Innovation Intermediaries:Why Internet Marketplaces for Technology Have Not Yet Met the Expectations Ulrich Lichtenthaler and Holger Ernst
A few years ago,internet marketplaces for technology,e.g.,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,,received great attention. In the light of open innovation processes,it was assumed that they could be an appropriate means to overcome the imperfections in the markets for technology.Little is known about the performance of these innovation intermediaries,and very limited information is provided by the?rms that run the marketplaces.Therefore,we have interviewed intellectual property and technology managers in25medium-sized and large industrial companies,who represent the potential licensees and licensors in the internet exchanges.The results show relatively limited success rates of internet marketplaces regarding the number of technology transactions that have been initiated,particularly in comparison with the hopes that had initially been placed in these tools.Moreover,important problems and recent trends in these web-enabled ex-changes are identi?ed,and propositions are developed regarding major consequences for initiating and managing technology transactions.
Introduction
I n recent years,the markets for technology have received great attention from research-ers and practitioners(Guilhon,2001;Gans& Stern,2003).In these markets,?rms acquire and commercialize technological knowledge to complement and capitalize on their technology portfolios(Clarke&Rollo,2001;de Weerd-Nederhof&Fisscher,2003).In contrast to the markets for most products and services, the markets for technology have remained imperfect(Cesaroni,2004;Lichtenthaler& Ernst,2007).As technological knowledge is usually commercialized by selling products and services,the markets for technology are not common(Gans&Stern,2003;V an Looy, Martens&Debackere,2005).At the same time, there are many imperfections in these markets, which result in high transaction costs(Arora, Fosfuri&Gambardella,2001;Davis&Harri-son,2001).These two phenomena are mutually dependent because a reduction of the imperfec-tions would lead to a stronger use of the tech-nology markets,which would reduce some of their de?ciencies(Lichtenthaler,2007).
Along with the‘new economy’hype,many researchers and practitioners assumed that the internet could help?rms to overcome these market imperfections.The examples of successful pioneering companies,e.g.,IBM, which have realized great bene?ts from technology licensing,further increased the great hopes(Kline,2003;Chesbrough, 2007).In particular,internet marketplaces for technology were expected to encourage inter-organizational technology transactions.A variety of companies,which were often backed by venture capital,have emerged to facilitate technology trade through internet platforms. Prominent examples are https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,,NineSigma, InnoCentive,and the Patent&Licenses Exchange(Bauman,2000;Huston&Sakkab, 2006).While their service offerings differ,most of these?rms try to become the central web-enabled marketplace for trading technological knowledge(Bauman,2000;Chesbrough,2006). Because of these great hopes,there is now–several years later–also great interest in the performance of these marketplaces(Howells, 2006;Huston&Sakkab,2006).Very little is known about their success regarding the number of technology transactions that have been initiated,and hardly any information is distributed by the?rms that run the market-places.Therefore,we have asked the potential
14CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume17Number12008 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00461.x ?2008The Authors
Journal compilation?2008Blackwell Publishing
bene?ciaries of
these marketplaces about their experiences.We have interviewed intellec-tual property and technology managers of technology-intensive companies,who repre-sent the potential licensees and licensors in these markets.Accordingly,this article addresses the following central questions.What are the experiences of industrial ?rms regarding internet marketplaces for technol-ogy?Why have internet marketplaces for tech-nology not yet
met the great expectations of researchers and practitioners?The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.In the next section,
we provide a brief overview of previous research.Afterwards,the research design is described.Subsequently,the results
of the
study are presented before highlighting some recent trends in the ?eld.On this
basis,we discuss
theoretical and managerial impli-cations and develop propositions regarding
major consequences for initiating and manag-
ing technology transactions.Finally,opportu-nities for further research are presented.As such,this article offers several contribu-tions.It is among the ?rst empirical studies on internet marketplaces for technology to analyse their managerial implications.In the light of increasing interest in technology transactions (Rivette &Kline,2000;Grant &Baden-Fuller,2004),it deepens
our understanding of the dis-crepancies between a few successful pioneer-ing ?rms in trading technology and many others.Moreover,it contributes to overcom-ing the under-emphasis on empirical research into technology intermediaries (Spulber,1999;Howells,2006).Accordingly,this research deepens our understanding of managing
technology transactions and realizing value
from technology in open
innovation systems
(Gassmann,2006;van der Meer,2007).Finally,
our ?ndings have implications for emerging themes in knowledge
management, e.g.,organizational boundaries (Arora,Fosfuri &Gambardella,2001;Santos &Eisenhardt,2005).These issues have been highlighted as areas ripe for further study in recent reviews of the literature on intermediaries (Howells,2006),knowledge
management (Argote,McEvily &Reagans,2003),technology exploi-tation (Lichtenthaler,2005),and open innova-tion (West,V anhaverbeke &Chesbrough,2006).Past Research
Interest in the role
of technology intermediar-ies has emerged from various ?elds over the past 20
years (Spulber,1999;Chesbrough,2006).These ?elds include:(1)literature on
technology transfer and diffusion,(2)research into managing innovation processes,(3)litera-
ture on systems and networks of innovation,and (4)research into service organizations (Howells,2006).The ?rst line of research has identi?ed the role of intermediaries in iden-tifying partners,helping package technology,selecting suppliers and providing support in deal making (Watkins &Horley,1986;Seaton &Cordey-Hayes,1993).The second stream has addressed intermediaries as organizations,whose key function is their brokering role in the technology transfer process (Hargadon &Sutton,1997;McEvily &Zaheer,1999).The third line of research has underscored the role of public and private intermediaries that help companies to adapt specialized solutions to the needs of individual user ?rms (Stankiewicz,1995;Lynn,Reddy &Aram,1996).The fourth stream has highlighted the bridging roles that certain types of service ?rms play in innovation systems (Howells,1999;Miles,2000).Regarding more general research into inter-?rm exchanges,transaction cost theory needs to be tailored to the speci?c characteristics of the technology markets (Seely Brown &Duguid,1998).In particular,?rms may in?u-ence their transaction costs in the medium to long term by developing dynamic capabili-ties of trading technology based on learning effects.The examples of successful pioneering ?rms in out-licensing support this capability-based view of outward technology transfer (Davis &Harrison,2001;Kline,2003).More-over,the capability-based perspective has received great attention in inward technology transfer,above all in the literature on absorp-tive capacity (Cohen &Levinthal,1990;Zahra &George,2002).In conclusion,there are various lines of research that have deepened our understanding of intermediaries in the markets for technology,but the insights into their roles are limited,especially regarding internet marketplaces for technology (Licht-enthaler,2005;Howells,2006).Research Design In the light of the limitations of previous research and increasing technology trade,it is the goal of this study to gain insight into the intermediating role of internet marketplaces for technology.The study’s focus is on the experiences of medium-sized and large indus-trial companies whose main business is inter-nal technology exploitation.Accordingly,these ?rms focus on the application of technologies in their own products and services (March,1991;Cesaroni,Di Minin &Piccaluga,2005).Thus,we have analysed the internet-based technology exchanges neither of start-up com-panies nor of ?rms that provide mainly R&D INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES 15Volume 17Number 12008
?2008The Authors
Journal compilation ?2008Blackwell Publishing
services.Nearly all of the companies in the sample have at least considered or have already realized technology transactions as the technology source and recipient.Therefore,all ?rms could be analysed regarding potential inward and outward technology transfer.
A thorough review of previous research has shown that technology trade through internet marketplaces has not yet been examined in detail(Lichtenthaler,2005;Howells,2006). Accordingly,a qualitative research design was chosen to respond to the need for deep under-standing,local contextualization,and causal inference(Miles&Huberman,1994).Our dis-cussion of past research has demonstrated that these needs apply to the analysis of?rms’experiences with internet marketplaces for technology.Hence,the case study method was chosen because of the study’s exploratory character.In the light of a highly complex research object,the case study method allowed for a?exible and comprehensive examination of the issues.The process of conducting case studies followed the suggestions that have been given in seminal works on case study research(Eisenhardt,1991;Yin,2003;Eisen-hardt&Graebner,2007).Thus,our approach was similar to the designs of case study-based works that have been published recently in leading journals(Schweizer,2005).
Through the focused selection of medium-sized and large industrial companies,different experiences with internet marketplaces could be analysed(Miles&Huberman,1994).Tech-nology trade was studied at the organizational level and at the level of speci?c technology transfer projects.By applying the?rm-level view,the overall experiences were analysed. By examining speci?c projects,the?rms’tech-nology transfer processes were studied in the context of a speci?c project.Only the simul-taneous analysis of the micro level of projects and the macro level of corporate experiences allowed for drawing implications for managing technology trade(Miles&Huberman,1994). Besides analysing?rms from various indus-tries,the sample comprises?rms where licensing plays different roles regarding its importance,objectives and management.Thus, the experiences of these?rms provided differ-ent perspectives on technology marketplaces. After?ve preliminary unstructured inter-views,questionnaires were used as a basis for semi-structured interviews in the?nal study. This procedure ensured comparability and ample opportunity for unobstructed narration. The data collection process followed Yin (2003).During the interviews,the interviewer took notes and typed them up each night. All data were included in writing up of the cases,even when not speci?cally requested in the questionnaire.Furthermore,additional documents,e.g.,company-internal analyses of licensing transactions and company-external publications,were studied.Next,the memoing process was followed to record patterns that the interviewer noted within and across cases (Yin,2003).Each interview was structured to facilitate within-case as well as subsequent cross-case analyses(Miles&Huberman,1994). After these analyses,the implications that are presented in this article were drawn.
In companies with a dedicated licensing unit,this unit’s head was interviewed.In com-panies without a dedicated unit,we talked to the head of the corporate intellectual property department.In ten companies,a second person from the R&D department,who is not directly occupied with licensing,was interviewed.By drawing on the insights of this second person, a more detailed picture of a?rm’s experiences could be gained.Altogether,35persons were interviewed in25German and Swiss compa-nies.The?rms’average R&D intensity is about 6per cent.Seven of these?rms are active in the chemical/pharmaceutical industry;nine are active in the automotive/machinery industry; and the other nine?rms are active in the semiconductors/electronics industry.With an average of8,457employees and average rev-enues of€2,135million,the companies in the sample are relatively large.
We followed a sampling strategy in which we sought variance regarding the topics analy-sed in this study.In particular,the choice of industries was in?uenced by prior research, which reported different functions of technol-ogy licensing in these industries(Grindley& Teece,1997;Teece,1998;Rivette&Kline,2000). As the purpose of the study was deepening our understanding of internet marketplaces for technology,the sample was not selected to ensure representation of the population of all medium-sized and large industrial?rms. Instead,the sample was selected to include suf?cient variation to explore factors relating to the internet marketplaces.Despite participa-tion being voluntary,the sample was not a self-selected group of?rms.As the following section shows,there was suf?cient variance in the managerial approaches of?rms to internet marketplaces for technology.This sampling process followed prior works in leading jour-nals(e.g.,Edmondson,Bohmer&Pisano, 2001).
Results
Current Practice
All companies are well aware of the potential bene?ts of internet marketplaces and have at
16CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume17Number12008?2008The Authors
Journal compilation?2008Blackwell Publishing
least studied
the web pages of different service providers in detail.In various cases,however,no consideration had been given to actually putting technologies
into the marketplaces because the strategy of these ?rms focused exclusively on the application of technologies in their own products.Similarly,various com-panies did not have any interest in licensing in technologies through these platforms because of their
focus on internal R&D.By contrast,many ?rms have actively tried to use the mar-
ketplaces by offering technologies or search-
ing in detail for interesting technologies.In general,the ?rms that addressed the internet marketplaces most actively are the ?rms that
also carry out internal activities of initiating
technology transactions more actively.
