Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences

Abstract

Inte@rm strategic alliances appear to have become more important as a part of (international) business. In this contribution an attempt is made to clarify our understanding of the motives that lead firms to cooperate in their innovative efforts. Going beyond generul theoretical statements and case studies, attention i s paid to both sectoral differences in the motivation for partnerships as well as to contrasts in interorganizational features of technology cooperation. Based on a large sample of alliances the analysis reveals some major differences regarding the research orientation of contractual arrangements and organizationally complex alliances.

International Co-operation between Firms on Innovation and R&D: Empirical Evidence from Argentina and Spain

“…5). In contrast to the literature on motives for technological cooperation (Hagedoorn, 1993;Bayona et al ,2001), we observe that access to markets (economic reasons) for Spanish firms is more important than technological reasons (greater focus on R&D than innovation).…”

“…Some firms operate in sub-sectors that are increasingly paradigmatic and mature, others are pre-paradigmatic and nascent (Molero, 1998;Hagedoorn, 1993;Narula, 2002;Lundin et al, 2004). …”

“…Motives for cooperation in general Hagedoorn (1993) lists the motives for cooperation as: a) related to basic and applied research and some general characteristics of technological development (minimizing and sharing of uncertainty in R&D, reduction in and sharing of costs of R&D); b) related to real innovation processes (capturing partner's tacit knowledge of technology, technology transfer, technological leapfrogging, shortening the product life cycle, and the period between invention and market introduction); and c) related to market access and opportunities (internationalisation and entry to foreign markets, new products and markets, expansion of product range).…”

“…Several barriers such as financial restrictions, lack of suitable human resources, results appropriability among partners, additional costs and time of cooperation, finding suitable partners, coordination/communication problems, conflicts of different interests, etc., affect or cause negative impact on cooperation processes (Hladik, 1988;Hagedoorn, 1993;Dodgson;Hidalgo Nuchera and Albors Garrigós, 2004a,b;Tiwari and Buse, 2007). Interfirm networks are frequently seen as facilitating innovation by being sources of ideas, information and resources.…”

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

“…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).…”