer In the case of the New Mexico projects studied, it is apparent that the nature, process and content of spin-off creation are very complex and elusive to fit into cut-and-dried definitions There are however three recurring critical success factors through the variety and uniqueness of each case These are (i) the technical entrepreneurs, (ii) the risk-capital supporting technology-based ventures, and (iii) the technology on which these ventures are built Although New Mexico has a treasure trove of technological know-how and assets with considerable commercial promise, the process of transferring and commercializing high tech know-how and/or assets is fraught with difficulties A big part of the reason for this is the fact that two of the three critical success factors “are still well below the critical mass 9.2 General Findings from Case Studies 255 required to stimulate and support a substantial flow of new ventures: (1) risk capital devoted to technology-based ventures, and (2) technical entrepreneurs” (Radosevich 1995) Furthermore, the profiles of the four spin-offs and the personalities of their creators as they emerge from our field research confirm to a considerable degree the advantages and disadvantages of both, the inventor- and the surrogate-entrepreneur models for commercializing technology as predicted by Radosevich, namely, (1) to have a clear aspiration for doing so, (2) to go through a thorough preparation phase, and (3) to actually launch the new venture (Radosevich 1995) In cases such as MSC, PSI, AmTech and Yamada Science and Art, the actions of a single “champion” or group of champions who supported the technology transfer process, and more importantly who maintained their commitment through the process of commercialization The over-emphasis on short-term metrics in the “out-the-door” concept often leads government laboratories to end their involvement with a technology after the transfer has taken place But in many cases, continued laboratory involvement is needed to turn the technology into a product Ham and Mowery found that the CRADA process used by laboratories often required that laboratory personnel end their involvement as soon as a prototype was demonstrated, even though their expertise was still needed to move the technology to production This finding is consistent with those of other authors, such as Eldred and McGrath who state “The transition team is central to the technology transfer process It has evolving membership The transition team may ultimately evolve into the product development core team after the initial phase of product development” (Eldred and McGrath 1997, pp 29–33) In light of the findings from the seven case studies we presented, we recommend using a hybrid portfolio approach in assessing the success of technology transfer and commercialization efforts This approach incorporates both quantitative and qualitative measures and is flexible in its implementation and it should have underpinnings in basic raw data and facts, not in economic models that introduce levels of uncertainty and are more open to criticism Such an approach should be undergirded by an attitude of humility and openness to learning by doing The hybrid portfolio approach consists of input, intermediate and short and long term output, qualitative and quantitative metrics A systematic case study development and analysis approach as outlined in this chapter can provide the platform for identifying and synthesizing key facilitating and impeding factors that can eventually determine market success or failure These factors allow us to link key drivers of the technology transfer and commercialization process to market success or failure and thus enable us to effectively reengineer the said process For example, in the case studies outlined here we identified facilitating or impeding factors that fall in the following broad categories and focus on the collaborative government/industry market/technological interface that underscores the process of technology transfer and commercialization between government and industry: • financial • technology lifecycle / maturity 