For instance,
most of the ?rms that offered
various technologies on the internet market-
places also have a dedicated internal organiza-
tional unit that is directed towards managing
technology licensing activities.This ?nding
points to the complementary character of
internet marketplaces
and a ?rm’s internal activities of identifying technology transfer
opportunities.Finally,these complementary activities may result in a portfolio of inter-?rm technology
transactions that comprises various contractual forms,e.g.,licensing agree-ments,strategic alliances and joint ventures.
Some of
these technology-based relations even
ended up in a transfer of parts of organiza-tional units beyond the transfer of technolo-gical knowledge,i.e.,acquisitions in inward technology transfer
and spin-offs in outward technology transfer.For example,one contact evolved into a strategic alliance that eventually
resulted in the acquisition of a part of a rela-
tively small ?rm by one of the large chemical
?rms in the sample.In general,the success rate
of relying on internet marketplaces
for technology has been relatively low with regard to the number of
technology transactions that have been ini-
tiated,particularly in comparison with the hopes that had initially been placed in the mar-ketplaces.Many industrial ?rms have invested substantial time and resources in preparing and documenting technologies for
the internet
exchanges and in searching for suitable tech-nologies.For instance,several ?rms have set
up internal projects with participants from dif-ferent organizational units to decide on their technology offerings.However,most compa-nies have not realized any technology transac-tion by means of web-enabled platforms.The maximum of transactions for a single company has been one out-licensing agreement and one in-licensing agreement.As a result,most industry experts have rela-tively reserved attitudes to these marketplaces,which sharply contrast the euphoria that existed several years ago.Nearly all ?rms that have not actively tried to realize technology deals are informed surprisingly well about the unsuccessful activities of other companies regarding the number of technology transac-tions that have been initiated through the mar-ketplaces.The limited success of these ?rms has been communicated through informal inter-?rm networks.On this basis,only two of the 25companies wanted to give the internet marketplaces another chance in the short to medium term by offering a considerable portion of their technology portfolios on https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, and closely screening further marketplaces.One ?rm even plans to assign a person exclusively to the co-ordination of its technology offerings on https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, and other internet marketplaces,particularly with regard to an adequate preparation and docu-mentation of the technologies.Regarding tech-nology acquisition,most companies still plan to search the internet platforms or post a notice of a technology need when trying to identify potential technology sources in the future.However,these ?rms do not expect to realize many licensing transactions by means of the marketplaces.Licensors’Perspective According to the industry experts,the most severe de?cit of internet marketplaces is that the commercialization of technology through these platforms constitutes a relatively unsys-tematic approach because it does not add-ress speci?c technology customers.Instead,the ?rm’s intention to license technological knowledge is communicated very broadly.Furthermore,offering a technology through the internet is a relatively passive approach.This offer merely constitutes an invitation to treat because the initiative for the actual technology transaction has to come from the potential licensee.An additional reason why a ?rst inquiry has often not occurred is inherent in the technologies that have been offered.In many cases,the source ?rms have put rela-tively unattractive technologies in the data-bases.The main aim behind these offers was the optimization of the technology portfolio by externally leveraging technologies of relatively limited value.Accordingly,the success rate of commercial-izing technology through these marketplaces measured by the number of technology trans-actions that have been initiated is relatively low.Thus,it is necessary to offer a substantial portion of the technology portfolio to arrive at a single technology transaction.However,this open approach is often impossible because of INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES 17Volume 17Number 12008
?2008The Authors
Journal compilation ?2008Blackwell Publishing
the concerns of top management and high-ranking R&D employees.While these reluc-tant attitudes are partly based on rational arguments following corporate strategy,they are often complemented by irrational feelings of individuals,who are resistant to the idea of transferring a?rm’s technology assets.This resistance is particularly strong if the technolo-gies are of relatively high value or close to a ?rm’s core technologies.Furthermore,offer-ing a large number of technologies requires substantial resources.A thorough presentation of the technologies is essential to generate interest from potential licensees.Because of these resource requirements,many?rms argue that the time needed to identify tech-nology customers can be put to better using other–more proactive–commercialization channels.
This is particularly true in cases where a ?rm may describe possible applications of a technology in relative detail.If these ideas exist,potential licensees may be identi?ed in a more direct way by relying on the?rm’s exist-ing business relationships,i.e.,buyers,suppli-ers and competitors,or on its contacts in other industries through formal and informal net-works.As a result,internet marketplaces cur-rently do not seem to be an appropriate means to signi?cantly reduce the transaction costs in the markets for technology from the perspec-tive of potential licensors.Moreover,the chal-lenge of identifying interesting applications before actively commercializing technology is not overcome.Because of the interdependen-cies between the limited use of the technology markets and the problems inherent in them, which may not directly be offset by web-enabled exchanges,this vicious circle is likely to persist in the future–at least to a certain degree.
Licensees’Perspective
Similar to the licensors’perspective,industry experts consider the unsystematic approach to be the main disadvantage of identifying and acquiring technology by means of internet https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,ually,it is dif?cult or impos-sible to?nd an appropriate technology for a speci?c technology need.Despite containing large numbers of technologies,one reason for this problem is the limited number of tech-nologies that are offered in the marketplaces. While this limitation is inherent in a database approach,it is aggravated by the fact that many of the technologies represent residual knowl-edge,which is of relatively low value and unused in the source?rms.Moreover,the number of technologies that are offered in one particular technological?eld is often limited.In many cases,the focus of the internet exchanges is still on the technological?elds of the websites’founding members.
If a particular technology need exists,it may therefore be easier to direct the resources for identifying potential technology sources to other channels.Examples of more systematic approaches are patent analyses and a?rm’s networks.These networks not only encompass formal relationships with other?rms, e.g., strategic alliances,but also informal personal relationships,e.g.,inter-?rm contacts between technology or intellectual property experts. Furthermore,potential licensors may be observed in many cases as a part of regular technology intelligence processes.If no spe-ci?c technology need exists,the search for technologies in internet marketplaces is a random approach with limited chances of ini-tiating a technology transaction.Because of increasing technology convergence,the tech-nology descriptions on the web pages often do not include the speci?c application for which the technology need exists.Thus,the identi?-cation of a technology still requires a creative element by matching the particular technology with the application that the person who is searching the marketplace has in mind.For this challenge,posting a technology need does not represent a solution because it merely transfers the need to establish a link from the potential licensee to the potential licensor. An additional problem of externally acquir-ing technological knowledge is the fact that a ?rm will be continually observed by the poten-tial licensor regarding infringements of its intellectual property rights if no agreement is reached between the parties.This may happen for a number of reasons,e.g.,inappropriate prices or characteristics of the technologies. Finally,this process may lead to infringement lawsuits.In this context,one intellectual prop-erty expert frankly stated:‘Nobody likes to pay license fees’.In addition to these practical dif-?culties,these factors are also brought forward to justify the‘Not Invented Here’syndrome, i.e.,negative attitudes to the acquisition of external technology.In particular,this bias may be found among R&D experts,who often tend to invent around the intellectual property rights of other?rms instead of attempting to get a licence for these technologies.
Integrated Perspective
A comparison of the licensors’and licensees’perspectives shows major similarities between these views.The main problem of internet exchanges is the unsystematic nature of partner identi?cation.Because of the limited success rate in identifying and realizing
18CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume17Number12008?2008The Authors
Journal compilation?2008Blackwell Publishing
transactions,the search process requires con-siderable resources.As technology transfer through web-based exchanges constitutes only one of a number of channels,the alternative ways appear more promising to many ?rms,particularly if a detailed idea exists for apply-ing a technology.Thus,internet marketplaces may only mitigate the dif?culty of linking
technologies to appropriate applications or
vice versa,but this still represents the critical managerial challenge.In addition,the impor-tance of cultural barriers has to be highlighted,although they are not a problem speci?c to internet-based exchanges.These cultural bar-riers often prevent a more active approach to trading technology.
In many cases,they may therefore be considered the underlying cause
of refraining from technology transactions.An integrated perspective also points to some industry differences.Firms from the chemical/pharmaceutical industry appear to have initially
attributed a higher importance to technology licensing through internet market-
places than
?rms from the other industries.However,chemical/pharmaceutical compa-
nies also
seem to internally manage their licensing activities more pro?ciently than ?rms from
the other industries.Thus,the data support prior research,which has underlined the high importance of licensing transactions in this sector.Accordingly,these ?rms are now relatively reluctant to use internet market-places for technology because alternative chan-nels,e.g.,informal inter-?rm networks,seem to have
provided an essential avenue for initi-ating technology transactions in this sector in the past.Similarly,the importance of internet
marketplaces appears to be surprisingly low
in the electronics/semiconductors industry although the relevance of licensing in this industry has been described in relative detail in prior research.By contrast,the potential of internet marketplaces for technology is con-sidered surprisingly high in the automotive/machinery industry.As technology licensing in this sector has received limited attention in prior
research,it deserves further study to offer a better understanding to ?rms aiming at optimally utilizing their technologies in this ?eld.Discussion
Recent Trends
Very recently,major changes have occurred in the strategic
approach of various internet mar-ketplaces.While these developments could be
observed in various marketplaces,they appear
to have in?uenced in particular https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,.At the beginning,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, focused on its internet-based infrastructure (Bauman,2000).Potential licensors put their offers online,whereas potential licensees could search for technologies in the database.Recently,how-ever,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, seems to have realized that the complexity of technological knowledge requires a more active approach to exchanging technology.This new understanding of tech-nology transactions has led https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, to sub-stantially transform its business model (Jahn,2005).Before this reorientation,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, had about 80employees,who were occupied mainly with marketing and acquiring new users of its internet platform.After redirecting the business model,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, employs about 20people,who are not primarily occupied with marketing but with actively facilitating technology transactions.Thus,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, no longer focuses exclusively on its internet data-base.The internet platform still constitutes an important feature,but https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, attempts to play a more active role in connecting licensors and licensees.Thus,the business model has been transformed from focusing on the web-enabled infrastructure towards concentrating on a more active approach to technology brokering.Therefore,the 20employees at https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, comprise mainly scientists and engineers,often with PhD degrees in their technological ?elds.Their knowledge is used to facilitate deals on technology packages instead of focus-ing on patent rights (Jahn,2005).These new service offerings led to approximately ten tech-nology transfers in 2004.This ?gure is con-trasted with the 90,000registered users,which underlines the dif?culties in facilitating tech-nology transactions.As a result of the new strategic approach,however,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html, expects to strongly increase the number of deals that are closed as a result of its brokering activities in the coming years (Jahn,2005).Similar to the strategic changes at https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,,various other internet marketplaces for technology that were created in recent years,e.g.,NineSigma,pursue a more active approach to facilitating technology exchanges.Thus,a major portion of their service offerings refers to active bro-kering,whereas databases only represent additional infrastructure to facilitate deals.Thus,https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,’s reorientation is not a singular development.Instead,it may represent a new approach to internet marketplaces,which links them to active forms of technology brokering.Theoretical and Managerial Implications The limited success rates of internet exchanges with regard to the number of technology transactions that have been initiated have INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES 19Volume 17Number 12008
?2008The Authors
Journal compilation ?2008Blackwell Publishing
various consequences for managing technol-ogy transactions.In particular,some problems of internet marketplaces do not apply to other types of intermediaries,which offer consulting services beyond introducing technologies in databases(Bryant&Reenstra-Bryant,1998; Sawhney,Prandelli&Verona,2003;Howells, 2006;Verona,Prandelli&Sawhney,2006). Accordingly,industrial?rms could rely more on agents(Bidault&Fischer,1994;Morgan& Crawford,1996),who help a company to pro-actively identify technology customers or reac-tively identify infringers of its intellectual property.Similarly,the recent developments of internet marketplaces,which tend to offer integrated services including a more active component,may help to overcome the de?cits of pure databases.As such,our analyses point to the superiority of accessing integrated service offerings of intermediaries that go beyond internet-related databases.Therefore, we posit the following proposition:
Proposition1:Integrated service offerings help?rms to enhance their bene?ts from relying on intermediaries in the markets for technology.
