External partnering as a response to innovation barriers and global competition in biotechnology

Abstract The frequency with which US biotechnology firms have entered into external partnerships to obtain the complementary assets needed to exploit their technologies has increased dramatically in the 1980s and early 1990s. Further, the search for external partners increasingly crosses international boundaries. In this paper a framework is presented for explaining the choices biotechnology firms make in securing the complementary assets needed to commercialize their biotechnologies. We first examine the extent to which external partnering is a response to a range of specific environmental and firm-related barriers which impose transaction costs on the organization. We then examine the current perceptions of US biotechnology firms as to their primary global competitors and explore whether partnering choices can be motivated and explained by factors in the global competitive environment. Firms' decisions to acquire complementary assets through external partnering in a global environment is explored for four innovation activities. This empirical analysis is based on a survey of 244 US biotechnology firms currently involved in exploiting biotechnologies for commercial use.

[1]  Mark D. Dibner,et al.  Patterns of Strategic Choice in Emerging Firms: Positioning for Innovation in Biotechnology , 1990 .

[2]  David J. Teece,et al.  Joint Ventures and Collaboration in the Biotechnology Industry , 1988 .

[3]  D. Teece Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[4]  Strategic Challenges in Commercializing Biotechnology , 1990 .

[5]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Inter-firm partnerships and co-operative strategies in core technologies , 1990 .

[6]  D. Mowery International collaborative ventures in U.S. manufacturing , 1988 .

[7]  G. Pisano The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis , 1990 .

[8]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[9]  P. Ranum,et al.  The Battle for Europe , 1972 .

[10]  A. Arora,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY AND EXTERNAL LINKAGES: THE STRATEGIES OF THE LARGE FIRMS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY* , 1990 .

[11]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[12]  G. Pisano The governance of innovation: Vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry☆ , 1991 .

[13]  W. Diebold,et al.  Europe and the New Technologies , 1986 .

[14]  C. Freeman,et al.  New Explorations in the Economics of Technological Change , 1990 .

[15]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technical Change and Economic Theory , 1989 .

[16]  Perspectives in Industrial Organization , 1990 .

[17]  M. Dibner,et al.  The Maturing of Biotech Companies: Shifting Emphasis from Science to Business , 1988, Bio/Technology.

[18]  J. Schumpeter Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1943 .

[19]  Alice M. Sapienza,et al.  R&D collaboration as a global competitive tactic —Biotechnology and the ethical pharmaceutical industry , 1989 .

[20]  B. Kogut The Stability of Joint Ventures: Reciprocity and Competitive Rivalry , 1989 .

[21]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[22]  N. Dorfman,et al.  Innovation and Market Structure: Lessons from the Computer and Semiconductor Industries , 1987 .

[23]  A. Yoshikawa The other Drug War: U.S.-Japan Trade in Pharmaceuticals , 1989 .