256 Critical Success and Failure Factors and Lessons Learned • • • • market lifecycle / maturity cultural (trust issues, openness/sharing issues) systemic (bureaucratic issues, intellectual property rights issues) strategic orientation (competitive versus co-opetitive or collaborative/competitive issues) • international versus domestic market and technological orientation • timing and selection of all of the above factors (synchronization issues) Table 9.1 provides a technology transfer and commercialization outcome factors typology, outlining and grouping the facilitating and impeding factors identified across the seven case studies discussed These factors are then labelled as common or differentiating ones, based on whether they were common and to how many of the case studies or unique to only one of them For example, a common facilitating factor was found to be the presence and role of internal and external champions, whereas a common impeding factor was found to be a systemic one in nature, namely conflict over the transfer of ownership of intellectual property rights in a collaborative rather than competitive context A differentiating or unique facilitating factor was the laboratory connections held by the founders of Radiant Technologies, while a differentiating impeding factor was the usage of the lawsuit filed by NASA against MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation to stop the use of NASA intellectual property in MSC’s software Table 9.1 Categorization of key metrics derived from cases Key metric Common, Common, Differentiating, facilitating impeding facilitating Emergence of internal and external Y champions Cultural barriers separating laboratory and industry Financial support of laboratory Y Continuing support from laboratory Y researchers Experiences of entrepreneurs Outside advice from investors/sponsors Difficulty of negotiating IPR ownership Lack of available investment capital Differentiating, impeding Y Y Y Y Y Legend: Common factors are those that were found in three or more of the case studies Differentiating factors are those that were found in only one of the case studies In Table 9.2, we attempt to cluster the case studies in the four categories defined under the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) model: “cash-cows”, “dogs”, “question marks”, and “stars” to indicate the relative current and expected technological and 9.2 General Findings from Case Studies 257 Table 9.2 Analysis of case portfolio using BCG framework Potential or actual market share, profitability, customer base, etc Cash cows MSC Dogs Permacharge (Particle filtration) Stars Yamada PSI Question marks Radiant Amtech Permacharge (WallWrite) Potential or actual rate of growth in market share, profits, etc Not applicable: T cnico market prowess of each firm profiled as a case study The cases are classified by guesstimating their individual levels and rates of growth for a composite of the market success measures identified earlier Given the limited field data on these cases, this table provides only a framework to use with more robust empirical data samples The challenge in linking tangible inputs with tangible outputs, namely technology as input and money as output, remains considerable but it becomes truly intractable when one tries to link intangibles with tangibles, namely the transfer of processes and even more so knowledge and skills with tangibles such as money or other measurable ROI Thus, the most effective “lens” for examining and understanding a process dealing with both tangible and intangible inputs and outputs and capturing the value added in the case of intangibles seems to be the case study approach Another limitation of the case study is that there may not be sufficient information accessible to researchers to create a “picture” comprehensive enough to evaluate technology transfer properly As Penaranda notes, if credible, substantiated cause-effect statistics are to be gathered so appropriate benefits may be attributed to the technology transfer and commercialization processes, every technology transfer event or “hit” must be tracked