How R&D partner diversity influences innovation performance: an empirical study in the nano-biopharmaceutical field

R&D partner diversity is generally acknowledged to help organizations to improve innovation performance. This study investigates the influence mechanism in depth by introducing technological diversification as mediator and the structural holes of new knowledge elements from R&D partners and the degree centrality of the focal organization’s knowledge elements as two moderators. The empirical analysis is based on patent data in the emerging nano-biopharmaceutical field and includes 554 innovative organizations. Results show that partners’ organizational diversity and geographical diversity have positive effects on focal organizations’ innovation performance through improving technological diversification. The structural holes of new knowledge elements from R&D partners and the degree centrality of the focal organization’s knowledge elements moderate the process in the way that when they are at high levels, the indirect positive effects of partner diversity on innovation performance through technological diversification are strengthened.

[1]  Rhiannon N. Turner,et al.  Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs , 2013, Scientometrics.

[3]  M. Nieto,et al.  The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation , 2007 .

[4]  B. Looy,et al.  Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach , 2005 .

[5]  L. Fleming,et al.  Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success , 2007 .

[6]  Pier Paolo Saviotti,et al.  The knowledge-base evolution in biotechnology: a social network analysis , 2011 .

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

[8]  Geert Duysters,et al.  Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies , 2008 .

[9]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[10]  Geert Duysters,et al.  Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies , 2011 .

[11]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[12]  Yan Yan,et al.  Technological proximity and recombinative innovation in the alternative energy field , 2016 .

[13]  R. Blundell,et al.  Dynamic Count Data Models of Technological Innovation , 1994 .

[14]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies , 2002 .

[15]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  How Good Are Patents as Innovation Indicators? Evidence from German CIS Data , 2012 .

[16]  A. Arundel,et al.  What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms , 1998 .

[17]  J. March,et al.  Organizational Learning , 2008 .

[18]  B. H. Jørgensen,et al.  The dynamic creation of knowledge: Analysing public-private collaborations , 2005 .

[19]  Shantanu Dutta,et al.  Benefiting From Alliance Portfolio Diversity , 2014 .

[20]  Daniel J. Brown.  "Foundations of Social Theory": Essay Review. , 1991 .

[21]  Sujit Bhattacharya,et al.  China and India: The two new players in the nanotechnology race , 2012, Scientometrics.

[22]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences , 2016, Scientometrics.

[23]  Janghyeok Yoon,et al.  Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: the case of Korean national R&D , 2013, Scientometrics.

[24]  Virgilio Mattoli,et al.  Mitochondria and neurodegenerative diseases: the promising role of nanotechnology in targeted drug delivery , 2017, Expert opinion on drug delivery.

[25]  Jiancheng Guan,et al.  Mapping of biotechnology patents of China from 1995–2008 , 2011, Scientometrics.

[26]  Jiancheng Guan,et al.  Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy , 2016 .

[27]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[28]  B. RenÃ,et al.  Pseudo-Generic Products and Barriers to Entry in Pharmaceutical Markets: Comment , 2006 .

[29]  Hiroshi Osada,et al.  University-industry collaboration in drug discovery in Japan: An empirical analysis over thirty years , 2013, 2013 Proceedings of PICMET '13: Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET).

[30]  A SchillingMelissa,et al.  Interfirm Collaboration Networks , 2007 .

[31]  Ying-yi Hong,et al.  Re-examining diversity as a double-edged sword for innovation process , 2015 .

[32]  G. Ahuja.  The duality of collaboration : Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages , 2000 .

[33]  Dovev Lavie,et al.  Alliance Portfolio Internationalization and Firm Performance , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[34]  Adam D. Galinsky,et al.  Multicultural Experience Enhances Creativity , 2008 .

[35]  Gianluca Carnabuci,et al.  Knowledge Specialization, Knowledge Brokerage and the Uneven Growth of Technology Domains , 2009 .

[36]  Simon Rodan,et al.  Knowledge Networks, Collaboration Networks, and Exploratory Innovation , 2014 .