Moreover,?rms should attempt to adequately use their own knowledge,which is distributed across the organization(Ernst, Leptien&Vitt,2000;Basadur&Gelade,2006), in order to link technologies and applications (Kogut&Zander,1992;Cillo,2005).This ?nding is consistent with prior research into managing licensing transactions(Gallini& Winter,1985;Anand&Khanna,2000;Agrawal, 2006;Lichtenthaler,2007).A successful approach to this central challenge of exchang-ing technology could be the‘functional market concept’.This concept emphasizes‘thinking in functions’by focusing on technologies as means to reach various objectives,thus sepa-rating a technology from a certain context (Wei?,2004).In particular,diversi?ed?rms may rely on the overlapping knowledge bases of their business units and technological?elds to identify licensing opportunities(Brockhoff &Chakrabarti,1988;Grif?n&Hauser,1996). Furthermore,the identi?cation of exchange partners may be integrated into a?rm’s regular technology intelligence processes (Gassmann&Gaso,2004;Frishammar& H?rte,2005).Thus,it appears bene?cial to rely on intermediary services as a complement rather than as a substitute for a?rm’s internal activities(Wenger&Snyder,2000;Verona, Prandelli&Sawhney,2006).Accordingly,we suggest the following proposition:
Proposition2:Complementing intermedi-ary services with internal activities helps
?rms to enhance their bene?ts from rely-ing on intermediaries in the markets for technology.
Furthermore,companies may rely on the knowledge embedded in their inter-organizational networks(Madhavan,Koka& Prescott,1998;Grant&Baden-Fuller,2004). These formal and informal ties may lead directly to technology transactions,and they may also provide information and indirect contacts to other?rms which may?nally faci-litate technology transactions(Gulati,1999; Hislop,2002).In addition,these networks may help to increase the technology push and market pull effects in a?rm’s licensing activi-ties.For instance,most large pharmaceutical ?rms openly communicate their intention to license in technologies,and they have estab-lished dedicated licensing units.This open approach has strengthened technology push effects,i.e.,technology offers that the phar-maceutical?rms receive from biotechnology companies(Rothaermel&Deeds,2004; Gassmann&Reepmeyer,2005).By contrast, an advanced example of combining market pull effects and networks is IBM’s website alphaWorks(http://www.alphaworks.ibm. com),which was created in1996by IBM’s internet division hoping that outside compa-nies and developers would contribute ideas about bringing the programs to market (Wolpert,2002).Today,thousands of persons are using the web site,on which over200tech-nologies,usually at the early stages of devel-opment,are available for download,including the option to license these technologies.The positive effects of complementing intermedi-ary services with the knowledge embedded in a?rm’s inter-organizational networks,which go beyond a company’s internal activities, suggest the following proposition:
Proposition3:Complementing intermedi-ary services with inter-?rm networks helps ?rms to enhance their bene?ts from rely-ing on intermediaries in the markets for technology.
Usually,a main strength of internet market-places is their cross-industry character (Johansson,2004;Chesbrough,2006).For instance,an electronics?rm that we inter-viewed had licensed a technology to a chemi-cal company through an internet platform. Thus,dividing marketplaces into industry areas does not seem bene?cial.However,the IBM example has shown that leading compa-nies may create their own marketplaces to enlarge and intensify their of?ine networks. This approach may help to combine personal contacts with the advantages of web-based
20CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume17Number12008?2008The Authors
Journal compilation?2008Blackwell Publishing
tools.The
emphasis on networks may help to reduce some de?ciencies of the marketplaces because it contributes to a realistic view of managing technology transactions (Ford,1988;Bessant &Rush,1995;Sawhney,Verona &Prandelli,2005).In particular,the develop-ment of internal capabilities of managing technology transactions seems to be inevit-able.Internal capabilities are important for co-ordinating external service providers,e.g.,by thoroughly preparing technology offers in the marketplaces.By suggesting a relationship between internal competencies and organiza-tional boundaries,this study has provided
support for competence-based perspectives
in boundaries research,which go beyond ef?ciency-based analyses, e.g.,transac-tion costs (Fisscher et al.,2001;Santos &Eisenhardt,2005).Similar to the development of alliance capability,learning effects in co-ordinating the service offerings of intermedi-aries likely have positive effects (Sawhney &
Prandelli,2000;Lichtenthaler &Lichtenthaler,2004;Kale &Singh,2007),and they suggest the following proposition:Proposition 4:Developing dynamic capa-bilities of co-ordinating intermediary ser-vices helps ?rms to enhance their bene?ts from relying on intermediaries in the markets for technology.In addition,it has to be highlighted that technological knowledge is an idiosyncratic good (Steele,1989;Fosfuri,2006).Apart from the fact that technologies are dynamically evolving,Granstrand (2000)has identi?ed the following six major properties of technological knowledge,not all of
them shared
by other
types of knowledge.Technology has an arti-
fact link,it has a science link and,in general,a
relatively high degree of codi?ability.Further-more,it has a practical purpose,it is linked to
globally oriented common systems for its operationalization and assessment,and it may be protected by patent rights (Granstrand,2000).Besides the challenges of actually trans-ferring technology,the characteristics of tech-nological knowledge lead to appropriability issues,which exist in all types of intellectual property regimes (Cummings &Teng,2003;Pisano,2006).Thus,the technology source often has
to actively support the technology transfer to ensure successful technology absorption at the recipient (Amesse &Cohen-det,2001;Agrawal,2006).This is necessary if a ?rm enters an agreement as a licensor or as a licensee (Teece,1998;Arora,Fosfuri &Gam-bardella,2001).Accordingly,we propose:Proposition 5:An active support of the technology transfer helps ?rms to enhance their bene?ts from relying on intermediar-ies in the markets for technology.Intermediaries in general and internet mar-ketplaces for technology in particular may mitigate the market imperfections that result from these technology and market characteris-tics (Shohet &Prevezer,1996;Lichtenthaler &Ernst,2006).However,the markets for tech-nology will likely remain less perfect than the markets for most products and services.More-over,the nature of technological knowledge contributes to explaining the differences be-tween some markets,where intermediation works ef?ciently,and other markets, e.g.,technology markets,where intermediation remains dif?cult despite information and com-munication technologies that facilitate inter-mediary services (Granstrand,2000;Howells,2006).In particular,intellectual property rights may function as a facilitator of technology transactions.The analysis of Arora,Fosfuri and Gambardella (2001)suggests that ‘stron-ger IPRs [intellectual property rights]can enhance the ef?ciency of technology transfers,and hence encourage the diffusion of technol-ogy,including parts of the technology that patents do not protect’(Arora,Fosfuri &Gam-bardella,2001,p.117;see also Williamson,1991).The fact that intellectual property rights work particularly well in speci?c industries and technology areas, e.g.in the chemical industry,has contributed considerably to the emergence of markets for technology in these ?elds (Levin et al.,1987;Teece,1998;Arora &Fosfuri,2000;Cesaroni &Mariani,2001).Therefore,?rms should respond to these differences in the appropriability regimes by aligning their intermediary services with the particular situation (Chesbrough,2006;Howells,2006).Hence,we propose:Proposition 6:Aligning the intermediary services with appropriability regimes helps ?rms to enhance their bene?ts from rely-ing on intermediaries in the markets for technology.Conclusion Simultaneous to the ‘new economy’bubble,there seems to have been an exaggerated hope to overcome the imperfections in the markets for technology by means of internet ex-changes.Today,these marketplaces have not yet met the great expectations of most researchers and practitioners.Instead,they merely represent an additional way of identi-fying technologies or applications.While the hopes in the beginning may have been unreal-istic,there are possibilities for improving the INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES 21Volume 17Number 12008
?2008The Authors
Journal compilation ?2008Blackwell Publishing
current situation.The new approach of internet marketplaces,which goes beyond providing infrastructure to include additional consulting services,appears to be a promising avenue. In particular,it takes into account that most technology exchanges do not constitute arm’s length transactions because technological knowledge is an idiosyncratic good.
As the volume of technology trade likely continues to increase,the market imper-fections may simply be reduced by higher numbers of technology transactions.In addi-tion,increasing technology transactions may change the organizational cultures of many companies towards more open approaches to transferring technology.In the light of growing technology transactions,future studies may help to deepen our understanding of the role of internet marketplaces for tech-nology.In particular,large-scale empirical studies constitute an interesting avenue for further research.These studies may analyse ?rms’propensity to rely on intermediaries and the intermediaries’impact on the performance of corporate licensing strategies.These studies may lead to results that are equally relevant to academics and practitioners.
References
Agrawal,A.(2006)Engaging the Inventor:Explor-ing Licensing Strategies for University Inventions and the Role of Latent Knowledge.Strategic Man-agement Journal,27,63–79.
Amesse, F.and Cohendet,P.(2001)Technology Transfer Revisited from the Perspective of the Knowledge-Based Economy.Research Policy,30, 1459–78.
Anand,B.N.and Khanna,T.(2000)The Structure of Licensing Contracts.Journal of Industrial Eco-nomics,48,103–35.
Argote,L.,McEvily,B.and Reagans,R.(2003)Man-aging Knowledge in Organizations:An Inte-grative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes.Management Science,49,571–82. Arora,A.and Fosfuri,A.(2000)The Market for Technology in the Chemical Industry:Causes and Consequences.Revue d’economie industrielle, 317–34.
Arora,A.,Fosfuri,A.and Gambardella,A.(2001) Markets for Technology:The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy.MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.
Basadur,M.and Gelade,G.A.(2006)The Role of Knowledge Management in the Innovation Process.Creativity and Innovation Management,15, 45–62.
Bauman,N.(2000)Technology Licensing Ex-changes.Research Technology Management,43, 13–15.
Bessant,J.and Rush,H.(1995)Building Bridges for Innovation:The Role of Consultants in Technol-ogy Transfer.Research Policy,24,97–114.Bidault, F.and Fischer,W.A.(1994)Technology Transactions:Networks over Markets.R&D Man-agement,24,373–86.
Brockhoff,K.and Chakrabarti,A.(1988)R&D/ Marketing Linkage and Innovation Strategy: Some West German Experience.IEEE Transac-tions on Engineering Management,35,167–74. Bryant,T.A.and Reenstra-Bryant,R.A.(1998)Tech-nology Brokers in the North American Software Industry:Getting the Most out of Mismatched Dyads.International Journal of Technology Manage-ment,16,281–90.
Cesaroni,F.(2004)Technological Outsourcing and Product Diversi?cation:Do Markets for Technol-ogy Affect Firms’Strategies?Research Policy,33, 1547–64.
Cesaroni,F.and Mariani,M.(2001)The Market for Knowledge in the Chemical Sector.In Guilhon,B. (ed.),Technology and Markets for Knowledge: Knowledge Creation,Diffusion and Exchange within a Growing Economy.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,pp.71–97.
Cesaroni,F.,Di Minin,A.and Piccaluga,A.(2005) Exploration and Exploitation Strategies in Indus-trial R&D.Creativity and Innovation Management, 14,222–32.
Chesbrough,H.(2006)Open Business Models:How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape.Harvard Business School Press,Boston,MA. Chesbrough,H.(2007)The Market for Innovation: Implications for Corporate Strategy.California Management Review,49,45–66.
Cillo,P.(2005)Fostering Market Knowledge Use in Innovation:The Role of Internal Brokers.European Management Journal,23,404–12.
Clarke,T.and Rollo,C.(2001)Capitalising Knowl-edge:Corporate Knowledge Management Invest-ments.Creativity and Innovation Management,10, 177–88.
Cohen,W.M.and Levinthal,D.A.(1990)Absorptive Capacity:A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 128–52.
Cummings,J.L.and Teng,B.-S.(2003)Transferring R&D Knowledge:The Key Factors Affecting Knowledge Transfer Success.Journal of Engineer-ing&Technology Management,20,39–68. Davis,J.L.and Harrison,S.S.(2001)Edison in the Boardroom:How Leading Companies Realize Value from Their Intellectual Assets.John Wiley&Sons, New York.
Edmondson,A.C.,Bohmer,R.M.J.and Pisano,G.P. (2001)Disrupted Routines:Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly,46,685–716. Eisenhardt,K.M.(1991)Building Theories from Case Study Research.Academy of Management Review,14,532–50.
Eisenhardt,K.M.and Graebner,M.E.(2007)Theory Building from Cases:Opportunities and Chal-lenges.Academy of Management Journal,50,25–32.
Ernst,H.,Leptien,C.and Vitt,J.(2000)Inventors Are Not Alike:The Distribution of Patenting Output Among Industrial R&D Personnel.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,47,184–99.
22CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume17Number12008?2008The Authors
Journal compilation?2008Blackwell Publishing
Fisscher,O.A.M.,
Visscher,K.,Pearson, A.and Weisenfeld,U.(2001)Research and Development as a Competence Creating Business in a Business.Creativity and Innovation Management ,10,251–8.
Ford,D.(1988)Develop Your Technology Strategy.Long Range Planning ,21,85–95.
Fosfuri,A.(2006)The Licensing Dilemma:Under-
standing the Determinants of the Rate of Technol-ogy Licensing.Strategic Management Journal ,27,
1141–58.
Frishammar,J.and H?rte,S.A.(2005)Managing External Information in Manufacturing Firms:The Impact on Innovation Performance.Journal of Product Innovation Management ,22,251–66.Gallini,N.and Winter,R.(1985)Licensing in the Theory of Innovation.RAND Journal of Economics ,16,237–52.
Gans,J.S.and Stern,S.(2003)The Product Market and the Market for ‘Ideas’:Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs.Research Policy ,32,333–50.Gassmann,O.(2006)Opening Up the Innovation Process:Towards an Agenda.R&D Management ,36,223–8.Gassmann,O.and Gaso,B.(2004)Insourcing Cre-ativity with Listening Posts in Decentralized Firms.Creativity and Innovation Management ,13,3–14.
Gassmann,O.and Reepmeyer,G.(2005)Organiz-ing Pharmaceutical Innovation:From Science-Based Knowledge Creators to Drug-Oriented Knowledge Brokers.Creativity and Innovation Management ,14,233–45.
Granstrand,O.(2000)The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property:Towards Intellectual Capital-
ism .Edward
Elgar Publishing,Northampton,MA.Grant,R.M.and Baden-Fuller,C.(2004)A Knowl-
edge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances.
Journal of Management Studies ,41,61–84.
Grif?n,A.and Hauser,J.R.(1996)Integrating R&D and Marketing:A Review and Analysis of the
Literature.Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment ,13,191–215.Grindley,P .C.
and Teece, D.J.(1997)Managing Intellectual Capital:Licensing and Cross-
Licensing in Semiconductors and Electronics.
California Management Review ,39,8–41.Guilhon,B.
(2001)The Emergence of the Quasi-markets for Knowledge.In Guilhon, B.(ed.),
Technology and Markets
for Knowledge:Knowledge Creation,Diffusion and Exchange within a Growing
Economy .Kluwer Academic Publishers,Dor-
drecht,
pp.21–40.
Gulati,R.(1999)Network Location and Learning:
The In?uence of Network Resources and Firm
Capabilities on Alliance
Formation.Strategic
Management
Journal ,20,397–420.Hargadon,A.and Sutton,R.I.
(1997)Technology
Brokering and Innovation in a Product Develop-
ment Firm.Administrative Science Quarterly ,42,716–49.Hislop,D.(2002)The Client Role in Consultancy Relations during the Appropriation of Technical Innovations.
Research Policy ,31,657–71.Howells,J.(1999)Research and Technology Out-
sourcing and Innovation Systems:An Exploratory
Analysis.Industry and Innovation ,6,111–29.Howells,J.(2006)Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation.Research Policy ,35,715–28.Huston,L.and Sakkab,N.Y.(2006)Connect and Develop:Inside Procter &Gamble’s New Model for Innovation.Harvard Business Review ,84,58–66.Jahn,T.(2005)Marktplatz für Ideen.McK Wissen ,82–7.Johansson,F.(2004)The Medici Effect:Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas,Concepts,and Cultures .McGraw-Hill,New York.Kale,P .and Singh,H.(2007)Building Firm Capa-bilities through Learning:The Role of the Alliance Learning Process in Alliance Capability and Firm-Level Alliance Success.Strategic Manage-ment Journal ,28,981–1000.Kline, D.(2003)Sharing the Corporate Crown Jewels.MIT Sloan Management Review ,44,89–93.Kogut,B.and Zander,U.(1992)Knowledge of the Firm,Combinative Capabilities,and the Replica-tion of https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,anization Science ,3,383–97.Levin,R.C.,Klevorick, A.K.,Nelson,R.R.and Winter,S.G.(1987)Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development.Brookings Papers on Economic Activity ,3,783–820.Lichtenthaler,U.(2005)External Commercializa-tion of Knowledge:Review and Research Agenda.International Journal of Management Reviews ,7,231–55.Lichtenthaler,U.(2007)The Drivers of Technology Licensing:An Industry Comparison.California Management Review ,49,67–89.Lichtenthaler,U.and Ernst,H.(2006)Attitudes to Externally Organising Knowledge Management Tasks:A Review,Reconsideration and Extension of the NIH Syndrome.R&D Management ,36,367–86.Lichtenthaler,U.and Ernst,H.(2007)Developing Reputation to Overcome the Imperfections in the Markets for Knowledge.Research Policy ,36,37–55.Lichtenthaler,U.and Lichtenthaler,E.(2004)Alli-ance Functions:Implications of the International Multi-R&D-Alliance Perspective.Technovation ,24,541–52.Lynn,L.H.,Reddy,N.M.and Aram,J.D.(1996)Linking Technology and Institutions:The Innova-tion Community Framework.Research Policy ,25,91–106.McEvily,B.and Zaheer,A.(1999)Bridging Ties:A Source of Firm Heterogeneity in Competitive Capabilities.Strategic Management Journal ,20,1133–56.Madhavan,R.,Koka,B.R.and Prescott,J.E.(1998)Networks in Transition:How Industry Events (Re)shape Inter?rm Relationships.Strategic Man-agement Journal ,19,439–59.March,J.G.(1991)Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,anization Science ,2,71–87.van der Meer,H.(2007)Open Innovation –The Dutch Treat:Challenges in Thinking in Business Models.Creativity and Innovation Management ,16,192–https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,es,I.(2000)Services Innovation:Coming of Age in the Knowledge-Based Economy.International Journal of Innovation Management ,4,371–89.INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES 23Volume 17Number 12008
?2008The Authors
Journal compilation ?2008Blackwell Publishing
Miles,M.B.and Huberman,A.M.(1994)Qualitative Data Analysis:An Expanded Sourcebook.Sage, Beverly Hills,CA.
Morgan,E.J.and Crawford,N.(1996)Technology Broking Activities in Europe–A Survey.Interna-tional Journal of Technology Management,12,360–7.
Pisano,G.(2006)Pro?ting from Innovation and the Intellectual Property Revolution.Research Policy, 35,1122–30.
Rivette,K.G.and Kline,D.(2000)Rembrandts in the Attic:Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Harvard Business School Press,Boston,MA. Rothaermel,F.T.and Deeds,D.L.(2004)Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology:A System of New Product Development.Strategic Management Journal,25,201–21.
Santos,F.M.and Eisenhardt,K.M.(2005)Organiza-tional Boundaries and Theories of Organization. Organization Science,16,491–508.
Sawhney,M.and Prandelli,E.(2000)Communities of Creation:Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets.California Management Review, 42,24–54.
Sawhney,M.,Prandelli,E.and Verona,G.(2003) The Power of Innomediation.MIT Sloan Manage-ment Review,44,77–82.
Sawhney,M.,Verona,G.and Prandelli,E.(2005) Collaborating to Create:The Internet as a Plat-form for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation.Journal of Interactive Marketing,19, 4–17.
Schweizer,L.(2005)Organizational Integration of Acquired Biotechnology Companies into Phar-maceutical Companies:The Need for a Hybrid Approach.Academy of Management Journal,48, 1051–74.
Seaton,R.A.F.and Cordey-Hayes,M.(1993)The Development and Application of Interactive Models of Industrial Technology Transfer.Tech-novation,13,45–53.
Seely Brown,J.and Duguid,P.(1998)Organizing Knowledge.California Management Review,40, 90–111.
Shohet,S.and Prevezer,M.(1996)UK Biotechnol-ogy:Institutional Linkages,Technology Transfer and the Role of Intermediaries.R&D Management, 26,283–98.
Spulber,D.F.(1999)Market Microstructure:Interme-diaries and the Theory of the Firm.Cambridge Uni-versity Press,Cambridge.
Stankiewicz,R.(1995)The Role of the Science and Technology Infrastructure in the Development
and Diffusion of Industrial Automation in Sweden.In Carlsson, B.(ed.),Technological Systems and Economic Performance:The Case of Factory Automation.Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp.165–210.
Steele,L.W.(1989)Managing Technology:The Strate-gic View.McGraw-Hill,New York.
Teece,D.J.(1998)Capturing V alue from Knowledge Assets:The New Economy,Markets for Know-How,and Intangible Assets.California Manage-ment Review,40,55–79.
V an Looy,B.,Martens,T.and Debackere,K.(2005) Organizing for Continuous Innovation:On the Sustainability of Ambidextrous Organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management,14,208–21. Verona,G.,Prandelli,E.and Sawhney,M.(2006) Innovation and Virtual Environments:Towards Virtual Knowledge https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,anization Studies, 27,765–88.
Watkins, D.and Horley,G.(1986)Transferring Technology from Large to Small Firms:The Role of Intermediaries.In Webb,T.,Quince,T.and Watkins,D.(eds.),Small Business Research.Gower, Aldershot,pp.215–51.
de Weerd-Nederhof,P.and Fisscher,O.(2003) Alignment and Alliances for Research Institutes Engaged in Product Innovation.Two Case Studies.Creativity and Innovation Management,12, 65–75.
Wei?,E.(2004)Functional Market Concept for Plan-ning Technological Innovations.International Journal of Technology Management,27,320–30. Wenger,E.C.and Snyder,W.H.(2000)Communi-ties of Practice:The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review,78,139–45.
West,J.,V anhaverbeke,W.and Chesbrough,H. (2006)Open Innovation:A Research Agenda.In Chesbrough,H.,V anhaverbeke,W.and West, J.(eds.),Open Innovation:Researching a New Paradigm.Oxford University Press,Oxford,pp. 285–307.
Williamson,O.E.(1991)Comparative Economic Organization–The Analysis of Discrete Struc-tural Alternatives.Administrative Science Quar-terly,36,269–96.