and documented to its ultimate conclusion But the sources of the most critical information are often uncooperative These are the commercial partners themselves Sometimes the information is impossible to extract from the overall corporate records Very often, however, there is a general reluctance to share this information with the “feds” for fear of “revenuers” knocking at their doors, literally or figuratively The choice of who will conduct the case study research is as important as the research itself in determining whether a true evaluation is achieved In this context, one may need to consider a case study as a “performance metric” in a broad sense – as providing a common context or frame of reference, common enough to make meaningful comparisons as opposed to trying to fit the ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in the intangibles of technology transfer and commercialization in the narrow mould of econometric models 258 Critical Success and Failure Factors and Lessons Learned Hence, a case study as a “performance metric” could be a source of insight and information both in depth, as a “well” of knowledge, and in breadth, as part of a “fabric” or number of case studies across which one could pursue emerging recurring patterns The case study can serve as the conceptual “bridge” between tangible outputs and intangible processes and critical success factors: a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures provides a more comprehensive assessment of not only degree of success but also reasons for success Moreover, just raw data can be a source of insight in evaluating the value added of intangibles, such as technical assistance, in correlating hours of technical assistance to jobs created Such data should include quantitative measures of value added such as survey data, numbers of cooperative agreements, number of patents and licenses, royalty streams, as well as qualitative measures of value added such as quality of life, etc These quantitative data can be very informative in discerning trends and their evolution over time rather than absolute numbers, and can prove very useful as benchmarks Such a hybrid approach can finally help leverage technology and especially its knowledge content, to build and sustain competitive advantage for both the transferor and the transferee of technology, by means of allowing both financial and strategic imperatives, short- and long-term criteria to come into play in evaluating the outcomes and reengineering the process of technology transfer and commercialization Part II of the present handbook (Chapter 7, and 9) has been about diversity and heterogeneity in knowledge-based family businesses, that is businesses that are small and medium size, technology-based or technology-driven (but not technology-neutral), that we view as complex, adaptive, non-linear, learning knowledge systems In the introduction (Chapter 7), we acknowledge that a knowledge system involves the presence and interactions of input, process and output factors in the knowledge society and economy manifested via co-existence, co-opetition, co-evolution and co-specialization processes We have further studied and discussed the ways and means that diversity and heterogeneity – two key properties of the knowledge system – influence how knowledge is created, diffused and used Our discussion of knowledge systems has been open-ended We have thus attempted to provide an emerging conceptual framework to serve as the intellectual sandbox and creative whiteboard space of the mind’s eyes of the family business owners and operators who we view as knowledge weavers (Wissensweber)1 as they strive to tackle the twenty-first century challenges and opportunities for socioeconomic prosperity and cultural renaissance based on knowledge and innovation As a result of the glocalized nature and dynamics of state-of-the-art, specialized knowledge one needs to cope with and leverage two mutually reinforcing and complementary trends: (a) Micro-Macro – the symbiosis and co-evolution of top-down national and multinational science, technology and innovation public