Portfolios of Interfirm Agreements in Technology-Intensive Markets: Consequences for Innovation and Profitability

Wuyts, Stefan; Dutta, Shantanu; Stremersch, Stefan

doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.88.27787

Cited by 239 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

229

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the growing literature on inter-firm interaction in the pharmaceutical industry has mainly devoted attention to either large pharmaceutical firms (e.g., Wuyts, Dutta, & Stremersch, 2004) or start-up firms that face very specific challenges related to Stinchcombe's (1965) liability of newness hypothesis (e.g., Higgins & Gulati, 2006). In sum, a study of dedicated technology firms and their ability to license out their technologies would help bridge a void in prior literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Licensing Exchange - Insights from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Wuyts

Dutta

2007

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Licensing out technologies is a main source of revenue for dedicated technology firms. While licensing exchange has received very little attention in prior marketing literature, it is economically important and poses particular challenges. One major obstacle for obtaining new licensing deals is the information asymmetry between licensors and licensees. The main premise of this study is that the variation among dedicated technology firms of the number of new licensing deals that they obtain can be explained by their voluntary disclosure of strategic information and their position in the industry's licensing and social networks. An empirical study of the biopharmaceutical industry shows that, while voluntarily disclosing strategic information enables dedicated biotechnology firms to sign more new licensing deals, firms should be careful not to disclose too much information. As to network structure, dedicated biotechnology firms with more central positions in the licensing exchange network obtain more new licensing deals, but again, the effect has an inverted-U shape, indicating a dark side of network centrality. Finally, the study provides evidence that licensing exchange is socially embedded. A central position in the social network of board interlocks leads to more new licensing deals. Dedicated technology firms can use these insights to address practical questions, such as how much strategic information they should reveal, as well as to set long-term directions regarding network position.3

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Licensing Exchange - Insights from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Wuyts

Dutta

2007

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Radical innovation represents a dramatic departure from existing products in terms of technology and generate greater information processing and exposure to a variety of knowledge domains (Wuyts et al, 2004, Leifer et al, 2000. Scholars argue that internally generated knowledge provides low potential for creating radical innovation outputs (Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001) business environments (e.g., Salter, 2006, Lichtenthaler, 2009 (Chiang andHung, 2010, Subramaniam andYoundt, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing value from alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating role of R&D human capital in high and low tech industries

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has demonstrated the value of external linkages to augment in-house R&D efforts; however, very little is known about how managers can operationally leverage the potential benefits of open innovation to create an innovative edge. This paper examines the value of alliance portfolio diversity and whether R&D human capital is the pathway through which alliance portfolio diversity influences innovation novelty. We reason that the absorptive capacity of R&D human capital alliance portfolios. Using data from the Spanish Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC) for the period 2005 2012, results support the curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) association between alliance portfolio diversity and firm innovation performance reported in studies, suggesting that not only too little, but also too much alliance portfolio diversity may be detrimental to firm innovation performance. Findings emphasise the value of alliance portfolio diversity in high-technology industries to achieve explorative performance objectives, given the technological complexity, market uncertainty and the divergent skill sets required for breakthrough innovations in these sectors. Further, we find evidence that R&D human capital plays an important role in innovation novelty by partially mediating the relationship between alliance partner diversity and firm innovation performance, emphasising the importance of internal capabilities to harness external knowledge assets.This study provides valuable insights to managers aiming to increase the effectiveness of their alliance portfolios.

show abstract

“…Apart from the size of an R&D partnership portfolio, its composition in terms of the mix of novel and repeat partners may also influence inward flows of technological knowledge (e.g., Wuyts et al, 2004). In uncertain environments, firms tend to engage in partnerships with firms they have collaborated with before (Gulati 1995).…”

Section: Portfolio Composition: Combining Novel and Repeat Partnersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies argue that R&D partnership portfolios, more than individual partnerships alone, represent key knowledge-gathering conduits that allow firms to leverage informational complementarities across their various R&D projects (Faems, van Looy, & Debackere, 2005;George, Zahra, Wheatley, & Khan, 2001;Munson & Spivey, 2006). Consistent with this view, several studies have shown empirical associations between R&D partnership portfolios and innovation (Powell et al, 1999;Rothaermel & Deeds, 2006;Soh, 2003;Stuart, 2000;Wuyts, Dutta, & Stremersch, 2004), while others have suggested a link between technological uncertainty and firms' proclivity to engage in multiple simultaneous R&D partnerships (Hagedoorn, 1993;Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996;Rosenkopf & Schilling, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For example, though prior studies have tended to assume that knowledge flows represent a proximate consequence of R&D partnership portfolios (e.g., Soh, 2003;Wuyts et al, 2004), direct evidence on such knowledge flows is largely restricted to studies of dyadic partnerships (Gomes-Casseres, Hagedoorn, & Jaffe, 2006;Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1996;Oxley & Wada 2009;Rosenkopf & Almeida, 2003). Empirical research has yet to connect dimensions of R&D partnership portfolios directly to the inflow of technological knowledge from a firm's R&D partners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

R&D partnership portfolios and the inflow of technological knowledge

Frankort¹,

Hagedoorn²,

Letterie³

2011

Industrial and Corporate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. we show that the size of a firm's R&D partnership portfolio and its share of novel partners both have an inverted U-shaped effect on the inflow of technological knowledge from the firm's R&D partners. We also show how these direct effects vary as a function of the level of technological uncertainty within the portfolio. Permanent repository link3

show abstract

Portfolios of Interfirm Agreements in Technology-Intensive Markets: Consequences for Innovation and Profitability

Cited by 239 publications

References 66 publications

Licensing Exchange - Insights from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Licensing Exchange - Insights from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Capturing value from alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating role of R&D human capital in high and low tech industries

R&D partnership portfolios and the inflow of technological knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About