Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change

This paper argues that when the technological basis of an industry is changing, the firm's approach to technology sourcing plays a critical role in building the capabilities needed to generate new technical outputs. Using survey and archival data from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry during the period 1981–91, we find that different approaches to technology sourcing (internal R&D and external R&D) are related to different types of biotechnology-based output at the end of the period. Internal R&D was positively associated with patent output. Acquisition activity was positively related to number of biotechnology-based products. Greater use of R&D contracts and licenses was associated with stronger reputation for possessing expertise in biotechnology. These findings underscore the importance of taking a multifaceted approach to technology sourcing in order to build the absorptive capacity needed to generate new technical output. Surprisingly, we also found that involvement in joint ventures was negatively related to patent output. This raises interesting questions about the strategic use of joint ventures in a regime of encompassing technological change. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Kevin G. Corley,et al.  On The Performance Of Technology-Sourcing Partnerships: The Interaction Between Partner Interdependence And Technology Attributes , 2000 .

[2]  R. Rosenbloom.  Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The Transformation of NCR in the Electronic Era , 2000 .

[3]  Harbir Singh,et al.  Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital , 2000 .

[4]  T. Khanna,et al.  Do Firms Learn to Create Value? The Case of Alliances , 2000 .

[5]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Evolutionary diffusion: internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry , 1998 .

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

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

[8]  W. Mitchell,et al.  SURVIVAL OF BUSINESSES USING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS TO COMMERCIALIZE COMPLEX GOODS , 1996 .

[9]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  CUSTOMER POWER, STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, AND THE FAILURE OF LEADING FIRMS , 1996 .

[10]  Charlene L. Nicholls-Nixon.  Responding to technological change: Why some firms do and others die , 1995 .

[11]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[12]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms , 1995 .

[13]  M. Hitt,et al.  The new competitive landscape , 1995 .

[14]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Measuring competence?: exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research , 1994 .

[15]  R. Garud,et al.  TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY: CONTINUAL STRUCTURING BY INTERTEMPORAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER , 1994 .

[16]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance. , 1994 .

[17]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .

[18]  G. Hamel.  Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances , 1991 .

[19]  W. Mitchell.  Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value , 1991 .

[20]  John W. Clarr.  Cooperative Strategies in International Business , 1990 .

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

[22]  N. Rosenberg.  Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) , 1990 .

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

[24]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

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

[26]  David J. Teece,et al.  Collaborative Arrangements and Global Technology Strategy: Some Evidence from the Telecommunications Equipment Industry , 1989 .

[27]  G. Pisano.  Using Equity Participation to Support Exchange: Evidence from the Biotechnology Industry , 1989 .

[28]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[29]  Marjorie A. Lyles.  Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms , 1987 .

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

[31]  John H. Friar,et al.  The emergence of technology strategy , 1985 .

[32]  William F. Hamilton,et al.  Corporate Strategies for Managing Emerging Technologies , 1985 .

[33]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[34]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the black box , 1983 .

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

[36]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Organization-Sets, Action-Sets, and Networks: Making the Most of Simplicity , 1981 .

[37]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[38]  D. Schendel,et al.  Strategic responses to technological threats , 1976 .

[39]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.