Biotechnology Commercialization Strategies: Risk and Return in Interfirm Cooperation

The management and exploitation of biotechnological product innovation have proven to be more difficult than initially expected because the number of currently marketed biotechnological products is far from sufficient to counter deficits in pharmaceutical innovation. This study provides insight into the role of governance structures in interfirm cooperation and their effects on biotechnological product innovation and company success. Most of the existing literature regarding alliances and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) examines their effects on technology recipients' innovation performance. Here, the effects of alliances and M&A on both the innovation success and financial performance of technology suppliers (i.e., sources) are examined. Drawing from a sample of 220 human therapeutic biotechnology and biopharmaceutical firms over a period of 32 years (1980–2011), an analysis of the effects of biotechnology clusters, strategic alliances, and acquisitions is provided. This study reveals the existence of a risk‐return trade‐off for strategic alliances between biotech companies and larger, more established firms. Increased biotech company involvement in product development alliances decreases risk by increasing the likelihood of future product introductions. The trade‐off, however, is that biotech companies earn lower returns when their products are developed through such alliances. A similar risk‐return trade‐off effect is found for clusters. However, acquisitions generally affect both product introductions and product returns in a negative way. These findings have strategic implications not only for managing the development of biotechnological product innovations and technology platforms but also for commercialization strategies with respect to interfirm cooperation and risk reduction.     

Absorbing knowledge from supply-chain,industry and science: The distinct moderating role of formal liaison devices on new product development and novelty

Building on open innovation literature and recent developments within absorptive capacity research, this paper addresses if the use of formal liaison devices by firms differently influences the effects of external knowledge acquisition from suppliers, customers, competitors and universities on new product development and novelty of new products. The results of a survey of 248 Spanish industrial high-tech firms show that whereas the use of these mechanisms positively moderates the relationship between knowledge acquisition from suppliers and competitors and new product development, they negatively moderate the effect of knowledge acquisition from universities and have no effect on knowledge acquired from customers. On the other hand, the use of these devices negatively moderates the relationship between knowledge acquisition from suppliers and novelty of new products, and has no effect on the knowledge acquired from customers, competitors and universities. Moreover, knowledge acquisition from universities has a direct negative effect on novelty. Contribution of these findings to open innovation and absorptive capacity research is discussed.     

The nature of SME co-operation and innovation: A multi-scalar and multi-dimensional analysis

Recent work on SMEs and networks has emphasised the importance of external co-operative ties in enhancing firms’ innovative performance. These external ties provide resource constrained SMEs with access to a wider set of technological opportunities through information sharing and resource pooling. Previous studies of the SME innovation–cooperation relationship have used categorical measures to capture tie existence which, while providing some useful insights, largely fail to capture the strength of co-operative relationships and/or the variety of relational directions in which co-operation occurs. This study aims to address this measurement deficiency and explore the SME innovation–cooperation relationship by designing and utilising measures that capture both the multi-scalar (strength) and multi-dimensional (variety) nature of co-operation and innovation. We then apply these measures to a survey of UK manufacturing SMEs. Data is obtained for 371 SMEs, and we then assess the innovation–co-operation relationship within a multivariate regression framework. We find that the strength of cooperative ties across a range of productive activities within the value chain are important facilitators for SME innovative capability; this is true for both product and process innovation. However, we find that SME co-operation with rivals (co-opetition) has no significant impact upon innovation. Our results have significant implications for both supply chain managers and policy-makers interested in enhancing innovation among SMEs. In particular, we argue that SME innovative activity benefits from good, close dyadic relations within the supply chain, while more generally policy should be geared towards nurturing and sustaining SME innovation networks.     

R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

Industry cognitive distance in alliances and firm innovation performance

This paper focuses on the role of industry cognitive distance in innovation alliances on firm innovation performance. Drawing from the literature on technological cognitive distance in alliances, we elaborate on the role of industry cognitive distance between partners and its impact on managerial attention to investigate the role of numbers of alliances of low (intra-industry) and high (inter-industry) industry cognitive distance on firm innovation performance. Intra-industry alliances offer lower opportunities for innovation compared to inter-industry alliances and are less demanding on firm management due to higher cognitive similarity between partners from the same industry. We propose that trade-offs between innovation opportunities and management efforts result in an inverted U and a U-shaped relationship between the number of intra- and inter-industry alliances and innovation performance, respectively. We find support for both hypotheses in the context of the UK bio-pharmaceutical sector.     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

R&D Cooperation,Partner Diversity,and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis

Existing literature on research and development (R&D) alliances focuses on formation motives and performance impacts of these alliances but hardly on diversity of the partners' portfolio. Cooperation with a diverse set of partners leads to learning opportunities with regard to both cooperation and innovation skills and hence is expected to enhance the firm's innovation performance. This paper examines two research questions: (1) the impact of functional and geographical diversity of R&D partners on radical and incremental innovation performance of product innovating firms, and (2) the organizational determinants of partner diversity in R&D alliances. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Dutch Community Innovation Survey, R&D and Information and Communication Technology Surveys, and Production Statistics, which lead to a representative sample of 12,811 innovating firms in the period 1994–2006. Through random‐effects panel Tobit estimates, econometric models for both research questions are estimated. The results indicate that functional and geographical diversity act through different channels. Functional diversity leads to a variety of knowledge intake and synergetic effects necessary to develop and commercialize novel products. Geographical diversity results in successful adaption of existing products to different local requirements such as technical standards, market regulations, and customer preferences. The organizational determinants of both kinds of partner diversity are prior experience, patenting, and information technology infrastructure.     

Can me‐too products prevail? Performance of new product development and sources of idea generation in China – an emerging market

New products developed in emerging markets such as China, India and Brazil are not only sold locally but also ‘exported’ globally, suggesting a changing landscape for global innovation. Existing literature in technology learning and capability accumulation has long held the claim that, for a certain period of time in their development, firms in latecomer countries rely on their counterparts in developed countries to get new product ideas. However, existing research in this area is generally based on case studies and historical analyses; there are few empirical studies exploring the performance consequence of learning from competitors abroad. Using large‐scale, nationwide survey data from China, we explore specifically whether learning about new product ideas from leading firms in foreign countries will lead to higher performance outcomes than other sources (i.e. domestic competitors, customers, universities or internal departments) in an emerging market. Our findings suggest that Chinese firms that source new product ideas from leading firms in foreign countries achieve overwhelmingly superior performance along financial, customer and technological dimensions. Implications to the managers and policy makers are also discussed.     

Priorities when selecting business partners for service innovation: The contingency role of product innovation

Firms increasingly engage in business-to-business cooperation to develop relevant innovations. Scholars have shown that firms can improve service innovation either by cooperating with suppliers or by cooperating with competitors. However, there is a dearth of research examining the relative importance of cooperating with suppliers and competitors to improve service innovation, and how this relative importance depends on embracing product innovation. Based on a cross-industry sample of 16,062 Spanish firms, this article addresses these research gaps, finding that firms can benefit from cooperating with both suppliers and competitors to boost service innovation, without prioritizing either. However, this article also shows that, if firms embrace product innovation, they should prioritize cooperating with competitors to boost service innovation.     

Complementarity in R&D Cooperation Strategies

This paper assesses the performance effects of simultaneous engagement in R&D cooperation with different partners (competitors, clients, suppliers, and universities and research institutes). We test whether these different types of R&D cooperation are complements in improving productivity. The results suggest that the joint adoption of cooperation strategies could be either beneficial or detrimental to firm performance, depending on firm size and specific strategy combinations. Customer cooperation helps to increase market acceptance and diffusion of product innovations and enhances the impact of competitor and university cooperation. On the other hand, smaller firms also face diseconomies in pursuing multiple R&D cooperation strategies, which may stem from higher costs and complexity of simultaneously managing multiple partnerships with different innovation objectives.The empirical analysis for this paper has been performed at CEREM/Statistics Netherlands. We thank Bert Diederen of CEREM for his assistance. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of Statistics Netherlands. We thank two anonymous referees, the editor (Lawrence White), Bonnie Beerkens, Geert Duysters, Katrin Hussinger, and Pierre Mohnen for helpful comments on earlier drafts     

The role of horizontal and vertical new product alliances in responsive and proactive market orientations and performance of industrial manufacturing firms

This study examines different roles of new product alliance partners in enhancing responsive market orientation (RMO) and proactive market orientation (PMO) of industrial manufacturing firms in the context of learning in business-to-business (B2B) relationships. A survey of 146 firms shows that horizontal new product alliances with competitors provide access to similar industrial knowledge and know-how and thus help improve a manufacturing firm's RMO through exploitative learning. Although vertical new product alliances with suppliers may grant access to similar domains of knowledge, the findings of this study do not provide any support for their effect on a manufacturing firm's RMO. In contrast, the study shows that vertical new product alliances with research institutions provide access to a broader knowledge base and greater know-how with higher levels of non-redundancy and thus help improve a PMO through explorative learning. In addition, the results suggest that both RMO and PMO developed in different types of new product alliances enable a manufacturing firm to improve its new product performance and eventually its overall performance.     

Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain

This paper explains how research and development (R&D) collaborations impact process innovation; given the differences in innovation mechanisms, prior insights from studies of product innovation do not necessarily apply to process innovation. Extending the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper classifies four types of R&D collaborations—with universities, suppliers, competitors, and customers—in terms of two knowledge dimensions: position in the knowledge chain and contextual knowledge distance. Position in the knowledge chain is the position of the R&D collaboration partner in the knowledge chain of the industry—the input–output sequence of activities that result in the transformation of raw materials into products that are used by end customers. Based on this knowledge chain, this paper considers universities and suppliers as upstream R&D collaborators, and competitors and customers as downstream R&D collaborators. Contextual knowledge distance is the difference in industry‐related contexts of operation of the R&D collaboration partners and the firm. Based on this, this paper views R&D collaborators that are suppliers and competitors as having low contextual knowledge distance to the firm, and R&D collaborators that are customers and universities as having high contextual knowledge distance to the firm. Using this classification, this paper proposes a ranking of R&D collaborations in terms of their impact on process innovation: R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest impact, followed by R&D collaborations with universities, then R&D collaborations with competitors, and finally R&D collaborations with customers. These arguments are tested on a four‐year panel of 781 manufacturing firms. The results of the analyses indicate that R&D collaborations with suppliers and universities appear to have a positive impact on process innovation, R&D collaborations with customers appear to have no impact, and R&D collaborations with competitors appear to have a negative impact. As a consequence, the main driver of the impact of R&D collaborations on process innovation appears to be position in the knowledge chain rather than contextual knowledge distance. These novel ideas and findings contribute to the literature on process innovation. Even though process innovation tends to be internal and tacit to the firm, it can still benefit from external R&D collaborations; this paper is the first to analyze this relationship and provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this would be the case. This study also has important managerial implications. It suggests that managers need to be careful in choosing the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Engaging in R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers appears to be helpful for process innovation, whereas conducting R&D collaborations with competitors may potentially harm process innovation.     

互动导向对企业产品创新绩效的影响研究——基于知识协同的中介作用

本文选取245个有效样本,采用结构方程模型分析和回归分析等方法来探索互动导向对企业产品创新绩效的影响,并探讨知识协同的中介作用。研究结果表明：互动导向的3个维度（互动承诺、互动能力和互动关系）均对产品创新绩效具有显著的正向影响,且知识协同在互动承诺、互动能力和互动关系与产品创新绩效的关系中起中介作用。     

How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry

The number of strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry is sharply increasing. Some studies show that each alliance partner type has different alliance motives, resources and capabilities, organizational structures and cultures, and degrees of competition with partners, which can lead to different performances of strategic alliances. In this regard, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the different impact of each type of alliance partner on technological innovation performance and finds the moderating effect of absorptive capacity and potential competition by categorizing strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry into three types: vertical-downstream alliances, vertical-upstream alliances, and horizontal alliances. This study analyzed 206 Korean biotechnology firms and their strategic alliances for a total of 292 R&D activities. The results of the analysis showed that vertical alliances have a positive impact on technological innovation performance, while horizontal alliances have an inverted U-shaped relationship with technological innovation performance caused by the effect of competition. Additionally, it was confirmed that the R&D intensity of biotechnology firms has a moderating effect of increasing the impact of vertical-upstream alliances on technological innovation performance.     

Honeymoons and Liabilities: The Relationship between Age and Performance in Research and Development Alliances

The use of strategic alliances by technology ventures has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. During this period companies not only have increased the use of alliances but also have used them in more strategically important areas, particularly in research and development (R&D) and new product development. Thus, successful management of strategic alliances in high‐technology industries has become critical to a firm's new product development and ultimately to firm performance. Yet little is known about what determines the performance of individual alliances. This article examines the relationship between the age of an alliance and the performance of the alliance. Two competing hypotheses regarding the form of the functional relationship between alliance age and alliance performance are developed and are tested. First, a liability of newness hypothesis, which posits that alliance performance increases in a linear fashion over time, is tested. Then a honeymoon hypothesis, which posits that the relationship between age and alliance performance is nonlinear with alliance performance decreasing initially but increasing over time, is tested. It is proposed further here that alliances that are more important to the focal firm exhibit longer honeymoon periods. A measure of individual alliance performance is developed based on our field study in the biotechnology industry. The competing hypotheses are tested using regression analysis on the sample of 115 R&D alliances. Then the analysis is extended by splitting the sample into high‐ and low‐importance alliances to enhance the robustness of the findings. Further, such a split‐sample approach enables testing for a potential moderating effect of alliance importance on the hypothesized relationship between alliance age and alliance performance. The results suggest that the relationship between age and alliance performance seems to be U‐shaped curvilinear rather than linear, with the minimum point of alliance performance occurring after approximately four and one‐half years. Thus, the results indicate that strategic alliances appear to face a liability of adolescence rather than a liability of newness. Contrary to expectations, it also is found that important alliances exhibit generally shorter honeymoons.     

