Role of search for domain knowledge and architectural knowledge in alliance partner selection

Research Summary: The literature on technological alliances emphasizes that search for knowledge drives alliance formation. However, in conceptualizing technological knowledge, prior work on alliances has not made a distinction between domain knowledge—knowledge that firms possess in distinct technological domains—and architectural knowledge—knowledge that firms possess about how to combine elements from different technological domains. We argue that firms seek partners that are similar in domain knowledge to deepen their knowledge, and partners that are dissimilar in architectural knowledge to broaden their knowledge. Our results indicate that the likelihood of alliance formation increases when two firms are similar in domain knowledge and dissimilar in architectural knowledge. Further, our results show that these effects are positively moderated by the degree of decomposability of a firm's knowledge base. Managerial Summary: In dynamic environments, companies need to continually deepen and broaden their technological knowledge, and they often look for alliance partners who can provide them that knowledge. For knowledge deepening, companies are more likely to form alliances with those companies that have expertise in similar technological fields. For knowledge broadening, they are more likely to form alliances with those companies that have expertise in the same technological fields, but have different recipes for combining knowledge from those fields. Furthermore, a company with a modular knowledge base is more likely to seek a partner that has expertise in similar technological fields or whose recipes for combining knowledge from different technological fields are different from the recipes it has.

[1]  J. Heckman Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[2]  W. V. D. Ven,et al.  The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: A probit model with sample selection , 1981 .

[3]  A. Jaffe Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms&Apos; Patents, Profits and Market Value , 1986 .

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

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

[6]  J. March Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

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

[8]  S. Balakrishnan,et al.  Information asymmetry, adverse selection and joint-ventures* Theory and evidence , 1993 .

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

[10]  R. Gulati Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis , 1995 .

[11]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Networks, Knowledge, and Niches: Competition in the Worldwide Semiconductor Industry, 1984-1991 , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[13]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[14]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

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

[16]  R. Gulati,et al.  The Architecture of Cooperation: Managing Coordination Costs and Appropriation Concerns in Strategic Alliances , 1998 .

[17]  Toby E. Stuart Network Positions and Propensities to Collaborate: An Investigation of Strategic Alliance Formation in a High-Technology Industry , 1998 .

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

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

[20]  M. Tushman,et al.  Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for schumpeterian innovation , 1998 .

[21]  R. Gulati,et al.  Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[23]  Qing Wang,et al.  Complexity and the functions of the firm : breadth and depth , 2000 .

[24]  Andrea Prencipe,et al.  Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system , 2000 .

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

[26]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

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

[28]  Gary King,et al.  Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data , 2001, Political Analysis.

[29]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data , 2001 .

[30]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

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

[32]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[33]  Esteban García-Canal,et al.  Adverse Selection and the Choice between Joint-Ventures and Acquisitions: Evidence from Spanish Firms , 2002 .

[34]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Do alliances promote knowledge flows , 2006 .

[35]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  External Sources of Innovative Capabilities: The Preferences for Strategic Alliances or Mergers and Acquisitions , 2002 .

[36]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[37]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  Division of labor, organizational coordination and market mechanisms in collective problem-solving , 2005 .

[38]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Minimal and maximal characteristic path lengths in connected sociomatrices , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[39]  C. Ai,et al.  Interaction terms in logit and probit models , 2003 .

[40]  Jaideep Anand,et al.  Non‐additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real options‐based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology , 2004 .

[41]  Rachelle C. Sampson Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances , 2005 .

[42]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation , 2006 .

[43]  Dovev Lavie,et al.  Capability Reconfiguration: An Analysis of Incumbent Responses to Technological Change , 2006 .

[44]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities , 2007 .

[45]  Rachelle C. Sampson R&D Alliances and Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation , 2007 .

[46]  Dovev Lavie Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance: A Study of Value Creation and Appropriation in the U.S. Software Industry , 2007 .

[47]  Andrew C. Inkpen,et al.  10 Learning and Strategic Alliances , 2007 .

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

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

[50]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Investigating the Microstructure of Network Evolution: Alliance Formation in the Mobile Communications Industry , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[51]  V. Swaminathan,et al.  Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: the moderating role of alliance context , 2008 .

[52]  M. Robberto Applications of Digital Micromirror Devices to Astronomical Instrumentation , 2009 .

[53]  K. Prashant,et al.  Managing Strategic Alliances: What Do We Know Now, and Where Do We Go From Here? , 2009 .

[54]  Margarethe F. Wiersema,et al.  The Use of Limited Dependent Variable Techniques in Strategy Research: Issues and Methods , 2009 .

[55]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms , 2009 .

[56]  C. Baden‐Fuller,et al.  The Influence of Technological Knowledge Base and Organizational Structure on Technology Collaboration , 2010 .

[57]  William D. Berry,et al.  Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential? , 2010 .

[58]  Devi R. Gnyawali,et al.  When Do Relational Resources Matter? Leveraging Portfolio Technological Resources for Breakthrough Innovation , 2011 .

[59]  N. Rajagopalan,et al.  Are all ‘sharks’ dangerous? new biotechnology ventures and partner selection in R&D alliances , 2012 .

[60]  Gianluca Carnabuci,et al.  Where do firms' recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms' ability to innovate through technological recombination , 2013 .

[61]  Jeffrey J. Reuer,et al.  Executive preferences for governance modes and exchange partners: An information economics perspective , 2013 .

[62]  Jeffrey J. Reuer,et al.  Searching for Alliance Partners: Effects of Geographic Distance on the Formation of R&D Collaborations , 2014, Organ. Sci..

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

[64]  S. Lodh,et al.  Technological breadth and depth of knowledge in innovation: : the role of mergers and acquisitions in biotech , 2015 .

[65]  Jeffrey J. Reuer,et al.  Agglomeration and the choice between acquisitions and alliances: An information economics perspective , 2016 .