Wolpert,J.D.(2002)Breaking Out of the Innovation Box.Harvard Business Review,80,76–83.
Yin,R.K.(2003)Case Study Research:Design and Methods.Sage Publications,Newbury Park,CA. Zahra,S.A.and George,G.(2002)Absorptive Capacity:A Review,Reconceptualization,and Extension.Academy of Management Review,27, 185–203.
24CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume17Number12008?2008The Authors
Journal compilation?2008Blackwell Publishing
Ulrich Lichtenthaler (Ulrich.Lichtenthaler@https://www.doczj.com/doc/d612265579.html,)is
an assistant professor of Technology and Innovation Management at WHU –
Otto Beisheim School of Manage-ment,V allendar,Germany.His research interests include technology exploitation,technology transfer,inter?rm alliances and licensing.He has published in the Journal of Product Innovation Management ,Journal of Business Venturing ,Research Policy ,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management ,International Journal of Management Reviews ,R&D Management ,California Management Review and other journals.
Holger
Ernst is professor at WHU –Otto
Beisheim School of Management,V allendar,
Germany where
he holds the Chair for
Technology and Innovation Management.He was visiting professor at the Kellogg School of Management,Northwestern Uni-versity,Evanston,IL,USA in 2005and 2006.His main research interests are in the ?elds of technology and innovation management,intellectual property management,new product development and entrepreneur-
ship.He
has published in the Journal of
Product Innovation Management ,Interna-
tional Journal of Management Reviews ,Journal
of Engineering and Technology Management ,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment ,Research Policy and R&D Management
.
He consults
multiple European organiza-tions in the area of technology,patent and
innovation management.INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES 25Volume 17Number 12008
?2008The Authors
Journal compilation ?2008Blackwell Publishing
人力资源管理师三级（三版）计算题汇总 历年考点：定员，劳动成本，人工成本核算，招聘与配置，新知识：劳动定额的计算 一、劳动定额完成程度指标的计算方法 1.按产量定额计算产量定额完成程度指标=（单位时间内实际完成的合格产品产量/产量定额）×100% 2.按工时定额计算工时定额完成程度指标=（单位产品的工时定额/单位产品的 【能力要求】： 一、核定用人数量的基本方法（原） （一）按劳动效率定员根据生产任务和工人的劳动效率，以及出勤率来计算。 实际上是根据工作量和劳动定额来计算。适用于：有劳动定额的人员，特别是以手工操作为主的工种。公式中：工人劳动效率=劳动定额×定额完成率。劳动定额可以分为工时定额和产量定额两种基本形式，两者转化关系为： 所以无论采用产量定额还是工时定额，两者计算的结果都是相同的。一般来说，某工种生产产品的品种单一，变化较小而产量较大时，宜采用产量定额来计算。可采用下面的公式： 如果把废品率考虑进来，则计算公式为： 二、劳动定员 【计算题】： 某企业主要生产 A、B、C 三种产品，三种产品的单位产品工时定额和 2011年的订单如表所示。预计该企业在 2011 年的定额完成率为 110%，废品率为 2.5%，员工出勤率为95%。 请计算该企业 2011 年生产人员的定员人数 【解答】： A 产品生产任务总量=150×100=15000（工时） B 产品生产任务总量=200×200=40000（工时） C 产品生产任务总量=350×300=105000（工时） D 产品生产任务总量=400×400=160000（工时） 总生产任务量=15000+40000+105000+160000=320000（工时） 2011 年员工年度工日数=365-11-104=250（天/人年） 【解答】：
挣值管理公式 PV=计划单价*计划工作量 EV=计划单价*实际工作量 AC=实际单价*实际工作量 BAC=计划单价*计划总工作量 BAC-EV=计划单价*（计划总工作量-实际工作量）=计划单价*剩余工作量=剩余工作所需的钱 完工时，且工作范围不变的情况下： PV=计划单价*计划总工=BAC EV=计划单价*实际总工（计划总工）=BAC PV=EV=BAC SV=EV-PV=0,SPI=EV/PV=1 偏差分析，减法，0，CV与SV CV=EV-AC=实际工*（计划单价-实际单价） >0，计划单价>实际单价，节省，好！！！ <0，计划单价<实际单价，超支，不好！！！ SV=EV-PV=计划单价*（实际工作量-计划工作量） >0，实际工作量>计划工作量，超前，好！！！ <0，实际工作量<计划工作量，滞后，不好！！！ 绩效分析，除法，1，CPI与SPI CPI=EV/AC=计划单价/实际单价 >1，计划单价>实际单价，节省，好！！！ <1，计划单价<实际单价，超支，不好！！！ SPI=EV/PV=实际工作量/计划工作量 >1，实际工作量>计划工作量，超前，好！！！ <1，实际工作量<计划工作量，滞后，不好！！！ EV在前或在上，大于的都是好的； 成本和AC有关，进度和PV有关。 趋势分析，预测，EAC与ETC与TCPI与 VAC EAC，完工估算，EAC=AC+ETC ---非典，如老李住院，EAC=AC+(BAC-EV) ---典型，老李辞职，EAC=BAC/CPI ---复杂，EAC=AC+(BAC-EV)/(CPI*SPI) ETC,完工尚需估算，ETC=EAC-AC ---非典，老李住院，ETC=AC+(BAC-EV)-AC
数学信号处理基本公式 1、傅里叶变换定义 连续正变换：X j ω = x t e ?j ωt dt ∞ ?∞ 连续反变换：x t =1 2π X j ω e j ωt d ω∞ ?∞ 离散正变换：21 ()(),0,1,,1N j nk N N N n X k x n W W e k N π--== ==-∑ 离散反变换：210 1()(),0,1,,1N j nk N N N n x n X k W W e n N N π---====-∑ 2、傅里叶变换性质 线性：[] )]([)]([))()((t g F t f F t g t f F βαβα+=+ 位移：)]([)]([0 0t f F e t t f F t j ω-=-； )]([)]([1010ωωωωF F e F F t j --=-. 尺度：设)]([)(t f f F =ω， )(||1)]([a F a at f F ω= . 微分：)]([)]('[t f F j t f F ω=，要求0)(lim =∞ →t f t )]([)()]([)(t f F j t f F n n ω=，要求()lim ()0(1,2,1)k t f t k n →+∞ ==- 积分：)]([1 ])([ t f F j dt t f F t ω= ? ∞ -，要求lim ()0t t f t dt -∞→+∞=? 帕塞瓦尔等式： () 2 2 1 ()()2f t dt F d ωωπ +∞ +∞ -∞-∞ = ?? ，)]([)(t f f F =ω 频率位移：若()ωj e X n x ?)(,则()() 00)(ωωω-?j n j e X n x e 时间共轭：若() ωj e X n x ?)(,则() ,)(**ωj e X n x -? 频率共轭：若()ω j e X n x ?)(,则()ω j e X n x * * )(?- 序列卷积：若)()()(n y n x n w *=,则)()()(z Y z X z W = 序列乘积：若)()()(n y n x n w =,则++---<
解析几何中的基本公 式 1、两点间距离：若)y ,x (B ),y ,x (A 2211，则212212)()(y y x x AB -+-= 2、平行线间距离：若0C By Ax :l , 0C By Ax :l 2211=++=++ 则：2 2 21B A C C d +-= 注意点：x ，y 对应项系数应相等。 3、点到直线的距离：0C By Ax :l ),y ,x (P =++οο 则P 到l 的距离为：2 2 B A C By Ax d +++= οο 4、直线与圆锥曲线相交的弦长公式：???=+=0 )y ,x (F b kx y 消y ：02=++c bx ax ，务必注意.0>? 若l 与曲线交于A ),(),,(2211y x B y x 则：2122))(1(x x k AB -+= 5、若A ),(),,(2211y x B y x ，P （x ，y ）。P 在直线AB 上，且P 分有向线段AB 所成的比为λ， 则??? ????λ+λ+=λ+λ+=112121y y y x x x ，特别地：λ=1时，P 为AB 中点且??????? +=+=2221 21y y y x x x
