When do firms benefit from university-industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination

Journal of Business Venturing

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 807-821

  Soh, Pek Hooi ^a   Subramanian, Annapoornima M ^b  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Patent; R D; Technological recombination; University industry collaboration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907680619     PISSN: 08839026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Albert M., Avery D., Narin F., McAllister P. Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrial important patents. Res. Policy 1991, 20:251-259.
2. Amabile T.M. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior 1988, vol. 10:123-167. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
3. Arora A., Gambardella A. Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. J. Ind. Econ. 1990, 38:361-379.
4. Arora A., Gambardella A. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1994, 24:91-114.
5. Audretsch D.B., Leyden D.P., Link A.B. Universities as research partners in publicly supported entrepreneurial firms. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2012, 21(5-6):529-545.
6. Baba Y., Shichijo N., Sedita S.R. How do collaborators with universities affect firms' innovative performance? The role of "Pasteur Scientists" in the advanced materials field. Res. Policy 2009, 38:756-764.
7. Baum J.A.C., Calabrese T., Silverman B.S. Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21:267-294.
8. Bercovitz J., Feldman M. Fishing upstream: firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Res. Policy 2007, 36:930-948.
9. Bloom N., Van Reenen J. Patents, real options and firm performance. Econ. J. 2002, 112:97-116.
10. Bruneel J., D'Este P., Salter A. Investigating the factors diminishing the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res. Policy 2010, 39:858-868.
11. Bunker W., Owen-Smith K.J., Powell W.W. Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Adm. Sci. Q. 2009, 54:90-122.
12. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P. Regression Analysis of Count Data 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
13. Carnabuci G., Operti E. Where do firms' recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms' ability to innovate through technological recombination: origins of firms' recombinant capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34:1591-1613.
14. Cassiman B., Veugelers R. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52:68-82.
15. Cockburn I.M., Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, co-authoring behavior and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, 46:157-182.
16. Cockburn I.M., MacGarvie M.J. Patents, thickets and the financing of early-stage firms: evidence from the software industry. J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 2009, 18:729-773.
17. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ. J. 1989, 99:569-596.
18. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48:1-23.
19. Cowan R., Jonard N. Knowledge portfolios and the organization of innovation networks. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2009, 34:101-122.
20. Crespi G., D'Este P., Fontana R., Geuna A. The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Res. Policy 2011, 40:55-68.
21. Cyert R.M., Goodman P.S. Creating effective university-industry alliances: an organizational perspective. Organ. Dyn. 1997, 3:45-57.
22. Dasgupta P., David P.A. Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 1994, 23:487-521.
23. Datamonitor Industry Profile: Global Biotechnology, Datamonitor, Reference Code 0199-0695, May 2010 2010, (Downloaded on 22 January 2011 from http://www.datamonitor.com/).
24. Deeds D.L., Hill C.W. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 1996, 11:41-55.
25. Ding W., Choi E. Divergent path to commercial science: a comparison of scientists' founding and advising activities. Res. Policy 2011, 40:69-80.
26. Dyer J.H., Singh H. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23:660-679.
27. Fabrizio K.R. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Res. Policy 2009, 38:255-267.
28. Faulkner W., Senker J. Making sense of diversity: public-private research linkage in three technologies. Res. Policy 1994, 23:673-695.
29. Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Manag. Sci. 2001, 47:117-132.
30. Fleming L., Sorenson O. Science as a map of technological search. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25:909-928.
31. Furman J.L., McGarvie M. Academic collaboration and organizational innovation: the development of research capabilities in the U.S. pharmaceutical research laboratories. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2009, 18:929-961.
32. Furukawa R., Goto A. The role of corporate scientists in innovation. Res. Policy 2006, 35:24-36.
33. Galasso A., Schankerman M. Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND J. Econ. 2010, 41:472-503.
34. Gambardella A. Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Res. Policy 1992, 21:391-407.
35. Gambardella A. Science and Innovation: The U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry During the1980s 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. George G., Zahra S.A., Wood D.R. The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17:577-609.
37. Gittelman M., Kogut B. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Manag. Sci. 2003, 49:366-382.
38. Gopalakrishnan S., Scillitoe J.L., Santoro M.D. Tapping deep pockets: the role of resources and social capital on financial capital acquisition by biotechnology firms in biotech-pharma alliances. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45:1354-1376.
39. Grant R.M., Baden-Fuller C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41:61-84.
40. Greenwood J.C. Biotechnology: delivering on the promise. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2:13cm1.
41. Gruber M., Harhoff D., Hoisl K. Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: scientists vs. engineers. Manag. Sci. 2013, 59:837-851.
42. Haeussler C., Patzelt H., Zahra S. Strategic alliances and product development in high technology new firms: the moderating effect of technological capabilities. J. Bus. Ventur. 2012, 27:217-233.
43. Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F.M., Vopel K. Citation frequency and the value of patented innovations. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1999, 81:511-515.
44. Henderson R., Cockburn I. Measuring competence? Evidence from the pharmaceutical drug discovery. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994, 15:63-84.
