The effects of university–industry collaboration in preclinical research on pharmaceutical firms’ R&D performance: Absorptive capacity’s role

Abstract

Pharmaceutical firms frequently engage in preclinical research collaboration with universities. Many of these collaborative preclinical research projects are conducted by firms’ subsidiaries. In this setting, the challenge of transferring knowledge from university–industry collaborations (UICs) to internal research and development (R&D) increases, since knowledge has to be transferred twice: to the subsidiary and to the parent. To benefit from tacit and complex knowledge obtained through collaboration with academic partners, firms need to have a high absorptive capacity. However, existing research on absorptive capacity's effect on the efficacy of UIC has provided mixed results, and the knowledge transfer mechanisms remain unclear, particularly in the case of basic (or preclinical) research and of the complex knowledge transfer process from subsidiaries’ collaborative efforts. Building on the knowledge‐based view and following a multidimensional perspective of absorptive capacity, this study investigates the role a firm's capabilities play in successful university knowledge integration in a firm's internal R&D. Therefore, this paper analyzes both parent firms’ UICs and their subsidiaries’ UICs in basic (preclinical) research. The results of our longitudinal analysis of a unique panel data set of 56 global pharmaceutical firms indicate that firms do successfully exploit valuable knowledge from preclinical research UIC in internal R&D, measured by the number of performed clinical trials. This holds true for the UIC involving the parent firm and its subsidiaries. As transformative learning dimensions of absorptive capacity, high diversity in therapeutic activity and high R&D intensity levels strengthen the positive relationship between parents’ UIC and R&D performance. A high exploration intensity level of the firm and high diversity in therapeutic activity help to transfer the knowledge from subsidiaries’ preclinical research UIC to parents’ innovation projects.

Open Innovation of Institutional Investors and Higher Education System in Creating Open Approach for SDG-4 Quality Education: A Conceptual Review

“…This Institutional Investor and Sustainable University Funding Research Model indicates a new angle of research in institutional investors and alternative funding for universities where more research is required to explore the possibility and process for implementing the model. Although several studies advocated university-industry collaboration [7,[88][89][90][91], this research extends new possibilities in the literature to bridge the gap between industry and educational institutions, bringing greater opportunity for institutions to invest and develop alternative funding for educational institutions for quality education.…”

Evolutionary Path and Innovative Development of Pharmaceutical Industrial Cluster—A Case Study of Shijiazhuang, China

“…Due to the plurality of subjects, innovation involves not only the behavior of a particular enterprise, but also forms an effective network through the subjects of the innovation system (e.g., enterprises, research institutions, universities, intermediary services, and local governments) to form an innovation system [ 37 , 38 ]. The establishment of several strategic alliances has accelerated the innovation development of the cluster, and several integrated innovation systems have been established in the cluster [ 39 , 40 ], such as the Antibiotics Industrial Technology Innovation Strategic Alliance, the China Drug Technology Innovation and Industrialization Strategic Alliance, and the Innovative Drug Development Industry University Research Alliance, among others. Rich innovation resources provide strong support for cluster technology innovation.…”

Effects of political networking capability and strategic capability on exploratory and exploitative innovation: evidence from traditional manufacturing firms in China

“…, 2012), suppliers (Mishra and Mishra, 2019), governments (Zhang et al. , 2014) and universities (Melnychuk et al. , 2021), etc.…”

“…Current work on ambidextrous innovation has focused on high-tech industry (Lin et al. , 2017), nano-energy industry (Zhang and Luo, 2020), pharmaceutical industry (Melnychuk et al. , 2021), advanced manufacturing sectors (Bierly et al.…”