When is a network a nexus for innovation? A study of public nanotechnology R&D projects in the Netherlands

Most empirical studies that test the influence of R&D collaboration on innovation performance either focus on the diversity of partners that enhances innovation or focus on social embeddedness of partners that enhances or inhibits innovation. We combine these two factors to explain innovation. By using the business interaction model (Hakansson et al., 2009) we test the effect of resource heterogeneity, value chain complementarity, user interaction, and structural stability of partnership portfolios on application and value creation performance of public nanotechnology R&D projects. We used an enriched database on utilization of technology research projects from the Dutch Technology Foundation STW. To test our hypotheses we selected from the database 206 nanotechnology research projects, which started in a five year period from 2000 to 2004. Project performance was measured five years after completion of the project. Support is found for an inverted U shaped effect of the interaction between stability of the relationship structure and technological heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity, value chain complementarity and user interaction in the R&D partnership portfolios on both application and value creation performance. The framework introduced in this study allows an evaluation of the effects of participant portfolios on Public R&D projects performance.

[1]  John Hagedoorn,et al.  R&D partnership portfolios and the inflow of technological knowledge , 2012 .

[2]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[3]  S. Winter,et al.  The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited , 1982 .

[4]  J. Zolkiewski,et al.  The arrival of technological changes at the business net: A learning process , 2010 .

[5]  M. Callon.  Techno-economic Networks and Irreversibility , 1990 .

[6]  Wolfgang Becker,et al.  R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry , 2004 .

[7]  Alexandra Waluszewski,et al.  The Development of a User Network as a Way to Re-launch an Unwanted Product , 2008 .

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

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

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

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

[12]  D. Ford,et al.  How should companies interact in business networks , 2002 .

[13]  Mark Jansen,et al.  Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes : a study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands , 2012 .

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

[15]  Alexandra Waluszewski,et al.  Knowledge and innovation in business and industry : the importance of using others , 2007 .

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

[17]  J. Hagedoorn.  Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences , 1993 .

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

[19]  P. David.  Clio and the Economics of QWERTY , 1985 .

[20]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[21]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

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

[23]  Michael E. Holmes,et al.  Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research , 2000 .

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

[25]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology , 2007 .

[26]  Christopher J. Medlin,et al.  Time and process in business network research , 2012 .

[27]  Magdalena M. Ocbian,et al.  Responsiveness of Sorsogon State College School of Graduate Studies and its Graduates to Community Needs , 2013 .

[28]  Lars-Erik Gadde,et al.  Analysing Business Interaction , 2008 .

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

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

[31]  Alexandra Waluszewski.  The Policy Practitioners' Dilemma : The National Policy and the Transnational Networks , 2011 .

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

[33]  Debbie Harrison,et al.  Path Dependence, Agency and Technological Evolution , 2002, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[34]  J. Beyer.  The Same or Not the Same - On the Variety of Mechanisms of Path Dependence , 2010 .

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

[36]  Anders Lundgren,et al.  Industrial Networks and Technological Innovation , 1995 .

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

[38]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[39]  Richard A. L. Jones,et al.  The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology , 2003 .

[40]  Alexandra Waluszewski,et al.  Rethinking Innovation Policy , 2011 .

[41]  H Hkansson,et al.  Path-Dependence: Restricting Or Facilitating Technical Development? , 2002 .

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

[43]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Path Dependence or Path Creation? , 2010 .

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

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

[46]  Thomas Hoholm,et al.  The contrary forces of innovation: a conceptual model for studying networked innovation processes , 2012 .

[47]  Robert A. Burgelman.  A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm , 1983 .

[48]  A. V. R. Meijer.  Missing the bus: a socio-cognitive perspective on technological networks , 1998 .

[49]  E. Hippel,et al.  Lead users: a source of novel product concepts , 1986 .

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

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

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