policies, technological paradigms and institutional complementarities as well as bottom-up technology development and knowledge acquisition private initiatives, and References 259 (b) the levelling of the competitive field across regions of the world via technology diffusion and adoption accompanied and complemented by the formation and exacerbation of multidimensional, multilateral, multimodal and multinodal divides (cultural, technological, socioeconomic, etc.) Key findings and contributions can be grouped in terms of theory, methodology and empirical results as follows: a In terms of enriching theory, this second part of the handbook postulates that heterogeneity and diversity constitute a major driver of sustainable and potentially more equitable economic development b Moreover, in advancing theory, it attempts to promote the understanding of the role of heterogeneity and diversity in the inter-linkages of rationalities identities, preferences and intentions to macro level phenomena such as institutions, national systems, regional city economies, the evolution of technological paradigms and the ways in which multilevel innovation systems work c In advancing theory, as well as methodology and empirical evidence, it provides some insights as to how heterogeneity, diversity, entrepreneurship and innovation can act, interact and impact each other and their environment as well as individual and institutional actors in social and/or economic settings d In terms of theory, it strives to advance the understanding of patterns of coevolution and co-specialization at the micro, meso and macro levels – and in particular how micro factors, events and processes impact those at the meso and macro levels and vice versa e In terms of theory, policy and practice, it in essence provides a more coherent and congruent framework for understanding and potentially anticipating the phenomena of innovation and entrepreneurship through a more profound understanding of the nature, dynamics and impact of heterogeneity and diversity In this manner, one could thus more effectively trigger and catalyze sustainable entrepreneurship and robust competitiveness Note The term constitutes the brainchild or conceptual branding of the author as part of this journey of discovery and ideation References Balachandra A (1996) International technology transfer in small business: a new paradigm Int J Technol Manage 12(5/6):625–638 Eldred EW, McGrath ME (1997) Commercializing new technology-II Res Technol Manage 40(2):29–34 260 Critical Success and Failure Factors and Lessons Learned Frischtak CR (1995) Harmonization versus differentiation in international property rights regimes Int J Technol Manage, Special issue on the management of intellectual property 10(2/3): 200–213 Harvey M, Lucas L (1996) Intellectual property rights protection: what MNC managers should know about GATT? Multnat Bus Rev 4(1):77–93 Radosevich HR (1995) A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources Int J Technol Manage 10(7/8):879–893 Rushing FW, Brown CG (1990) Intellectual property rights in science, technology and economic performance: international comparisons Westview Press, Boulder Thurow LC (1997) Needed: a new system of intellectual property rights Harv Bus Rev Sept–Oct: 94–103 Index A Acquisition of knowledge, 258 Action human action, 29, 49 of reduction, 143, 178 Adaptation, 16, 39, 56, 61, 136, 140, 142, 189–190, 200, 205 Adverse selection, 179 Amtech Corporation, 243 Anxiety, 50 Apprenticeship, 21, 26, 49, 138 Armani, 161–165 ART, 28 Assets, 21–22, 40, 82, 130, 133–134, 145, 150, 153–154, 180–181, 190, 201–203, 205, 212, 214–215, 217–218, 220–221, 230–231, 234–235, 237, 253–254 complementary assets, 234–235 Attitudes, 32, 34, 39, 55, 57–58, 73, 76, 89, 100, 102, 114, 130, 138–139, 170, 176, 180, 244, 255 Authority, 11, 15, 35, 52–53, 77, 80, 102, 127, 180 B Banco di Napoli, 147, 179–180 Basel 2, 148 Behavior, 24, 202, 207, 236 models, 23 Behavioural theory approach, 60 Being features of, 13 human being, 37, 48, 136, 214 Beliefs, 12, 14, 21, 24, 41, 54, 58, 63, 99, 136, 199, 211, 217, 242 Benetton, 36, 172 Bertone, 97–98 