变形后：y y y y x x x x --=λ--= λ21 21或 6、若直线l 1的斜率为k 1，直线l 2的斜率为k 2，则l 1到l 2的角为),0(,π∈αα 适用范围：k 1，k 2都存在且k 1k 2≠－1 ， 2 11 21tan k k k k +-= α 若l 1与l 2的夹角为θ，则= θtan 2 1211k k k k +-，]2,0(π ∈θ 注意：（1）l 1到l 2的角，指从l 1按逆时针方向旋转到l 2所成的角，范围),0(π l 1到l 2的夹角：指 l 1、l 2相交所成的锐角或直角。 （2）l 1⊥l 2时，夹角、到角= 2 π 。 （3）当l 1与l 2中有一条不存在斜率时，画图，求到角或夹角。 7、（1）倾斜角α，),0(π∈α； （2）]0[,π∈θθ→ →，，夹角b a ； （3）直线l 与平面]2 0[π ∈ββα，，的夹角； （4）l 1与l 2的夹角为θ，∈θ]2 0[π ，，其中l 1//l 2时夹角θ=0； （5）二面角,θ],0(π∈α； （6）l 1到l 2的角)0(π∈θθ，， 8、直线的倾斜角α与斜率k 的关系
百分数应用题中各种百分率的意义与计算方法（公式） 所求的百分率名称意义公式（计算方法）出勤率出勤人数占应出勤人数（总人数）的百分之几出勤率＝出勤人数/应出勤人数×100％ 缺勤率缺勤人数占应出勤人数（总人数）的百分之几缺勤率＝缺勤人数/应出勤人数×100％ 达标率达标人数占总人数的百分之几达标率＝达标人数/总人数×100％ 未达标率未达标人数占总人数的百分之几未达标率＝未达标人数/总人数×100％ 发芽率发芽种子数占种子的总量（实验种子数）的百分之几发芽率＝发芽的种子数/种子的总数×100％ 出粉率面粉的质量占小麦的质量的百分之几出粉率＝面粉的质量/小麦的质量×100％ 出米率出米的质量占稻谷的质量的百分之几出米率＝出米的质量/稻谷的质量×100％ 出油率油的质量占油料作物（黄豆、芝麻、花生仁等）质量的百分之几出油率＝油的质量/油料作物的质量×100％ 入学率实际入学人数占应入学人数的百分之几入学率＝实际入学人数/应入学人数×100％ 优秀率优秀的人数占参加考试的人数的百分之几优秀率＝优秀的人数/参加考试的人数×100％及格率考试及格的人数占参加考试的人数的百分之几及格率＝考试及格的人数/参加考试的总人数×100％不及格率考试不及格的人数占参加考试的人数的百分之几不及格率＝不及格的人数/参加考试的总人数×100％正确率正确的题目数量占题目总量的百分之几正确率＝正确的题目数量/题目总量×100％ 错误率错误的题目数量占题目总量的百分之几错误率＝错误的题目数量/题目总量×100％ 成活率成活的树木的数量（动植物）占树木总量（动植物）的百分之几成活率＝成活树木的量/树木总量×100％ 命中率投中的球数点占投球的总数的百分之几命中率＝投中的球数点/投球的总数×100％ 射中率射中的次数占射击的总次数的百分之几射中率＝射中的次数/射击的总次数×100％ 含盐（糖）率盐（糖）的质量占盐水（糖水）的百分之几含盐（糖）率＝盐（糖）的质量/盐水（糖水）×100％合格率合格的产品数量占全部产品量的百分之几合格率＝合格的产品数量/全部产品的数量×100％不合格率不合格的产品数量占全部产品量的百分之几不合格率＝不合格的产品数量/全部产品的数量×100％鸡蛋孵化率孵化成小鸡的数量占鸡蛋总数的百分之几鸡蛋孵化率＝孵化成小鸡的数量/鸡蛋总数×100％ 参与率参加的人数占全部人数的百分之几参与率＝参加的人数/总人数×100％ ××率＝要求量（就是××所代表的信息）/单位“1”的量（总量）×100％ 【注意：关于××必须理解其所代表的内容是人数、质量、物品的数量、次数等。】
企财务分析中重要财务指标的计算与分析 一、变现能力比率 1、流动比率=流动资産合计 / 流动负债合计 标准值：2.0。 意义：体现企业的偿还短期债务的能力。流动资産越多，短期债务越少，则流动比率越大，企业的短期偿债能力越强。 分析提示：低于正常值，企业的短期偿债风险较大。一般情况下，营业周期、流动资産中的应收账款数额和存货的周转速度是影响流动比率的主要因素。 2、速动比率=（流动资産合计-存货）/ 流动负债合计 保守速动比率=（货币资金+短期投资+应收票据+应收账款净额）/ 流动负债 标准值：1/0.8 意义：比流动比率更能体现企业的偿还短期债务的能力。因爲流动资産中，尚包括变现速度较慢且可能已贬值的存货，因此将流动资産扣除存货再与流动负债对比，以衡量企业的短期偿债能力。 分析提示：低于1 的速动比率通常被认爲是短期偿债能力偏低。影响速动比率的可信性的重要因素是应收账款的变现能力，账面上的应收账款不一定都能变现，也不一定非常可靠。 二、资産管理比率 1、存货周转率=産品销售成本 / [（期初存货+期末存货）/2] 标准值：3。 意义：存货的周转率是存货周转速度的主要指标。提高存货周转率，缩短营业周期，可以提高企业的变现能力。 分析提示：存货周转速度反映存货管理水平，存货周转率越高，存货的占用水平越低，流动性越强，存货转换爲现金或应收账款的速度越快。它不仅影响企业的短期偿债能力，也是整个企业管理的重要内容。 2、存货周转天数=360/存货周转率=[360*（期初存货+期末存货）/2]/ 産品销售成本 标准值：120。
意义：企业购入存货、投入生産到销售出去所需要的天数。提高存货周转率，缩短营业周期，可以提高企业的变现能力。 分析提示：存货周转速度反映存货管理水平，存货周转速度越快，存货的占用水平越低，流动性越强，存货转换爲现金或应收账款的速度越快。它不仅影响企业的短期偿债能力，也是整个企业管理的重要内容。 3、应收账款周转率=销售收入/[（期初应收账款+期末应收账款）/2] 标准值：3。 意义：应收账款周转率越高，说明其收回越快。反之，说明营运资金过多呆滞在应收账款上，影响正常资金周转及偿债能力。 分析提示：应收账款周转率，要与企业的经营方式结合考虑。以下几种情况使用该指标不能反映实际情况：第一，季节性经营的企业；第二，大量使用分期收款结算方式；第三，大量使用现金结算的销售；第四，年末大量销售或年末销售大幅度下降。 4、应收账款周转天数=360 / 应收账款周转率 =（期初应收账款+期末应收账款）/2] / 産品销售收入 标准值：100。 意义：应收账款周转率越高，说明其收回越快。反之，说明营运资金过多呆滞在应收账款上，影响正常资金周转及偿债能力。 分析提示：应收账款周转天数，要与企业的经营方式结合考虑。以下几种情况使用该指标不能反映实际情况：第一，季节性经营的企业；第二，大量使用分期收款结算方式；第三，大量使用现金结算的销售；第四，年末大量销售或年末销售大幅度下降。 5、营业周期=存货周转天数+应收账款周转天数={[（期初存货+期末存货）/2]* 360}/産品销售成本+{[（期初应收账款+期末应收账款）/2]* 360}/産品销售收入 标准值：200。 意义：营业周期是从取得存货开始到销售存货并收回现金爲止的时间。一般情况下，营业周期短，说明资金周转速度快；营业周期长，说明资金周转速度慢。 分析提示：营业周期，一般应结合存货周转情况和应收账款周转情况一并分析。营业周期的长短，不仅体现企业的资産管理水平，还会影响企业的偿债能力和盈利能力。 6、流动资産周转率=销售收入/[（期初流动资産+期末流动资産）/2]
水处理常用计算公式汇总 水处理公式是我们在工作中经常要使用到的东西，在这里我总结了几个常常用到的计算公式，按顺序分别为格栅、污泥池、风机、MBR、AAO进出水系统以及芬顿的计算，大家可有目的性的观看。 格栅的设计计算 一、格栅设计一般规定 1、栅隙 (1)水泵前格栅栅条间隙应根据水泵要求确定。 (2)废水处理系统前格栅栅条间隙，应符合下列要求：最大间隙40mm，其中人工清除 25~40mm，机械清除16~25mm。废水处理厂亦可设置粗、细两道格栅，粗格栅栅条间隙 50~100mm。 (3)大型废水处理厂可设置粗、中、细三道格栅。 (4)如泵前格栅间隙不大于25mm，废水处理系统前可不再设置格栅。 2、栅渣 (1)栅渣量与多种因素有关，在无当地运行资料时，可以采用以下资料。 格栅间隙16~25mm；0.10~0.05m3/103m3(栅渣/废水）。 格栅间隙30~50mm；0.03~0.01m3/103m3(栅渣/废水）。 (2)栅渣的含水率一般为80%，容重约为960kg/m3。 (3)在大型废水处理厂或泵站前的大型格栅（每日栅渣量大于0.2m3)，一般应采用机械清渣。3、其他参数 (1)过栅流速一般采用0.6~1.0m/s。 (2)格栅前渠道内水流速度一般采用0.4~0.9m/s。 (3)格栅倾角一般采用45°~75°，小角度较省力，但占地面积大。 (4)机械格栅的动力装置一般宜设在室内，或采取其他保护设备的措施。 (5)设置格栅装置的构筑物，必须考虑设有良好的通风设施。 (6)大中型格栅间内应安装吊运设备，以进行设备的检修和栅渣的日常清除。 二、格栅的设计计算 1、平面格栅设计计算 (1)栅槽宽度B 式中，S 为栅条宽度，m；n 为栅条间隙数，个； b 为栅条间隙，m；为最大设计流量， m3/s；a 为格栅倾角，（°);h为栅前水深，m，不能高于来水管（渠）水深；v 为过栅流速， m/s。 (2)过栅水头损失如
解应用题必备的公式 【求分率、百分率问题的公式】 比较数÷标准数=比较数的对应分（百分）率； 增长数÷标准数=增长率； 减少数÷标准数=减少率。 或者是 两数差÷较小数=多几（百）分之几（增）； 两数差÷较大数=少几（百）分之几（减）。 【增减分（百分）率互求公式】 增长率÷（1+增长率）=减少率； 减少率÷（1-减少率）=增长率。 比甲丘面积少几分之几？” 解这是根据增长率求减少率的应用题。按公式，可解答为百分之几？” 解这是由减少率求增长率的应用题，依据公式，可解答为【求比较数应用题公式】 标准数×分（百分）率=与分率对应的比较数； 标准数×增长率=增长数； 标准数×减少率=减少数； 标准数×（两分率之和）=两个数之和； 标准数×（两分率之差）=两个数之差。 【求标准数应用题公式】 比较数÷与比较数对应的分（百分）率=标准数； 增长数÷增长率=标准数； 减少数÷减少率=标准数； 两数和÷两率和=标准数； 两数差÷两率差=标准数； 【方阵问题公式】
（1）实心方阵：（外层每边人数）2=总人数。 （2）空心方阵： （最外层每边人数）2-（最外层每边人数-2×层数）2=中空方阵的人数。 或者是 （最外层每边人数-层数）×层数×4=中空方阵的人数。 总人数÷4÷层数+层数=外层每边人数。 例如，有一个3层的中空方阵，最外层有10人，问全阵有多少人？ 解一先看作实心方阵，则总人数有 10×10=100（人） 再算空心部分的方阵人数。从外往里，每进一层，每边人数少2，则进到第四层，每边人数是 10-2×3=4（人） 所以，空心部分方阵人数有 4×4=16（人） 故这个空心方阵的人数是 100-16=84（人） 解二直接运用公式。根据空心方阵总人数公式得 （10-3）×3×4=84（人） 【利率问题公式】利率问题的类型较多，现就常见的单利、复利问题，介绍其计算公式如下。 （1）单利问题： 本金×利率×时期=利息； 本金×（1+利率×时期）=本利和； 本利和÷（1+利率×时期）=本金。 年利率÷12=月利率； 月利率×12=年利率。 （2）复利问题： 本金×（1+利率）存期期数=本利和。 例如，“某人存款2400元，存期3年，月利率为10．2‰（即月利1分零2
