How to measure technological distance in collaborations? The case of electric mobility

Innovation collaborations experienced a substantial growth during the last decades, so that the research interest in factors contributing to successful collaboration increased. An appropriate technological distance, which determines the probability of receiving new knowledge from a partner as well as the ability of absorbing it, appears to be one of the success factors. The methodology for measuring this distance received massive attention in the latest literature. Therefore, we compare well established measuring methods with the recently introduced method of the min-complement distance. We focus on selected electric mobility collaborations between the chemical and automobile industry as they represent an emerging research field that aims to overcome deficiencies associated with battery development for electric mobility. Considering findings for intra-industry collaborations that show diminishing effects on innovation outcomes after exceeding a certain technological distance leads to questions concerning the success of such cross-industry collaborations. We show that the methodology used influences the approximation of technological distance in the examined collaborations. The use of the min-complement distance seems to be reasonable. Therefore, our work contributes to a better understanding of measuring technological distance from a methodological point of view as well as to its meaning for cross-industry collaborations.

[1]  R. Katila,et al.  Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction , 2002 .

[2]  A. Kleinknecht,et al.  Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: an exploration of CIS micro data , 1999 .

[3]  S. Hultén,et al.  Escaping lock-in: The case of the electric vehicle☆ , 1996 .

[4]  Paul Almeida,et al.  Learning - by - Hiring: When Is Mobility More Likely to Facilitate Interfirm Knowledge Transfer? , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[5]  Heiko A. Gracht,et al.  A dissent-based approach for multi-stakeholder scenario development — The future of electric drive vehicles , 2013 .

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

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

[8]  Sabine Brunswicker,et al.  CROSSING HORIZONS: LEVERAGING CROSS-INDUSTRY INNOVATION SEARCH IN THE FRONT-END OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS , 2010 .

[9]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers☆ , 1989 .

[10]  Gregory F. Nemet,et al.  Do Important Inventions Benefit from Knowledge Originating in Other Technological Domains? , 2011 .

[11]  Aija Leiponen,et al.  A measure of technological distance , 2012 .

[12]  Cristina Quintana-Garcia,et al.  Knowledge organisation in R&D alliances: its impact on product innovation , 2011, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[13]  W. Brian Arthur,et al.  The structure of invention , 2007 .

[14]  A. Chakrabarti,et al.  Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Context, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 1996 .

[15]  D. Lei,et al.  Collaborative Innovation with Customers: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Future Research , 2012 .

[16]  P. Ring,et al.  Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships , 1994 .

[17]  Joel Waldfogel,et al.  Close to You? Bias and Precision in Patent-Based Measures of Technological Proximity , 2007 .

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

[19]  Rodney McAdam,et al.  SME and large organisation perceptions of knowledge management: comparisons and contrasts , 2001, J. Knowl. Manag..

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

[21]  Michele Cincera,et al.  Firms’ productivity growth and R&D spillovers: An analysis of alternative technological proximity measures , 2005 .

[22]  Christian Böhm,et al.  Searching in high-dimensional spaces: Index structures for improving the performance of multimedia databases , 2001, CSUR.

[23]  Glenn Healey,et al.  Segmenting images using normalized color , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[24]  Michiel Pieters,et al.  Mind the gap: Balancing alliance network and technology portfolios during periods of technological uncertainty , 2010 .

[25]  Robin Cowan,et al.  Bilateral Collaboration and the Emergence of Innovation Networks , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[26]  J. Mikkola Portfolio management of R&D projects: implications for innovation management , 2001 .

[27]  Hans-Peter Kriegel,et al.  Can Shared-Neighbor Distances Defeat the Curse of Dimensionality? , 2010, SSDBM.

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

[29]  O. Gassmann,et al.  Crossing the Industry-Line: Breakthrough Innovation through Cross-Industry Alliances with ‘Non-Suppliers’ , 2010 .

[30]  Gülçin Büyüközkan,et al.  Collaborative product development: a literature overview , 2012 .

[31]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Dissimilarity Measures for Color and Texture , 2001, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[32]  J. Knoben,et al.  Proximity and Inter-Organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review , 2006 .

[33]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Book Reviews: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing , 1999, CL.

[34]  Juliette Wilson,et al.  Co-evolutionary dynamics in strategic alliances: The influence of the industry lifecycle , 2012 .

[35]  O. Gassmann,et al.  Creative Imitation: Exploring the Case of Cross-Industry Innovation , 2010 .

[36]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  Aggregate convergence and sectoral specialization in innovation , 1994 .

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

[38]  George W. Furnas,et al.  Pictures of relevance: A geometric analysis of similarity measures , 1987, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

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

[40]  Robert C. McNamee Can’t see the forest for the leaves: Similarity and distance measures for hierarchical taxonomies with a patent classification example , 2013 .

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

[42]  S. Roper,et al.  Modelling the innovation value chain , 2008 .

[43]  A. Neely,et al.  Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence , 2004 .

[44]  Raffaele Paci,et al.  Proximity, networking and knowledge production in Europe: What lessons for innovation policy? , 2013 .

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

[46]  M. Hirschey,et al.  Advertising, R&D Expenditures and the Market Value of the Firm , 1993 .

[47]  K. Pavitt SPRU Electronic Working Paper No 5 The Social Shaping of the National Science Base , 1998 .

[48]  J. Leker,et al.  Patent indicators for monitoring convergence - examples from NFF and ICT , 2011 .

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

[50]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks : Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance , 2007 .

[51]  Jens Leker,et al.  Supplier Involvement In Customer New Product Development: New Insights From The Supplier'S Perspective , 2011 .

[52]  M. Fung Technological proximity and co-movements of stock returns , 2003 .

[53]  Mark F. Mathias,et al.  Electrochemistry and the Future of the Automobile , 2010 .

[54]  Elaine Aspinwall,et al.  Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment , 2004, J. Knowl. Manag..

[55]  C. Huxham,et al.  Nurturing Collaborative Relations , 2003 .

[56]  M. Hekkert,et al.  How competitive forces sustain electric vehicle development , 2014 .

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

[58]  Richard Shearmur,et al.  Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: Distance types and aggregation-error issues , 2008, International journal of health geographics.

[59]  Charu C. Aggarwal,et al.  On the Surprising Behavior of Distance Metrics in High Dimensional Spaces , 2001, ICDT.

[60]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  The roles of science in technological innovation , 1993 .

[61]  R. Gulati Alliances and networks , 1998 .

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

[63]  J. Lerner The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis , 1994 .

[64]  James D. Adams,et al.  Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[65]  Jongtae Shin,et al.  Technological relatedness, boundary-spanning combination of knowledge and the impact of innovation: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship , 2010 .

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

[67]  Keijiro Tamenaga,et al.  International Patent Classification , 1980 .

[68]  Daniel Watzenig,et al.  Condition monitoring of Lithium-Ion Batteries for electric and hybrid electric vehicles , 2009, Elektrotech. Informationstechnik.

[69]  Alan Pilkington,et al.  The electric vehicle:: Patent data as indicators of technological development , 2002 .

[70]  Mariko Sakakibara,et al.  HETEROGENEITY OF FIRM CAPABILITIES AND COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF MOTIVES , 1997 .

[71]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Mergers and acquisitions : their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries , 2006 .

[72]  P. Ring,et al.  Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations , 1992 .

[73]  H. Gemünden,et al.  Network configuration and innovation success: An empirical analysis in German high-tech industries , 1996 .

[74]  Todd Saxton,et al.  The Effects of Partner and Relationship Characteristics On Alliance Outcomes , 1997 .

[75]  G. L. Bach Some Observations on the Business School of Tomorrow , 1958 .

[76]  Geert Duysters Collaboration and innovation: a review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation , 2006 .

[77]  J. Leker,et al.  Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D projects of university scientists , 2011 .

[78]  Karin Fladmoe-Lindquist,et al.  Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin , 2006 .