Bonds, 2, 98, 131, 136, 145, 148–149, 172, 179, 236 districts bonds, 148–149 Boston Consulting Group (BCG), 238, 256 Business Angel, 146, 179 C Capabilities, 11, 14, 19, 23, 48, 76, 87, 128, 150, 171, 174–175, 181, 201–202, 207, 216–218, 232, 241, 246, 253–254 Capital gains, 145–146, 149–150 Cartolarization, 149, 181 Change, 2, 13, 20, 36, 40, 42, 49–55, 57, 59–61, 67–68, 74–75, 77, 82–83, 87, 101–102, 114, 117, 127, 129, 137–138, 141, 144–145, 148, 170–172, 175, 193, 197, 207–208, 212, 229–230, 233, 252 Choice, 23, 36, 42, 58, 102, 128, 144, 154, 167, 169, 171, 178, 216–218, 220, 257 contingent, 51 Codification, 18–20, 23, 36–37, 39, 55 Co-evolution, 3, 189, 191, 194, 198–199, 203–205, 222, 258 Co-existence, 3, 194, 258 Cognitive automatism, 50 heritage, 135–143 processes, 14, 20, 40 task, 53 Collation, 143, 178 Combination, 16–17, 21, 28, 40, 47, 55, 78, 101, 156, 176, 193, 195–196, 199, 212, 216–217, 229–231, 240, 258 Competence, 48, 59, 75, 138, 153, 166–167, 213, 251 Competency trap, 59–60 M Del Giudice et al., Knowledge and the Family Business, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7353-5, C Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 261 262 Competitive advantage, 4, 19, 22, 78, 87, 98, 128–135, 174, 177, 201–204, 207–208, 215–217, 219, 232, 253, 258 Competitiveness, 3, 20, 37, 126, 128, 136, 163, 171, 183, 193, 204, 214, 216, 220, 223, 259 robust, 192, 204, 259 Conflict engagement, 59, 68 management, 68 Context, 2, 18–20, 22–25, 38–40, 47–49, 53, 58–59, 76, 89, 98, 100, 111, 126, 133–134, 137, 144, 147, 154, 156, 162, 169–170, 177, 180, 190–191, 193–194, 196–198, 204–208, 210–212, 219, 222, 231, 235, 238, 251–252, 254, 256–257 organizational, 2, 47–48, 58 Continuity, 22, 35, 52, 55, 61, 74, 80–81, 99, 112, 120, 130, 135–144, 149, 161, 172 Conventions, 37, 49, 52, 182, 206, 240, 251 Co-opetition, 189, 191, 198–199, 203–205, 212, 223, 233, 235–237, 258 Copyright, 217–218, 221, 224, 252 Core rigidities, 54 Corporate governance, 73, 148, 171 values, 55 Co-specialization, 3, 189, 191, 194, 197–199, 203–205, 258–259 CRADAs (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement), 209–210, 245–247, 255 Creation of knowledge, 17, 36, 39, 221 Creative accumulation, 197 destroyers, 187–259 destruction, 193, 197 Creative whiteboard space, 3, 258 Creativity, 31, 42, 51, 99, 127, 129, 134, 137, 161–162, 166–167, 194, 205, 217, 222–224 Crisis, 39, 54, 60, 82, 84–90, 103, 112, 127, 161, 167–168, 175, 179 Cross-licensing, 220, 230, 233 Culture corporate, 16, 28, 91, 237 family, 74, 83 organizational, 25, 28, 54, 80, 103, 210 D Data, 4, 14–15, 27–31, 35, 39, 41, 43, 48, 83, 113, 115, 126, 129, 154, 172, 174, 181, 230, 233, 255, 257–258 Index database, 26, 118, 206, 215, 221 Debt capital, 146 Decision-making process, 27, 52, 63 Dependence, 4, 37, 52, 67, 145, 154 Destructive creation, 193, 197 Diffusion of knowledge, 19–22, 25, 165, 190, 194, 205, 214, 221–223 Digital convergence, 66 Discontinuities, 55 Discontinuity, 61, 100, 130, 148, 175 District capitalism, 128 Diversity, 3, 39, 58, 63, 192, 196–197, 200, 206, 258–259 Double-loop learning, 58 E Embeddedness, 4, 22, 30, 53–54, 67, 198, 203, 207, 216, 243 historical, 53 Empiricism, 11, 13–14, 32–34 Employee, 18, 26, 48, 51, 57, 62–64, 68, 84–86, 89, 96, 98–99, 102, 112, 115–119, 122, 125–126, 132–133, 144, 158–159, 161, 164, 171, 201, 203–204, 206, 210, 213–215, 219–220, 236, 245–246 Entrepreneur technology, 190–192 women, 83, 243 Entrepreneurship, 110, 120, 190–192, 194, 196, 204, 206, 259 sustainable, 192, 204, 259 Environment, 2, 16, 22–23, 25, 27, 38, 40–41, 50, 56, 59, 61–63, 67, 83, 85, 99–100, 125, 127–128, 134, 139, 141, 143, 160, 164, 170, 172, 176–177, 196, 198, 201–202, 207–208, 221–222, 231, 235, 247, 254, 259 external, 40, 59, 128 Epistemology, 11–12, 14, 31–32 ERP, 63 Ethics, 3, 83, 89, 101, 137, 177 Evolutionary change, 197 economics, 195–197 theory, 16 Experience, 2, 13–14, 16–17, 19, 21, 26, 34–36, 40–42, 47–49, 55–56, 58–61, 64–66, 78, 97, 99, 101, 114, 120, 137, 162, 166–176, 176, 178, 201, 208–210, 213, 238–239, 246, 256 Experimentation, 28, 60, 208 Explicit knowledge, 15–17, 21–23, 