内插法计算公式 1、X1、Y1为《建设工程监理与相关服务收费标准》附表二中计费额的区段值；Y1、Y2为对应于X1、X2的收费基价；X为某区段间的插入值道；Y为对应于X由插入法计算而得的收费基价。 2、计费额小于500万元的，以计费额乘以3.3%的收费专率计算收费基价； 3、计费额大于1,000,000万元的，以计费额乘以1.039%的收费率计算收费基价。 【例】若计算得计费额为600万元，计算其收费基价属。 根据《建设工程监理与相关服务收费标准》附表二：施工监理服务收费基价表，计费额处于区段值500万元（收费基价为16.5万元）与1000万元（收费基价为30.1万元）之间，则对应于600万元计费额的收费基价： 内插法（Interpolation Method） 什么是内插法 在通过找到满足租赁交易各个期间所支付的最低租金支付额及租赁期满时租赁资产估计残值的折现值等于租赁资产的公平价值的折现率，即租赁利率的方法中，内插法是在逐步法的基础上，找到两个接近准确答案的利率值，利用函数的连续性原理，通过假设关于租赁利率的租赁交易各个期间所支付的最低租金支付额及租赁期满时租赁资产估计残值的折现值与租赁资产的公平价值之差的函数为线性函数，求得在函数值为零时的折现率，就是租赁利率。 内插法原理 数学内插法即“直线插入法”。其原理是，若A(i1,b1),B(i2,b2)为两点，则点P（i,b)在上述两点确定的直线上。而工程上常用的为i在i1,i2之间，从而P在点A、B之间，故称“直线内插法”。 数学内插法说明点P反映的变量遵循直线AB反映的线性关系。 上述公式易得。A、B、P三点共线，则 (b-b1)/(i-i1)＝（b2-b1)/(i2-i1)=直线斜率，变换即得所求。 内插法的具体方法 求得满足以下函数的两个点，假设函数为线性函数，通过简单的比例式求出租赁利率。 以每期租金先付为例，函数如下：
解方程的公式： 1. 加法方程，求加数加数＝和－另一个加数 如：x＋3.7＝9.2 1.8＋x＝11.6 解：x＝9.2－3.7 解：x＝11.6－1.8 x＝x＝ 2. 减法方程，求减数减数＝被减数－差求被减数被减数＝差＋减数 如：15.6－x＝10 如：x－3.6＝1.8 解：x＝15.6－10 解：x＝1.8＋3.6 x＝x＝ 3. 乘法方程求因数因数＝积÷另一个因数 如： 3.5x＝7 解：x＝7÷3.5 x＝ 4. 除法方程，求被除数被除数＝商×除数求除数除数＝被除数÷商 如：x÷6.3＝5 如：21.7÷x＝7 解：x＝5×6.3 解：x＝21.7÷7 x＝x＝ 用方程解决应用题 1、审：审题，分析题中已知什么，求什么，明确各数量之间的关系． 2.、设：设未知数(可分直接设法，间接设法) 3、列：根据题意列方程． 4、解：解出所列方程．5、检：检验所求的解是否符合题意． 6、答：写出答案(有单位要注明答案) 解方程的公式： 1. 加法方程，求加数加数＝和－另一个加数 如：x＋3.7＝9.2 1.8＋x＝11.6 解：x＝9.2－3.7 解：x＝11.6－1.8 x＝x＝ 2. 减法方程，求减数减数＝被减数－差求被减数被减数＝差＋减数 如：15.6－x＝10 如：x－3.6＝1.8 解：x＝15.6－10 解：x＝1.8＋3.6 x＝x＝ 3. 乘法方程求因数因数＝积÷另一个因数 如： 3.5x＝7 解：x＝7÷3.5 x＝ 4. 除法方程，求被除数被除数＝商×除数求除数除数＝被除数÷商 如：x÷6.3＝5 如：21.7÷x＝7 解：x＝5×6.3 解：x＝21.7÷7 x＝x＝ 用方程解决应用题 1、审：审题，分析题中已知什么，求什么，明确各数量之间的关系． 2.、设：设未知数(可分直接设法，间接设法) 3、列：根据题意列方程． 4、解：解出所列方程．5、检：检验所求的解是否符合题意． 6、答：写出答案(有单位要注明答案)
计算方法公式总结 绪论 绝对误差 e x x *=-，x *为准确值，x 为近似值。 绝对误差限 ||||e x x ε*=-≤，ε为正数，称为绝对误差限 相对误差* r x x e e x x * *-== 通常用r x x e e x x *-==表示相对误差 相对误差限||r r e ε≤或||r r e ε≤ 有效数字 一元函数y=f （x ） 绝对误差 '()()()e y f x e x = 相对误差 ''()()()()()()() r r e y f x e x xf x e y e x y y f x =≈= 二元函数y=f （x 1,x 2）
绝对误差 1212 12 12 (,)(,) () f x x f x x e y dx dx x x ?? =+ ?? 相对误差 121122 12 12 (,)(,) ()()() r r r f x x x f x x x e y e x e x x y x y ?? =+ ?? 机器数系 注：1. β≥2，且通常取2、4、6、8 2. n为计算机字长 3. 指数p称为阶码（指数），有固定上下限L、U
4. 尾数部 120.n s a a a =±，定位部p β 5. 机器数个数 1 12(1)(1)n U L ββ-+--+ 机器数误差限 舍入绝对 1|()|2 n p x fl x ββ--≤ 截断绝对|()|n p x fl x ββ--≤ 舍入相对1|()|1||2 n x fl x x β--≤ 截断相对1|()|||n x fl x x β--≤ 九韶算法 方程求根 ()()()m f x x x g x *=-，()0g x ≠，*x 为f （x ）=0的m 重根。 二分法
企业管理常用公式 （2019年版）
内部资料注意保管
企业管理常用公式 对投资方案的经济评价： 行；净现值＜0:不可行 r 0表示内部回收率；r a 表示先进净流量为正数时的贴现率; 为r a 时的净现值；R 表示贴现率为r b 时的净现值 企业财务安全状况分析： 1、资产负债率二总资产小： 50%为适度 设备投资回收期 设备投资费 采用新设备后年节约额 费用效率二 综合效率 寿命周期费用 2、 投资盈利率 投资回收率= 年平均盈利额" 投资总额 年平均盈利额?折旧 投资总额 x 100% 3、投资回收期（不包括折旧） 投资总额 年平均盈利 4、现金净流量现值: P ） n =Z t=1 P t (1 r)t P0现金净流量现值Pt 各年现金净流量t 年数r 贴现率 净现值＞0：可 5、内部回收率: (100) F a 表示贴现率
2 2、 负债比率 负债 」「宀 目有资本 企业偿债能力分析： 、短期偿债能力 1、流动比率=流动负产"f 2、速动比率二速动资产泊而*: 流动负债 速动资产：现金、短期有价证券和应收款项 二、长期偿债能力： 其中：息税前利润=利润总额+利息支出 企业运行能力分析: 1流动资产周转率: 月按30天；季90天；年360天 ?存货周转率=销货成货（次/年） 平均存货二期初存货+期末存货 ?应收帐款周转率 赊销收入净额（次/年） 平均应收帐款余额 3、 固定比率二固定资产 自有资金 3、 现金比率=现犒负价证券 已获利息倍数=息税前利润 =1+利润总额_（倍） 利息支出 利息支出 1、 流动资产流动资产平均占用额 计算期天数 周转次 数 流动资产周转额
污水处理基本计算公式 水处理公式是我们在工作中经常要使用到的东西，在这里我总结了几个常常用到的计算公式，按顺序分别为格栅、污泥池、风机、MBR、AAO进出水系统以及芬顿、碳源、除磷、反渗透、水泵和隔油池计算公式，由于篇幅较长，大家可选择有目的性的观看。 格栅的设计计算 一、格栅设计一般规定 1、栅隙 (1)水泵前格栅栅条间隙应根据水泵要求确定。 (2) 废水处理系统前格栅栅条间隙，应符合下列要求：最大间隙40mm，其中人工清除25~40mm，机械清除16~25mm。废水处理厂亦可设置粗、细两道格栅，粗格栅栅条间隙50~100mm。 (3) 大型废水处理厂可设置粗、中、细三道格栅。 (4) 如泵前格栅间隙不大于25mm，废水处理系统前可不再设置格栅。 2、栅渣 (1) 栅渣量与多种因素有关，在无当地运行资料时，可以采用以下资料。 格栅间隙16~25mm；0.10~0.05m3/103m3 (栅渣/废水）。 格栅间隙30~50mm；0.03~0.01m3/103m3 (栅渣/废水）。
(2) 栅渣的含水率一般为80%，容重约为960kg/m3。 (3) 在大型废水处理厂或泵站前的大型格栅（每日栅渣量大于0.2m3)，一般应采用机械清渣。 3、其他参数 (1) 过栅流速一般采用0.6~1.0m/s。 (2) 格栅前渠道水流速度一般采用0.4~0.9m/s。 (3) 格栅倾角一般采用45°~75°，小角度较省力，但占地面积大。 (4) 机械格栅的动力装置一般宜设在室，或采取其他保护设备的措施。 (5) 设置格栅装置的构筑物，必须考虑设有良好的通风设施。 (6) 大中型格栅间应安装吊运设备，以进行设备的检修和栅渣的日常清除。 二、格栅的设计计算 1、平面格栅设计计算 (1) 栅槽宽度B
关于一元一次方程所涉及的各种问题的公式 一元一次方程应用题 1．列一元一次方程解应用题的一般步骤 （1）审题：弄清题意．（2）找出等量关系：找出能够表示本题含义的相等关系．（3）设出未知数，列出方程：设出未知数后，表示出有关的含字母的式子，?然后利用已找出的等量关系列出方程．（4）解方程：解所列的方程，求出未知数的值．（5）检验，写答案：检验所求出的未知数的值是否是方程的解，?是否符合实际，检验后写出答案． 2.和差倍分问题 增长量＝原有量×增长率现在量＝原有量＋增长量 3.等积变形问题 常见几何图形的面积、体积、周长计算公式，依据形虽变，但体积不变． ①圆柱体的体积公式V=底面积×高＝S?h＝r2h ②长方体的体积V＝长×宽×高＝abc 4．数字问题 一般可设个位数字为a，十位数字为b，百位数字为c． 十位数可表示为10b+a，百位数可表示为100c+10b+a． 然后抓住数字间或新数、原数之间的关系找等量关系列方程． 5．市场经济问题 （1）商品利润＝商品售价－商品成本价（2）商品利润率＝×100% （3）商品销售额＝商品销售价×商品销售量 （4）商品的销售利润＝（销售价－成本价）×销售量 （5）商品打几折出售，就是按原标价的百分之几十出售，如商品打8折出售，即按原标价的80%出售． 6．行程问题：路程＝速度×时间时间＝路程÷速度速度＝路程÷时间 （1）相遇问题：快行距＋慢行距＝原距 （2）追及问题：快行距－慢行距＝原距 （3）航行问题：顺水（风）速度＝静水（风）速度＋水流（风）速度 逆水（风）速度＝静水（风）速度－水流（风）速度抓住两码头间距离不变，水流速和船速（静不速）不变的特点考虑相等关系． 7．工程问题：工作量＝工作效率×工作时间 完成某项任务的各工作量的和＝总工作量＝1 8．储蓄问题 利润＝本金×利润率利息＝本金×利率×期数
管理效率的计算方法 1 引言 经济的现代化有赖于管理的现代化，经济的落后归根结底是管理的落后。随着我国经济改革的不断深入，“管理出效益”和“向管理要效益”可以说已经成了管理学界许多人的共识。这其中的道理是不难理解的，因为管理的首要任务，乃在于实现各种生产要素间的有机结合，而这种结合的状况如何，就在客观上决定了每一种生产要素的利用效率。如果各种生产要素的配合不当，要实现生产要素的高效运转是根本不可能的。要实现生产要素使用的高效率，各种生产要素就必须合理配合，而这正是管理的任务所在。实际上，从宏观上优化生产要素组合，实现资源的合理配置和高效运转，也正是我们目前正在全面实施的经济体制改革的实质性任务所在。 然而正如众所周知，由于多方面的原因，我国管理的整体水平不高，总体上目前仍然属于传统管理，这主要的表现就是管理的效率不高，这在现实生活中的例子很多。比如，有人说在我国的一些地区，一个项目从动议到最后批下来，一般要经过200 多个关口，盖200多个戳子。这样的管理效率又如何能够适应经济现代化的要求呢？实践表明，管理的效率不高这已经成为障碍我国社会经济发展的一个严重的制约因素。然而，究竟如何提高管理的效率，这就需要我们从管理效率的影响因素入手进行深入扎实的研究工作，这也就必然涉及到如何对管理效率进行评价的问题。毫无疑问，影响管理效率的因素很多，比如管理体制、文化传统、生活习惯、价值观念以及人们的行为方式等等，都会 在一定的程度上影响到管理效率的高低。然而，如何对管理效率进行评价和定量分析，这在理论上至今仍然是一个没有很好解决的问题。