Creating superior customer value for B2B firms through supplier firm capabilities

In a dynamic global business-to-business (B2B) environment, innovation and marketing appear crucial to providing supplier firms' positional advantage through the ability to create value for customers. Our examination is grounded in seeking to address the research question: To what extent is the creation of superior performance, relationship, and co-creation value driven by market orientation, product innovation and marketing capabilities in B2B firms? The results of a survey of 155 large B2B firms show product innovation capability and marketing capability partially mediates the relationship between a firms' market orientation and its ability to create value (performance and co-creation), except for the role of marketing capability which we found acted as a full mediator of the relationship between market orientation and relationship value.     

Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms

Innovation is sometimes the result of collaboration between different agents with complementary resources. When companies make formal agreements to collaborate in R&D they do so with different types of organizations, such as their competitors, suppliers, and customers, or universities and research centres. This paper focuses on attempting to understand the reasons that lead companies to cooperate with universities and research centres and the characteristics of the relationship that this involves. The empirical study is based on a sample of 747 Spanish firms that took part in some type of collaborative R&D project between 1994 and 1996. Results indicate that cooperation with centres is a nation–wide phenomenon involving basic research, conducted under the sponsorship of different research support schemes promoted by central and regional administrations.     

Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&;D Cooperation—Happy Together?

In this paper we analyse the effect of past R&D cooperation on current firms’ innovation performance. Success measures are: sales of innovative products, distinguishing between products new to the firm and new to the market, and cost reductions due to innovative processes. Particular attention is paid to the impact of different cooperation partners. The analysis rests on firm-level data of the annual German innovation survey. We find that R&D cooperation with competitors leads to greater cost reductions that are attributable to innovative processes. R&D cooperation with research institutes has a positive influence on a firm’s economic success with market novelties.      

Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity

Some researchers have proposed that practices facilitating learning and knowledge transfer are particularly important to innovation. Some of the practices that researchers have studied include how organizations collaborate with other organizations, how organizations promote learning, and how an organization's culture facilitates knowledge transfer and learning. And while some have proposed the importance of combining practices, there has been a distinct lack of empirical studies that have explored how these practices work together to facilitate learning and knowledge transfer that leads to the simultaneous achievement of incremental and radical innovation, what we refer to as innovation ambidexterity (IA). Yet, a firm's ability to combine these practices into a learning capability is an important means of enabling them to foster innovation ambidexterity. In this study, learning capability is defined as the combination of practices that promote intraorganizational learning among employees, partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge. This paper examines the impact of this learning capability on innovation ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity's effect on business performance. The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is used to develop a conceptual foundation for combining these practices. This study empirically examines whether these practices constitute a learning capability by analyzing primary data gathered from 214 Taiwanese owned strategic business unit (SBUs) drawn from several industries where innovation is important. The results of this study make four important contributions. First, they demonstrate that the combination of these practices has a greater impact on innovation ambidexterity than any one practice individually or when only two practices are combined. Second, the results demonstrate a relationship between innovation ambidexterity and business performance in the form of revenues, profits, and productivity growth relative to competitors. Third, the results suggest that innovation ambidexterity plays a mediating role between learning capability and business performance. That is, learning capability has an indirect impact on business performance by facilitating innovation ambidexterity that in turn fosters business performance. This study also contributes to our understanding of ambidexterity literature in a non‐Western context, i.e., Taiwan.     

The relationship between organisational orientation and research and development/technology commercialisation performance

This paper explores organisational orientations related to research and development/technology commercialisation and their influence on technology commercialisation performance. A number of hypotheses are tested using structural equation modelling using data collected through a quantitative survey. The hypothesis that customer orientation and innovation orientation are related to technology commercialisation capability and the hypothesis that technology commercialisation capability is related to technology commercialisation performance are accepted, while the hypothesis that competitor orientation is related to technology commercialisation capability is not supported. From a theoretical perspective, the research contributes to a broader application of the resource‐based view in technology commercialisation research area, through exploring intangible resources (organisational orientations) and capability (technology commercialisation capability) that relate to technology commercialisation performance. From a practical perspective, in order to improve technology commercialisation performance, managers should monitor the speed of each commercialisation step: initiate the development of products (research); develop products (development); and launch the products to the market, so that the product arrives on the market in an appropriate time. Managers should also consider matching product customisation and market segment so that appropriate products are delivered to appropriate market segments. In addition, managers should monitor technology developments in the related industry, select appropriate technologies, acquire the technologies and integrate the technologies into their products, so that the improved product performs better than the previous product and competitors’ product.