26–28, 37, 206–207, 212–214, 219, 221, 237 Index Exploration, 55, 60 Exteriorization, 16–17, 19, 21 Externalities, 125, 170 F Failure, 2, 14, 59–62, 82, 87, 101, 170, 211, 214, 238, 244, 246, 251–259 trap, 59–61 Family agreements, 142 capital, 98, 133 enterprises, 74, 99–100, 109–111, 115, 117, 119, 129–130, 142, 144, 149, 172–174, 176 entrepreneurs, 57, 114 firm, 1–4, 25, 48, 56–58, 73–74, 76, 79–82, 87–88, 98–99, 102–103, 112, 114–120, 129–130, 133, 138, 143–144, 152–153, 168, 172–173, 176 generation, 78–79 goals, 103 governance, 110, 125, 143 members, 2, 5–6, 25, 56–59, 74, 76, 81–83, 102–103, 109, 112, 114–115, 117, 119–120, 129–133, 139–140, 149–150, 152, 172–175, 178 office, 152–155, 182 pacts, 142, 178 roles, 56 Family business control (structure), 4–6, 110, 117, 122 daughter in, 82 entrepreneurs, 3, 110–111, 118, 125, 129 father in, 157 father/son transition, 82 in Asia, 111–112 in Europe, 3, 112 in Germany, 109, 112 in Lebanon, 118 in the world, in United Kingdom, 110, 115–117 ownership (structure), 4–6, 73, 79–80, 111–112, 117, 122, 129–130, 132, 174 son in, 157, 159 women in, 82–83 Family business approach FAP (family, family activity, family assets), 130 FOB (family, ownership, business), 130 Legal matrix, 130 FBO, 149, 182 Fendi, 164, 168–169 Ford, 51, 121, 220–221, 230, 234 263 Founder, 14, 29, 55, 57, 62, 75, 79–80, 90, 99, 103, 111–112, 120–122, 129, 133, 135–137, 149, 164, 167, 174–175, 240, 243–247, 256 Fox, 155, 182 Fringe benefits, 133 Fundamental attribution error, 136, 176 G Gender, 81–83, 103, 120, 204 issues, 81–83 Generation planning, 133 transfer, 89, 97 Generational shadow, 80 Gnoseology, 31–32 Group cohesion, 79–80, 83 consciousness, 79 Growth, 5, 40, 42, 56, 63, 66–67, 74, 76, 79, 87, 89–90, 100, 102–103, 114–115, 121, 126–130, 133–135, 138–139, 141, 143–148, 155, 163–165, 170–171, 173–174, 177–178, 180, 198, 230, 233, 238–247, 257 processes, 127–128, 139, 171 H Habits, 37, 39, 41, 49, 60, 189 Heterogeneity input, 192, 205 output, 191–192, 206 process, 190, 204 Hewlett-Packard, 78 Human knowledge, 34, 197, 199–200, 209 Hybrid portfolio approach, 4, 255 I IC (intellectual capital), 213–215, 221, 237–238, 245, 253 ICT (information and communication technology), 40 Idea, 5, 12–13, 24, 28, 32, 35, 42, 50, 53, 58–59, 63, 78, 85, 89, 94, 109, 111, 134, 199, 214, 236 representation of, 14 Identification, 18, 25, 36, 42, 56–57, 74, 83, 99, 125, 132, 172, 215, 221, 253 process of, 56 Identities/ Identifies collective, 56 group, 56 individual, 83 264 Identity conflict, 56–59 frame, 57–59, 68 theory, 56–57 IKEA, 29–31 Incentives, 49, 183 Incumbent, 58, 79–80, 103 Individual firm, 173, 231 Industrial district, 125, 129, 143, 148, 180, 199 Inertia, 49–52 Information, 4, 15, 17, 20, 23–32, 39–43, 53, 63–64, 74, 77, 82–83, 87, 98, 110, 127–128, 134, 146–147, 179, 181, 197, 201–202, 205, 207, 209–210, 212–213, 215–217, 220, 232, 237–238, 245, 257–258 Information technology, 26–29, 40, 87, 212 Innovation ecosystem, 193–195, 204 networks, 194–195, 204–205, 222 system, 194–195, 198–199, 223, 259 Innovator, 91, 96, 100 Institutionalization, 53–54, 141, 208 Institutions enterprises, 129–131 family, 129, 131 Intellectual capital, 4, 182, 201–202, 212–216, 229–230, 235–237, 252–254 Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio, 218–220 practices, 221 rights, 209, 212–213, 217–218, 223, 236, 239, 252, 256 strategies, 220–222 technology strategy, 216–218, 220–221, 230 Intellectual sandbox, 3, 258 Intentionality, 39, 49, 51 Interiorization, 16–17 Interpretation of knowledge, 3, 23, 42, 58 Inventor, 27–28, 37, 55, 62, 100, 217, 255 J Joint ventures, 65–66, 114, 121, 126, 144, 159, 164, 170–171, 232, 234 Junior, 24, 133, 135–136, 164, 178 K Knowledge background, 207, 237 capturing techniques, 22 clusters, 194–195, 204–205, 222 nugget, 194, 223 types, 207, 219 Index Knowledge assets concepts, 22 mating or osmosis, 198 transfer issues, 2, 4, 20, 22, 24–25, 42, 64, 136 See also Acquisition of knowledge; Creation of knowledge; Diffusion of knowledge; Explicit knowledge; Human knowledge; Interpretation of knowledge; Knowledge conversion; Living knowledge; Organizational