在习惯上，人们通常把管理效率简单地归结为就是办事效率，并使用下述简单的公式来表达[1]： 毫无疑问，办事效率是管理效率的一个重要方面，使用这一公式也可以在一定程度上说明办事效率的状况。然而在实践应用中，这一公式的使用却存在着许多的问题。第一，在管理上一个司空见惯的现象便是苦乐不均，一个单位或者一个人，在一定的时间内应办的事件多少并不完全相同，有的多些有的少些。比如，有甲乙两个职能科室，甲科室在一周内应办的事项是8 件，实际办理的是 6 件；而乙科室在一周内应办的事项只有 2 件，实际办理的也是 2 件，难道我们能说乙科室比甲科室的办事效率更高吗？显然不能。第二，管理中需要办理的事项有大有小，有难有易。比如有一位管理者在一周之内处理了一件非常棘手久拖不决的事情，另有一位管理者在一周之内却办理了5 件相对比较容易的事情，难道我们能说后者比前者的办事效率更高吗？显然也不能。 那么应该怎么办呢？无疑我们只能探讨管理效率和办事效率更科学的测量方法。这一问题长期以来没有引起人们的更多关注，其原因在于，在大多数人们的心目中，管理效率或办事效率就是办事的速度，这是不言而喻的。其实不然，这里涉及到的问题很多，这不仅是因为影响管理效率的因素多，而且更重要的是这里的许多因素都很难得量化。因此，为了能够全面准确地把握这一问题，我们必须首先解决一个首当其冲的问题，这便是关于管理活动的实质。 2 管理活动的实质 我们已经知道，影响管理效率的因素很多，有管理体制、文化传统、生活习惯、价值观念以及人们的行为方式等等。因此。要对管理效率的量化指标做出比较
前面我们在《菜鸟进阶：Excel公式应用初步》中介绍了Excel公式应用的基础知识，以及几个简单实用的实例剖析：《销售情况统计》、《家庭收支管理》和《业绩奖金计算》等，并介绍了Excel日期与时间计算的常见实例，今天我们介绍Excel公式处理文本的实例剖析。文章末尾提供原文件供大家下载参考。 阅读导航： 一、判断单元格数据类型是否为文本 有时，我们需要判断单元格中是否包含文本，这时可以借助ISTEXT函数。 二、确定文本字符串的长度 当需要确定文本字符串的长度时，利用LEN函数可以很容易得出答案。 三、从文本字符串中提取字符 有时我们可能需要从文本字符串中提取字符，比如从姓名字符串中提取出姓，从包含国家和城市的字符串中提取出城市名等等。在这种情况下，可以供我们使用的常用函数有三个：LEFT、RIGHT和MID。 下面我们用三个实例进一步的体会它们的使用方法： 1. 使用LEFT函数提取姓名字符串中的姓字符 2. 使用RIGHT函数提取城市名称 3. 使用MID函数提取区域字符参阅专题： Excel常用函数 及实例剖析 四、将数值转换为文本并以指定格式显示 在某些任务中，我们需要将数值转换为文本，并以指定的格式显示，比如在将金额小写转换为大写格式的过程中，就有这种需求。这时在公式中利用TEXT函数可以很好地解决问题。 五、在文本中进行替换 某些情况下，我们需要将文本字符串中的一部分替换为其他文本，可以在公式中使用这两个函数：SUBSTITUTE和REPLACE。 一、判断单元格数据类型是否为文本 有时，我们需要判断单元格中是否包含文本，这时可以借助ISTEXT函数（具体函数功能以及用法请参阅《Excel常用函数及实例剖析》），如图1所示，在B2单元格中输入公式“=ISTEXT(A2)”。如果单元格中包含文本，则返回值为TRUE，反之，返回值为FALSE。
公式法解一元二次方程 一、教学目标 （1）知识目标 1.理解求根公式的推导过程和判别公式； 2.使学生能熟练地运用公式法求解一元二次方程. （2）能力目标 1.通过由配方法推导求根公式，培养学生推理能力和由特殊到一般的数学思 想． 2．结合的使用求根公式解一元二次方程的练习，培养学生运用公式解决问题的能力，全面培养学生解方程的能力，使学生解方程的能力得到切实的提高。 (3)德育目标 让学生体验到所有一元二次方程都能运用公式法去解，形成全面解决问题的积极情感，感受公式的对称美、简洁美，产生热爱数学的情感． 二、教学的重、难点及教学设计 （1）教学的重点 1.掌握公式法解一元二次方程的一般步骤. 2.熟练地用求根公式解一元二次方程。 （2）教学的难点： 理解求根公式的推导过程及判别公式的应用。 （3）教学设计要点 1.情境设计 上课开始，通过提问让学生回忆一元二次方程的概念及配方法解一元二次方程的一般步骤。利用昨天所学“配方法”解一元二次方程，达到“温故而知新”的目的和总结配方法的一般步骤，为下一步解一般形式的一元二次方程做准备。 然后让学生思考对于一般形式的一元二次方程ax2+bx+c=0(a≠0) 能否用配方法求出它的解？引出本节课的内容。 2.教学内容的处理 （1）回顾配方法的解题步骤，用配方法来解一般形式的一元二次方程ax2+bx+c=0(a≠0)。 （2）总结用公式法解一元二次方程的解题步骤，并补充理解判别公式的分类与应用。 （3）在小黑板上补充课后思考题：李强和萧晨刚学了用公式法解一元二次方程,看到一个关于x 的一元二次方程x2+(2m-1)x+(m-1)=0, 李强说:“此方程有两个不相等的实数根”,而萧晨反驳说:“不一定，根的情况跟m的值有关”.那你们认为呢?并说明理由. 3.教学方法 在教学中由特殊的解法（配方法）引导探究一般形式一元二次方程的解的形
财务管理公式大全（中） 净现金流量 52、投资收益率＝息税前利润/项目总投资 动态指标计算：净现值NPV、净现值率NPVR、获利指数PI、内部收益率IRR 53、净现值＝NCF0+净现金流量的复利现值相加 54、净现金流量相等，净现值＝NCF0+净现金流量的年金现值 55、终点有回收，净现值＝NCF0+净现金流量n－1的年金现值+净现金流量n 的复利现值；或＝NCF0+净现金流量n的年金现值+回收额的复利现值 54、建设期不为0的时候，按递延年金来理解 55、净现值率＝项目的净现值/|原始投资的现值合计 56、获利指数＝投产后净现金流量的现值合计/原始投资的现值合计，或＝1+净现值率 57、（P/A，IRR，n）＝原始投资/投产后每年相等的净现金流量NPV、NPVR、PI、IRR四指标同向变动 58、基金单位净值＝基金净资产价值总额/基金单位总份数 59、基金认购价（卖出价）＝基金单位净值+首次认购费 60、基金赎回价（买入价）＝基金单位净值+基金赎回费 61、基金收益率＝（年末持有份数×年末净值-年初持有分数×年初净值）/（年初持有分数×年初净值）――（年末－年初）/年初 62、认股权证价值＝（股票市价－认购价格）×每份认股权证可认购股数 63、附权认股权价值＝（附权股票市价－新股认购价）/（1+每份认股权证可认购股数） 64、除权认股权价值＝（除权股票市价－新股认购价）/每份认股权证可认购股数 65、转换比率＝债券面值/转换价格＝股票数/可转换债券数 66、转换价格＝债券面值/转换比率
现金管理： 67、机会成本＝现金持有量×有价证券利率（或报酬率） 68、最佳现金持有量Q=√2×需要量×固定转换成本/利率（开平方） 69、最低现金管理相关成本TC＝√2×需要量×固定转换成本×利率（开平方），持有利率在下，相关利率在上 70、转换成本＝需要量/Q×每次转换成本 71、持有机会成本＝Q/2×利率 72、有价证券交易次数＝需要量/Q 73、有价证券交易间隔期＝360/次数 74、分散收帐收益净额＝（分散前应收投资－分散后应收投资）×综合资金成本率－增加费用――小于0不宜采用 应收账款管理： 75、应收账款平均余额＝年赊销额/360×平均收帐天数 76、维持赊销所需资金＝应收平均余额×变动成本/销售收入 77、应收机会成本＝维持赊销所需资金×资金成本率 存货管理： 78、经济进货批量Q＝√2×年度进货量×进货费用/单位储存成本（开平方） 79、经济进货相关总成本T＝√2×年度进货量×进货费用×单位储存成本（开平方） 80、平均占用资金W＝进货单价×Q/2 81、最佳进货批次N＝进货量/Q 82、存货相关总成本＝进货费用+储存成本 83、试行数量折扣时，存货相关总成本＝进货成本+进货费用+储存成本 84、允许缺货的经济进货批量＝√2×（存货需要量×进货费用/储存成本）×〔（储存+缺货）/缺货成本〕（开平方） 85、平均缺货量＝允许缺货进货批量×〔（储存/（储存+缺货） 允许缺货：经济量Q×缺货在下；平均量储存在上
“用求根公式法解一元二次方程”教学设计 【摘要】 数学是一种逻辑性较强的科目，有较强的规律可探索，而探索与猜想不仅要体现数学知识的应用，而且要注重在观察实践中抽象出规律。在计算量较大时，规律的探索显得尤为重要，本节课是一元二次方程求根公式的推导和应用，教师通过引导学生自主探究推导出公式，按照：质疑—猜想—类比—探索—归纳—应用的教学流程，让学生进一步体会公式法由配方法产生，且优于配方法，从而达到知识正迁移的目的。【关键词】 猜想探索配方交流矫正归纳拓展应用 【正文】 一、使用教材 新人教版义务教育课程标准实验教科书《数学》九年级上册 二、素质教育目标 （一）知识教学点 1、一元二次方程求根公式的推导 2、利用公式法解一元二次方程 （二）能力训练点 通过配方法解一元二次方程的过程，进一步加强推理技能训练，同时发展学生的逻辑思维能力。 （三）德育渗透点 向学生渗透由特殊到一般的唯物辩证法思想。 三、教学重点、难点、关键点 1、教学重点：一元二次方程的求根公式的推导过程
2、教学难点：灵活地运用公式法解一元二次方程 3、教学关键点： （1）掌握配方法的基本步骤 （2）确定求根公式中 a 、 b 、 c 的值 四、 学法引导 1、教学方法：指导探究发现法 2、学生学法：质疑探究发现法 五、教法设计 质疑—猜想—类比—探索—归纳—应用 六、 教学流程 （一） 创设情境，导入新课： 前面我们己学习了用配方法解一元二次方程，想不想再探索一种比配方法更简单，更直接的方法？ 大家一定想，那么这节课我们一同来研究。 < 设计意图 > 数学是一种逻辑性较强的科目，并且有时计算量较大，如果能简化计算，那是我们所期望的，逐步激发学生的学习欲望。 教师；下面我们先用配方法解下列一元二次方程 学生；（每组一题，每组派一名同学板演） 1．2x 2-4x-1=0 2. x 2+1.5=-3x 3．02 122=+-x x 4. 4x 2-3x+2=0 完成后小组内进行交流，并进行反馈矫正。 学生:总结用配方法解一元二次方程的步骤 教师板书：（1）移项； （2）化二次项系数为1； （3）方程两边都加上一次项系数的一半的平方；
工程量计算方法 一、基础挖土 1、挖沟槽：V＝（垫层边长＋工作面）×挖土深度×沟槽长度＋放坡增量 （1）挖土深度： ①室外设计地坪标高与自然地坪标高在±0.3m以内，挖土深度从基础垫层下表面算至室外设计地坪标高； ②室外设计地坪标高与自然地坪标高在±0.3m以外，挖土深度从基础垫层下表面算至自然设计地坪标高。（2）沟槽长度：外墙按中心线长度、内墙按净长线计算 （3）放坡增量：沟槽长度×挖土深度×系数（附表二 P7） 2、挖土方、基坑：V＝（垫层边长＋工作面）×（垫层边长＋工作面）×挖土深度＋放坡增量 （1）放坡增量：（垫层尺寸＋工作面）×边数×挖土深度×系数（附表二 P7） 二、基础 1、各类混凝土基础的区分 （1）满堂基础：分为板式满堂基础和带式满堂基础，（图10-25 a、c、d）。
（2）带形基础 （3）独立基础
1、独立基础和条形基础 （1）独立基础：V＝a’× b’×厚度＋棱台体积 （2）条形基础：V＝断面面积×沟槽长度 （1）砖基础断面计算 砖基础多为大放脚形式，大放脚有等高与不等高两种。等高大放脚是以墙厚为基础，每挑宽1/4砖，挑出砖厚为2皮砖。不等高大放脚，每挑宽1/4砖，挑出砖厚为1皮与2皮相间（见图10-18）。
基础断面计算如下：（见图10-19） 砖基断面面积＝标准厚墙基面积＋大放脚增加面积或 砖基断面面积＝标准墙厚×（砖基础深＋大放脚折加高度） 混凝土工程量计算规则 一、现浇混凝土工程量计算规则 混凝土工程量除另有规定者外，均按图示尺寸实体体积以m3计算。不扣除构件内钢筋、预埋铁件及墙、板中㎡内的孔洞所占体积。