Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes : a study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands

Several studies have indicated the importance of public R&D in the transfer and commercialization of nanotechnology. So far, few have focused on university–industry interaction and collaboration performance. In this study, we investigate the impact of technological diversity and value chain complementarity of partners on public nanotechnology R&D projects' performance. We enriched a database on the commercial outcomes of technology research projects from the Dutch Technology Foundation STW. To test our hypotheses, we selected 169 nanotechnology research projects from the database, which started in a five-year period from 1998 until 2003. Project performance was measured five years after completion of the project. Technological diversity has a U-shaped effect on the projects' commercial performance. Findings show a strong positive impact of value chain complementarity of partners on both application development and commercial performance of the projects.. The framework introduced in this study allows an evaluation of the effects of technological diversity and value chain complementarity on application development and the commercial performance of public R&D projects

[1]  V. Arza,et al.  Firms’ linkages with public research organisations in Argentina: Drivers, perceptions and behaviours , 2011 .

[2]  C. Palmberg.  The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers , 2008 .

[3]  A. Geuna,et al.  Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling , 2006 .

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

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

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

[7]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect , 1996 .

[8]  J. C. F. D. Arroyabe,et al.  The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms , 2008 .

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

[10]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  Global distribution of micro–nano technology and fabrication centers: A portfolio analysis approach , 2007 .

[11]  Boris Lokshin,et al.  Complementarity in R&D Cooperation Strategies , 2005 .

[12]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning by Interaction: Absorptive Capacity, Cognitive Distance and Governance , 2000 .

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

[14]  Kumiko Miyazaki,et al.  An empirical analysis of nanotechnology research domains , 2010 .

[15]  Sally Davenport,et al.  Collaborative research programmes: building trust from difference , 1998 .

[16]  D. Mowery,et al.  Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm , 1998 .

[17]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis , 2011 .

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

[19]  S. Hung,et al.  Stimulating new industries from emerging technologies: challenges for the public sector , 2006 .

[20]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Global nanotechnology research literature overview , 2007 .

[21]  Christine Shea,et al.  Nanotechnology as general-purpose technology: empirical evidence and implications , 2011, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[22]  S. Zeng,et al.  Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs , 2010 .

[23]  Douglas K. R. Robinson,et al.  Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology , 2009 .

[24]  Krsto Pandza,et al.  Collaborative diversity in a nanotechnology innovation system: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme , 2011 .

[25]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[26]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .

[27]  Doris Schartinger,et al.  Interactive Relations Between Universities and Firms: Empirical Evidence for Austria , 2001 .

[28]  Ángeles Montoro-Sánchez,et al.  Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations , 2004 .

[29]  A. Porter,et al.  Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle , 2007 .

[30]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” S&T , 2007, 0911.3323.

[31]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  Roadmapping a disruptive technology: A case study: The emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems industry , 2004 .

[32]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[33]  J. D. Roessner,et al.  What companies want from the federal labs , 1993 .

[34]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive Distance , 2004 .

[35]  K. Hussinger.  On the Importance of Technological Relatedness: SMEs versus Large Acquisition Targets , 2010 .

[36]  M. Meyer,et al.  Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application , 1998, Scientometrics.

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

[38]  Eric Avenel,et al.  Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies , 2007, 0911.3476.

[39]  R. Veugelers,et al.  R&D Cooperation between Firms and Universities: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing , 2003 .

[40]  Tuomo Nikulainen,et al.  Identifying nanotechnological linkages in the Finnish economy – an explorative study , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[41]  Ana M. Bernardos Barbolla,et al.  Critical factors for success in university–industry research projects , 2009 .

[42]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[43]  Lajos P Balogh.  Why do we have so many definitions for nanoscience and nanotechnology? , 2010, Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine.

[44]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Complementary Technologies, Knowledge Relatedness, and Invention Outcomes in High Technology Mergers and Acquisitions , 2009 .

[45]  Jan C. Schmidt,et al.  Tracing interdisciplinarity of converging technologies at the nanoscale: A critical analysis of recent nanotechnosciences , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[46]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[47]  Christine M. Shea.  Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study , 2005 .

[48]  Roberto Verganti,et al.  Designing foresight studies for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (NST) future developments , 2008 .

[49]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[50]  Christopher Palmberg,et al.  Transferring science-based technologies to industry: Does nanotechnology make a difference? , 2010 .

[51]  Julia L. Lin,et al.  Network embeddedness and technology transfer performance in R&D consortia in Taiwan , 2009 .

[52]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[53]  Caroline Hussler,et al.  Taking the ivory from the tower to coat the economic world: Regional strategies to make science useful , 2010 .

[54]  Y. Motoyama,et al.  Bibliometry and nanotechnology: A meta-analysis , 2011 .

[55]  Arie Rip,et al.  Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology , 2007, 0911.2982.