knowledge; Procedural knowledge; Shared knowledge; Tacit knowledge Knowledge–based family business, 258 Knowledge based view, 201 Knowledge conversion, 17, 28, 223 Knowledge management, 4, 11–43, 214–217, 221, 235–237, 253–254 paradigm, 4, 236–237 Knowledge weavers, 3, 258 L LCF Rothschild Group, 120–121 Leader charismatic, 77, 89 incumbent, 80, 103 transactional, 77, 79 transformational, 77–79, 83, 102 Leadership charismatic, 77 entrepreneurial, 83 female, 83, 168–169 gender issues, 81–83 styles, 76–79, 82–83 transactional, 102 transformational, 77–79, 83, 99, 102 Lean production, 55 Learning experience, 64 operational learning, 203, 208 organizational learning, 2, 24, 47–49, 52–62, 66 potential, 193 processes, 2, 24, 47–68, 102, 138, 197, 208, 221, 235 rule-based learning, 59 strategic learning, 203, 208 tactical learning, 203, 208 track, 64 Legacy, 53, 55, 62, 169, 178 organizational legacy, 62 Leveraged buy out, 149, 181 Index Licensing, 209, 218–219, 220, 229–235, 237, 242, 251–253 out, 231–232 Living knowledge, 195, 198 L’Oréal Group, 62–64 M MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 239–240, 256 Male breadwinner model, 103 Managers middle, 51 top, 28, 51, 112, 181 Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto (Marzotto Group), 90–91 Market conditions, 61, 122, 125, 230 labour, 61, 74, 99 MBO, 150, 182 Memory, 12–13, 25, 41, 48, 50, 193 organizational memory, 25, 48 Mental processes, 37 Mental schemes, 16, 21, 40 Metrics, 209–211, 215, 229, 238–239, 241–247, 254–255 performance metrics, 238, 257–258 Michelin, 64–66 Mission, 25, 62, 75, 91, 99, 102, 178, 180, 210 Mode 3, 193–195, 204, 222 Innoveco Mode 3, 194, 223 Moral hazard, 179 Morgan, 153 Motivation, 25, 37–38, 57, 73–75, 78, 87, 98, 136, 177–178, 229–231 inspirational motivation, 78 Motorola, 61–62, 66 My Learning program, 62–64 Myth, 12, 33, 89, 155 N NASA, 238–242, 254, 256 New Mexico federal laboratories, 243–247 Norms, 49, 52, 54, 78, 98, 236 O Olivetti, 84–89, 103 Organizational knowledge, 17, 21–22, 39–40, 177, 206–207, 213, 237 learning capacity, 66 life, 61 values, 55 265 Organizations formal, 52–53 informal, 53 Overload syndrome, 50 Owner, 3, 6, 14, 57–58, 74, 80–82, 98–103, 112–114, 117, 122, 129, 130, 154, 170, 173, 219, 223, 258 Ownership, 4–6, 73, 79–80, 88, 97, 99, 102, 111–112, 117, 122–123, 129–130, 132, 135, 145, 150–152, 170, 172–175, 178, 180, 212, 256 P Patent, 16, 22, 37, 62–63, 67, 121, 134, 178, 213, 217–222, 234–236, 243–244, 251–252, 258 Path dependency, 55 Patient capital, 98 Peer-based relationship, 49 Performance, 19, 26, 33, 35, 38, 41, 49, 51–52, 54, 57, 59–60, 63, 74, 76, 82, 98–99, 103, 114, 126, 141, 145, 154, 170, 173–175, 181, 191–192, 195, 203, 207, 211, 214, 223, 238, 257–258 Permacharge Corporation, 243–245 PIA, 29–31 Pirotecnica Iannotta, 155–161, 173 Population, 4, 103, 155, 182, 194–195, 197, 199 ecology, 195 Porsche, 91–96, 103–104 Power hierarchical, 51 independent, 68 managerial, 68 Practices managerial, 20, 66 organizational, 19, 54 Pressure Systems Incorporated, 239–240 Private banking, 121, 148, 153, 182 Private equity, 117–118, 145, 149, 170, 172 Procedural behaviour, 61 knowledge, 40, 50 Profit, 5, 38, 61, 66–67, 75–76, 79, 81, 87, 90, 100–101, 103, 123, 126, 131–135, 138, 171, 173–177, 179, 200–201, 204, 218, 220, 230, 238, 257 self-financing approach, 126, 174 Psychological approach, 58 Psychological dynamics, 58 266 R R&D, 63, 210, 217, 223, 230–233, 238, 242, 245 Radiant Technologies Incorporated, 245–246 Reduction, 33, 40, 42, 66, 100, 103, 143–144, 146, 178, 195, 211 action of reduction, 143, 178 Research collaboration, 4, 229, 236–237 Reward, 27, 52, 60–61, 74, 78, 82–83, 167, 173–174, 176, 201, 235 Risk, 2, 19, 26, 37, 39, 42, 52, 60, 74, 101, 130, 138, 141, 143, 145–150, 152, 170, 176–182, 189, 201, 211, 235–236, 243–244, 254–255 capital, 130, 143, 145–147, 150, 172, 178–179, 254–255 Roles, 2, 6, 19, 24, 28–29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40–42, 48–49, 51–52, 54–57, 61, 68, 79–80, 82–83, 91, 100, 103, 110–111, 113, 127, 133, 138, 141, 147, 149–150, 159, 162, 167, 171–174, 177–178, 196, 199, 204, 207, 