Do technology alliances benefit technological diversification? The effects of technological knowledge distance, network centrality and complementary assets

This study suggests that decisions regarding the scope of a technology base can be traced to factors (technological knowledge (TK) distance, network centrality and complementary assets) that govern the extent of technological specialization and diversification. Based on data from 2000–2007, for 248 electronics and information technology firms in Taiwan, we indicate that technology alliances do not encourage firms to diversify a technology base over time. Decisions in regards to the utilization of external TK can also be traced to TK distance, network centrality and complementary assets. First, TK distance has an inverted U-shaped relationship with the technology base scope. Second, the mere consideration of network centrality and TK distance cannot determine the technology base scope. Third, a firm converges its technology base through combined complementary assets with TK distance and network centrality.

[1]  John E. Prescott,et al.  Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance , 2008 .

[2]  M. Colombo,et al.  In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups , 2006 .

[3]  Corey C. Phelps,et al.  Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Rachelle C. Sampson.  R&D Alliances & Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation , 2003 .

[5]  Geoffrey G. Bell,et al.  Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance , 2005 .

[6]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

[7]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation , 2008 .

[8]  C. Phelps.  A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of Alliance Network Structure and Composition on Firm Exploratory Innovation , 2009 .

[9]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[10]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[11]  Devi R. Gnyawali,et al.  Cooperative Networks and Competitive Dynamics: a Structural Embeddedness Perspective , 2001 .

[12]  Hsien-che Lai,et al.  Can external corporate venturing broaden firm's technological scope? The role of complementary assets , 2010 .

[13]  Laura B. Cardinal,et al.  The Use of Knowledge for Technological Innovation Within Diversified Firms , 2007 .

[14]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology , 2000 .

[15]  I. Zander.  Technological diversification in the multinational corporation—historical evolution and future prospects , 1997 .

[16]  D. Mowery,et al.  Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer , 1996 .

[17]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity , 2005 .

[18]  Tim Rowley.  Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences , 1997 .

[19]  T. Das,et al.  A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances , 2000 .

[20]  S. Zahra.  Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach , 1993 .

[21]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Network Embeddedness and the Exploration of Novel Technologies: Technological Distance, Betweenness Centrality and Density , 2006 .

[22]  G. Duysters,et al.  The Role of Alliance Network Redundancy in the Creation of Core and Non-Core Technologies , 2009 .

[23]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[24]  R. Katila,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION , 2002 .

[25]  Dean M. Behrens,et al.  Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries , 2000 .

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

[27]  Fariborz Damanpour,et al.  The Application of External Knowledge: Organizational Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation , 2009 .

[28]  F. Malerba,et al.  Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification , 2003 .

[29]  Petra Christmann.  Effects of “Best Practices” of Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The Role of Complementary Assets , 2000 .

[30]  G. Ahuja.  Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study , 1998 .

[31]  P. Adler,et al.  Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept , 2002 .

[32]  R. Gulati.  Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation , 1999 .

[33]  María García‐Vega.  Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms , 2006 .