Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract

I especially thank Will Mitchell, Mark Mizruchi, and Anand Swaminathan for their many inputs into this research. Additionally, for their research assistance and/or helpful comments I thank Riitta Katila, Jennifer Keene, Curba Morris Lampert, and Sai Yayavaram. An earlier version of this paper received the West Publishing Best Paper Award and the Sage-Louis Pondy Best Dissertationbased Paper Awards from the OMT Division of the Academy of Management. The dissertation on which this paper is based received the Best Dissertation Award from the BPS Division of the Academy of Management and the Best Dissertation Proposal Award from the INFORMS College on Organization Science. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the University of Texas and the Center for International Business Education and Research at the University of Michigan. I especially thank Don Palmer and three anonymous reviewers of this journal whose insightful feedback immeasurably improved this paper. Finally, I would like to thank Linda Johanson for her editing, which significantly enhanced the readability and clarity of the final paper. I Other studies that have examined the relationship between collaboration and innovation include Berg, Duncan, and Friedman (1982) and Hagedoorn and Schakenraad (1994), albeit from slightly different perspectives. Berg, Duncan, and Friedman (1982) examined the impact of research collaboration on research expenditures and profitability. Similarly, Hagedoorn and Schakenraad (1994) related collaboration to profitability. Neither of these studies, however, directly examined the impact of collaboration on innovative output or used a network perspective.

Understanding novelty creation in exploration networks—Structural and relational embeddedness jointly considered

“…A second observation is that in this strand of literature, there is a strong focus on the structural properties of networks. Due to this strong focus on structural elements of networks, the identification of relevant environmental conditions and how they influence this structure have generally been ignored by social network theorists (Ahuja, 2000). A third observation is that these structural properties are treated as relatively 'stand-alone' properties.…”

“…In the context of learning and innovation, exploration thrives on a diversity of knowledge which yields a potential for Schumpeterian novel combinations to emerge (Nooteboom, 2000). It is in this heterogeneity that actors are able to combine and integrate complementary knowledge and capabilities (Porter, 1990;Hamel and Prahalad, 1994;Grabher, 1993;Hagedoorn, 1993;Hagedoorn and Schakenraad, 1994;Smith Ring and van de Ven, 1994;Grandori, 1997;Spekman et al, 1995;Uzzi, 1997;Nooteboom, 1999Nooteboom, , 2004Ahuja, 2000;Rowley et al, 2000).…”

Understanding Internationalisation through the Lens of Social Network Analysis

“…This perspective argues that relationships evolve organically though existing relationships and circumstances (Chetty and Patterson, 2002). On the other hand, the other perspective, based on RBV view, argues that firms seek and form new relationships depending on their lack of resources, and thus they compensate their competitive disadvantages (Ahuja, 2000;Schweizer, 2013). Therefore, firms consciously build relationships and become insiders in a strategically chosen network in order to acquire complementary resources necessary for internationalisation.…”

“…Not only flexibility, occupying a bridging position across structural holes also provides advantages such as accessing higher volume of novel and non-redundant information from separate groups and controlling flow of information in a timely manner. By contrast with these assets, open networks cannot provide the same benefit of curbing opportunistic actions as closed networks (Ahuja, 2000). Sparse networks maximise information benefits through exploiting structural holes and exchanging information between various actors from different social, organisation and institutional boundaries (Reagans and McEvily, 2003;Hilmersson and Jansson, 2012).…”

“…The notion of 'networks' has been applied by a growing number of researchers in different business and management sub-disciplines including organisational studies (Salancik, 1995;Uzzi, 1996;Zaheer and Bell, 2005;Kilduff and Brass, 2010;Tichy et al, 1979), knowledge management (Cross and Parker, 2004;Reagans and McEvily, 2003), innovation (Freeman, 1991;Ahuja, 2000;Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006) and international business and marketing (Coviello andMunro, 1997, 1995;Ellis, 2000Ellis, , 2011Johanson and Vahlne, 2009;Zhou et al, 2007;Sharma and Blomstermo, 2003;Tikkanen, 1998;Mattsson, 1997;Johanson and Mattsson, 1985).…”