[37]  G. Dutrénit,et al.  Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit , 2012 .

[38]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[39]  C. V. Beers,et al.  R&D Cooperation, Partner Diversity, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis† , 2014 .

[40]  Sharon Belenzon,et al.  Innovation and firm value: An investigation of the changing role of patents, 1985–2007 , 2013 .

[41]  C. Chiu,et al.  Multicultural Experience, Idea Receptiveness, and Creativity , 2010 .

[42]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

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

[44]  M. Maznevski,et al.  Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups , 2010 .

[45]  D. Harrison,et al.  What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. , 2007 .

[46]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[47]  Helen M. Williams,et al.  Measuring Gender Composition in Work Groups: A Comparison of Existing Methods , 2004 .

[48]  P. Williamson,et al.  Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance , 2007 .

[49]  Xia Gao,et al.  An analysis of the patenting activities and collaboration among industry-university-research institutes in the Chinese ICT sector , 2013, Scientometrics.

[50]  Haiying Lin,et al.  Cross-sector Alliances for Corporate Social Responsibility Partner Heterogeneity Moderates Environmental Strategy Outcomes , 2012 .

[51]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  Optimal search on a technology landscape , 2000 .

[52]  W. Vanhaverbeke,et al.  Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners , 2014 .

[53]  Patrick Herron,et al.  Tracking the Current Rise of Chinese Pharmaceutical Bionanotechnology , 2009, Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration.

[54]  Daniel Teodorescu,et al.  Beyond the Impact Factor: measuring the international visibility of Romanian social sciences journals , 2016, Scientometrics.

[55]  J. Coleman.  Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[56]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

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

[58]  Alok K. Chakrabarti,et al.  FIRM SIZE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTRALITY IN INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY INTERACTIONS , 2002 .

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

[60]  Fr¬¥ed¬¥erique Sachwald,et al.  Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated framework of analysis , 2003 .

[61]  Paul S. Goodman,et al.  Creating effective University-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective , 1997 .

[62]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[63]  Yu-Shan Chen,et al.  Using the entropy-based patent measure to explore the influences of related and unrelated technological diversification upon technological competences and firm performance , 2011, Scientometrics.

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

[65]  C. A. Benavides-Velasco,et al.  Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification , 2008 .

[66]  Ove Granstrand,et al.  Towards a theory of the technology-based firm 1 Paper originally presented at the workshop on `Techn , 1998 .

[67]  Sai Yayavaram,et al.  Decomposability in Knowledge Structures and Its Impact on the Usefulness of Inventions and Knowledge-base Malleability , 2008 .

[68]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: a review , 1992 .

[69]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[70]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[71]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[72]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation , 2012 .

[73]  Chi-yue Chiu,et al.  Multicultural experience enhances creativity: the when and how. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[74]  A. Neely,et al.  Gaining from interactions with universities: multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity , 2008 .

[75]  Ken Starkey,et al.  The Competitive Advantage of Nations: Review , 2002 .

[76]  Gianluca Carnabuci,et al.  The Ecology of Technological Progress: How Symbiosis and Competition Affect the Growth of Technology Domains , 2010 .

[77]  Dries Faems,et al.  The role of interpartner dissimilarities in Industry-University alliances : Insights from a comparative case study , 2016 .

[78]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[79]  Leon A.G. Oerlemans,et al.  Alliance portfolio diversity, radical and incremental innovation : The moderating role of technology management , 2013 .

[80]  R. Gopal,et al.  Pipes, pools, and filters: How collaboration networks affect innovative performance , 2016 .

[81]  John T. Scott.  Environmental research joint ventures among manufactures , 1996 .

[82]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[83]  Jay Teachman.  Analysis of Population Diversity: Measures of Qualitative Diversity. , 1980 .

[84]  Swarnlata Saraf,et al.  Nanocarriers: promising vehicle for bioactive drugs. , 2006, Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin.