IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v58y2012i12p2251-2271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Royalty Contract Revision in a Multistage Strategic R&D Alliance

Author

Listed:
  • Wenqiang Xiao

    (Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York Univesrity, New York, New York 10012)

  • Yi Xu

    (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of royalty revision on incentives and profits in a two-stage (research and development (R&D) stage and marketing stage) alliance with a marketer and an innovator. The marketer offers royalty contracts to the innovator. We find that the potential for royalty revision leads to more severe distortions in the optimal initial royalty contracts offered by the marketer. We show that if the innovator plays a significant role in the marketing stage, the marketer should offer a low royalty rate initially and then revise the royalty rate up later. Otherwise, she should do the opposite. We identify two major effects of royalty revision. First, royalty revision provides the marketer with a flexibility to dynamically adjust royalty rates across the two stages of the alliance to better align the innovator's incentives. This incentive-realigning effect improves the marketer's profit. Second, royalty revision makes it harder for the marketer to obtain private information from the innovator, because the innovator worries that the marketer will take advantage of the information to revise the initial contract to a more favorable one to herself later. This information-revealing effect hurts the marketer's profit. We characterize in what kind of alliances marketers would benefit the most from royalty revision so that managers should clearly establish the expectation for royalty revision, and in what kind of alliances markerters would not benefit from royalty revision so that managers should commit not to revise the initial royalty contract. With royalty contracts that are contingent on the R&D outcome of the R&D stage, we find that contingent contract structure could be either substitutable (by fully capturing the incentive re-aligning effect) or complementary (by weakening the information revealing effect) to royalty revision, depending on whether the innovator plays a significant role in the marketing stage. Managers may need to use a contingent contract (if possible) either to replace or with royalty revision accordingly to improve profits. This paper was accepted by Kamalini Ramdas, entrepreneurship and innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenqiang Xiao & Yi Xu, 2012. "The Impact of Royalty Contract Revision in a Multistage Strategic R&D Alliance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2251-2271, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:58:y:2012:i:12:p:2251-2271
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1552
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1552?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Bolton & Mathias Dewatripont, 2005. "Contract Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262025760, December.
    2. Sreekumar R. Bhaskaran & V. Krishnan, 2009. "Effort, Revenue, and Cost Sharing Mechanisms for Collaborative New Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(7), pages 1152-1169, July.
    3. Nöldeke, Georg & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1995. "Option contracts and renegotiation," Munich Reprints in Economics 19329, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    4. Svenja C. Sommer & Christoph H. Loch, 2004. "Selectionism and Learning in Projects with Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1334-1347, October.
    5. Shantanu Bhattacharya & V. Krishnan & Vijay Mahajan, 1998. "Managing New Product Definition in Highly Dynamic Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-2), pages 50-64, November.
    6. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias & Cheryl Gaimon, 2009. "Revenue Driven Resource Allocation: Funding Authority, Incentives, and New Product Development Portfolio Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1556-1569, September.
    7. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, December.
    9. Yeon-Koo Che & Ian Gale, 2003. "Optimal Design of Research Contests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 646-671, June.
    10. Erica L. Plambeck & Terry A. Taylor, 2007. "Implications of Renegotiation for Optimal Contract Flexibility and Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    11. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    12. Christian Terwiesch & Christoph H. Loch, 2004. "Collaborative Prototyping and the Pricing of Custom-Designed Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 145-158, February.
    13. Jürgen Mihm, 2010. "Incentives in New Product Development Projects and the Role of Target Costing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1324-1344, August.
    14. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1990. "Adverse Selection and Renegotiation in Procurement," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 57(4), pages 597-625.
    15. repec:bla:jfinan:v:59:y:2004:i:5:p:2177-2210 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Pascale Crama & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "Milestone Payments or Royalties? Contract Design for R&D Licensing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1539-1552, December.
    17. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    18. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias, 2008. "A Theoretical Framework for Managing the New Product Development Portfolio: When and How to Use Strategic Buckets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 907-921, May.
    19. Georg Noldeke & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1995. "Option Contracts and Renegotiation: A Solution to the Hold-Up Problem," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 163-179, Summer.
    20. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1990. "Moral Hazard and Renegotiation in Agency Contracts," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1279-1319, November.
    21. Svenja C. Sommer & Cristoph H. Loch, 2009. "Incentive Contracts in Projects with Unforeseeable Uncertainty," Post-Print hal-00465165, HAL.
    22. Oliver D. Hart & Jean Tirole, 1988. "Contract Renegotiation and Coasian Dynamics," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 55(4), pages 509-540.
    23. Jongwook Kim, 2011. "Alliance governance and technological performance: some evidence from biotechnology alliances," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(4), pages 969-990, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Armstrong, Mark & Sappington, David E.M., 2007. "Recent Developments in the Theory of Regulation," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1557-1700, Elsevier.
    2. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    3. Oliver Hart & John Moore, 2004. "Agreeing Now to Agree Later: Contracts that Rule Out but do not Rule In," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 109, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    4. Joel Watson, 2007. "Contract, Mechanism Design, and Technological Detail," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 55-81, January.
    5. Joel Watson, 2013. "Contract and Game Theory: Basic Concepts for Settings with Finite Horizons," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-40, August.
    6. Nikolaev, Valeri V., 2018. "Scope for renegotiation in private debt contracts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 270-301.
    7. Jochen Schlapp & Nektarios Oraiopoulos & Vincent Mak, 2015. "Resource Allocation Decisions Under Imperfect Evaluation and Organizational Dynamics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2139-2159, September.
    8. Drew Fudenberg, 2015. "Tirole's Industrial Regulation and Organization Legacy in Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(3), pages 771-800, July.
    9. Morvarid Rahmani & Guillaume Roels & Uday S. Karmarkar, 2018. "Team Leadership and Performance: Combining the Roles of Direction and Contribution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5234-5249, November.
    10. Stylianos Kavadias & Karl T. Ulrich, 2020. "Innovation and New Product Development: Reflections and Insights from the Research Published in the First 20 Years of Manufacturing & Service Operations Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 84-92, January.
    11. Pascale Crama & Bert De Reyck & Niyazi Taneri, 2017. "Licensing Contracts: Control Rights, Options, and Timing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1131-1149, April.
    12. Jingqi Wang & Xiaole Wu & Viswanathan Krishnan, 2018. "Decision Structure and Performance of Networked Technology Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 199-216, May.
    13. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2014. "Market power and regulation (scientific background)," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2014-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    14. Yu, Xinning & Lan, Yanfei & Zhao, Ruiqing, 2018. "Cooperation royalty contract design in research and development alliances: Help vs. knowledge-sharing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(2), pages 740-754.
    15. Beccuti, Juan & Möller, Marc, 2021. "Screening by mode of trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 400-420.
    16. Göller, Daniel & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2014. "Breach remedies inducing hybrid investments," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 26-38.
    17. Olivier Meier & Aurélie Sannajust, 0. "The smart contract revolution: a solution for the holdup problem?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    18. Qingmin Liu & Konrad Mierendorff & Xianwen Shi & Weijie Zhong, 2019. "Auctions with Limited Commitment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(3), pages 876-910, March.
    19. Nicola Gennaioli & Enrico Perotti, 2009. "Standardized enforcement: Access to justice vs contractual innovation," Economics Working Papers 1329, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jun 2012.
    20. Zhao, Rui R., 2006. "Renegotiation-proof contract in repeated agency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 263-281, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:58:y:2012:i:12:p:2251-2271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.