211, 216, 219, 223, 238, 240, 252, 254, 256, 259 Routine, 16, 22, 31, 39, 41, 48–52, 54–55, 59–61, 67, 141, 196, 202, 207, 216, 221 Rules, 47, 49–52, 54, 56, 60–61, 74, 101, 109, 130, 133, 141–142, 151, 171, 173, 177–178, 180–183, 202, 208, 222 S SAES, 144–145, 178 Samsung, 66–67 San Paolo IMI, 180 Search, 28, 52, 60–61, 78, 91, 99, 101, 103, 110, 176, 196 Selection, 4, 20, 179, 189, 195–200, 205, 256 process, 197 Senior, 6, 19, 24, 119, 136–140, 149, 176 Sensism, 34 Sensitivity, 15, 76, 85, 101, 139–141, 148 Serendipity, 203, 244 Shared knowledge, 254 Shareholder, 65, 91, 99, 103, 129, 138, 150, 171, 174, 179 Shell, 48 Single-loop learning, 58–59 Size, 3, 5, 29, 43, 111, 115–116, 128, 168, 191–192, 234–235, 251, 258 Skills, 17, 19, 22, 41, 48–49, 52, 54, 58, 61–62, 64, 66, 68, 87, 90–91, 126, 128–130, 136, 138–141, 144, 163, 166, 175, 179, 181, 195, 201, 208–209, 223, 234, 242, 257 Index SME (small and medium enterprise), 112, 114–117, 125–126, 129, 147, 170–171 Social capital, 4, 25, 52, 236 Social context, 53, 67 Social dumping, 126 Social embeddedness, 53 See also Institutionalization Social identity theory, 56–57 Social interaction, 16 Socialization, 16–17, 21–22, 25 Social life, 50 Social pattern, 52 Social practice, 38, 48 Social psychology, 57, 136, 175 Social relations, 52 Social systems, 24, 38, 53–54, 198 Spin-off, 210–211, 238, 243, 245–247, 254–255 Spoilt child (syndrome of), 74 Stakeholder, 22, 81, 171–172, 178 Stickiness, 53 Stock exchange, 26, 62, 99, 163, 172, 180 Stock market, 65–66, 74, 145, 179 Stock option, 145, 150, 179 Strategic Knowledge alliances, 211 arbitrage, 203 co-evolution, 203–204 co-opetition, 203–204 co-specialization, 203–204 serendipity, 203 Strategic options, 173, 177, 200–206, 235 open or close, 200–206 Structure, 4, 13, 17–18, 20–23, 36, 38–39, 41, 49–54, 56, 67, 74, 80, 88, 90, 98–99, 101–102, 111–112, 126–127, 139–140, 143–145, 147–148, 152–154, 170–173, 175, 178, 183, 192, 195, 198–199, 201–202, 205, 207, 211–212, 216, 223 organizational structure, 18, 21, 54, 74, 109, 111 Success, 4, 6, 21, 25, 31 Succession gender issues, 81–83 planning, 80, 152 typologies, 139 Successor, 58, 67–68, 79–80, 102–103, 117, 136, 138, 178 Survival, 4, 54, 68, 76, 127, 129, 134, 161, 172, 180, 189, 193, 232, 235 Index T Tacit knowledge, 15–17, 19–23, 38, 40–41, 48, 55, 136, 160, 175, 199, 206–207, 213–216, 219, 236–237 Takeover, 67–68, 74, 87, 98–99 Talents, 6, 61, 73, 88, 91, 102, 138, 154, 161, 163–164, 168 Technological paradigm, 199, 258–259 regime, 193, 196 Technology acquisition, 222, 230–232 commercialization, 211 exploitation, 230, 233–234 management, 215–217, 221, 229–231, 254 partnership, 235 strategy, 216–218, 220–221, 230 transfer, 4, 209–211, 214, 229, 238, 240, 242–247, 254–258 Thyssen, 61 Time, 1–2, 11, 13–14, 21, 27, 35, 60, 67, 73, 75, 81, 84–85, 90–92, 98, 119–120, 132, 136, 145, 152–153, 155, 160, 217, 237, 239 Toyota, 55, 121 Trademark, 134, 217, 221, 223 267 Trade secrets, 210, 217–222, 224 Training, 16–17, 26, 28, 41, 47, 49, 51, 61, 64, 74, 99, 101, 136–138, 152, 154, 171, 179, 182, 189, 219, 235, 244 Trust, 35, 37, 41–42, 50, 53, 98–99, 111, 119–121, 151, 153, 182, 235–237, 248, 256 T cnico, 241–242 V Variation, 29, 177, 194–195, 197–199, 221 Venture capital formal, 146 informal, 146 Versace, 164, 166–168, 172 Vision, 1, 25, 38, 62–63, 68, 75–78, 81, 83, 89, 91, 98–99, 101–102, 127, 137, 176–177 W Wal-Mart, 26–29, 244 Wealth management, 148, 182 Wendel Investment Company, 122–123 Win-Win, 236 Y Yamada Science & Art Corporation, 247 ... by the myth17 of the cave in the Republic, and the myth of the winged chariot present in Phaedrus In the famous myth of the cave, the philosopher expresses the impossibility of understanding the. .. through the pure eye of the mind So the gap between sensible knowledge (supposition and belief) and rational knowledge (rational knowledge and philosophic intelligence) is open; the first leads to the. .. same family The ownership had to reside completely with family members, at least one owner had to be employed in the business, and one other family member had either to be employed in the business