45. Hess A.M., Rothaermel F.T. When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32:895-909.
46. Hicks D. Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1995, 4:401-424.
47. Kale P., Singh H. Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and success. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28:981-1000.
48. Katila R., Ahuja G. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45:1183-1194.
49. Kenney M. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex 1986, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
50. Kneller Robert The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9:867-882.
51. Kogut B., Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 1992, 3:383-397.
52. Lane P.J., Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19:461-477.
53. Laursen K., Reichstein T., Salter A. Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university-industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Reg. Stud. 2011, 45:507-523.
54. Lavie D., Drori I. Collaborating for knowledge creation and application: the case of nanotechnology research programs. Organ. Sci. 2012, 23:704-724.
55. Lei D., Hitt M., Bettis R. Dynamic core competencies through meta-learning and strategic context. J. Manag. 1996, 22:549-569.
56. Liebeskind J.P., Oliver A.L., Zucker L., Brewer M. Social networks, learning, and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organ. Sci. 1996, 7:428-443.
57. Lim K. The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997). Res. Policy 2004, 33:287-321.
58. Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Res. Policy 1995, 26:773-776.
59. Markman G.D., Siegel D.S., Wright M. Research and technology commercialization. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45:1410-1423.
60. Markman G.D., Gianiodis P.T., Phan H.P. Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46:625-649.
61. McMillan G.S., Narin F., Deeds D.L. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Res. Policy 2000, 29:1-8.
62. Milgrom P., Roberts J. Complementarities and fit. Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. J. Account. Econ. 1995, 19:179-208.
63. Mowery D.C., Oxley J.E., Silverman B.S. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17:77-91.
64. Murray F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Res. Policy 2002, 31:1389-1403.
65. Murray F. The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Res. Policy 2004, 33:643-659.
66. Nelson R.R., Winter S.G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change 1982, Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
67. Oerlemans L.A.G., Meeus M.T.H. R&D cooperation in a transaction cost perspective. Rev. Ind. Organ. 2001, 18:77-90.
68. Perkmann M., Walsh K. Engaging the scholar: three forms of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Res. Policy 2008, 37:1884-1891.
69. Perkmann M., Neely A., Walsh K. How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Manag. 2011, 41:202-216.
70. Perkmann M., Tartari V., McKelvey M., Autio E., Broström A., D'Este P., Fini R., Geuna A., Grimaldi R., Hughes A., Krabel S., Kitson M., Llerena P., Lissoni F., Salter A., Sobrero M. Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Res. Policy 2013, 42(2):423-442.
71. Phene A., Fladmoe-Lindquist K., Marsh L. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27:369-388.
72. Pisano G. The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35:153-176.
73. Pisano G. The evolution of science-based business: innovating how we innovate. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2010, 19:465-482.
74. Powell W.W., Koput K., Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41:116-145.
75. Rosenberg N., Nelson R.R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Res. Policy 1994, 23:323-348.
76. Rosenkopf L., Nerkar A. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22:287-306.
77. Rothaermel F.T., Deeds D.L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25:201-221.
78. Rothaermel F.T., Deeds D.L. Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21:429-460.
79. Rothaermel F.T., Hess A.H. Building dynamic capabilities: innovation driven by individual, firm and network level effects. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18:898-921.
80. Santoro M.D., Chakrabarti A.K. Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Res. Policy 2002, 31:1163-1180.
81. Santoro M.D., Saparito P.A. The firm's trust in its university partner as a key mediator in advancing knowledge and new technologies. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2003, 50:362-373.
82. Shan W., Walker G., Kogut B. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994, 15:387-394.
83. Shane S., Stuart T. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48:154-171.
84. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy 2001, 119-150. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, S. Stern (Eds.).
85. Silber B.M. Driving drug discovery: the fundamental role of academic labs. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2:30cm16.
86. Sine W.D., Shane S., Di Gregoria D. The halo effect and technology licensing: the influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Manag. Sci. 2003, 49:478-496.
87. Sorenson O., Fleming L. Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Res. Policy 2004, 33:1615-1634.
88. Stuart T.E., Hoang H., Hybels R. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44:315-349.
89. Stuart T.E., Ozdemir S.Z., Ding W.W. Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Res. Policy 2007, 36:477-498.
90. Subramanian A.M., Lim K.H., Soh P.H. When birds of a feather don't flock together: different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances. Res. Policy 2013, 42:595-612.
91. Tidd J., Bessant J., Pavitt K. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change 2005, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. 3rd ed.
92. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econ. 1990, 21:172-187.
93. Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., Jaffe A. University versus corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 1997, 5:19-50.
94. Yang H., Phelps C., Steensma H.K. Learning from what others have learned from you: the effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 52:371-389.
95. Yayavaram S., Ahuja G. Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Adm. Sci. Q. 2008, 53:333-362.
96. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Brewer M. Internal human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Am. Econ. Rev. 1998, 88:290-306.
97. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., Armstrong J.S. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48:138-153.