IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v7y2016i1p43-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Collaborate or Not to Collaborate? A Study of the Value of Innovation from a Sectoral Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Talya Ponchek

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the link between collaboration and innovation. Recent years have witnessed hype over the need for collaborations in the innovation process. A vast literature supports the notion that collaboration leads to more innovations. Less heard claims that collaboration might hinder innovation. This study offers empirical data on the sectoral level for two reasons: scientific research is mostly corporate; the data are collected from the stem cell industry in Israel, in which the research is conducted by research organizations. No inventors work in this field alone due to high costs of research and development (R&D). The focus on this industry provides a unique opportunity to examine the entire population and not make do with just a sample. The data include patent-based indicators of the value of innovations. Regression results support the notion of collaboration as an innovation generator, but also shed light on the nature of knowledge produced by collaborations. Collaborative patents are cited more, and they also encompass more primary and groundbreaking knowledge, as opposed to knowledge embedded in non-collaborative patents. For the first time, this study provides systematic evidence of the innovative value of collaborative patents, and thus tips the scale in favor of those supporting the establishment of collaborations. From a policy perspective, a sound innovation policy should take into account that the innovation ecosystem is organized in the form of Quadruple Helix, but more impotently, that to foster cross-sectoral collaborations, an emphasis must be placed especially on motivating firms to include in their Targeted Open Innovation Strategy, the main strategy employed by firms operating in the Quadruple Helix ecosystem, the initiation of cross-sectoral collaborations. This paper shows the need for a more open innovation ecosystem and calls for further research to assess the targeted partners. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Talya Ponchek, 2016. "To Collaborate or Not to Collaborate? A Study of the Value of Innovation from a Sectoral Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(1), pages 43-79, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:7:y:2016:i:1:p:43-79
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-015-0290-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13132-015-0290-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-015-0290-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2001. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 129-151, Spring.
    2. Elias Carayannis & David Campbell, 2011. "Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge ," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 2(3), pages 327-372, September.
    3. David J. Teece, 2003. "Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Essays In Technology Management And Policy Selected Papers of David J Teece, chapter 16, pages 447-474, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Yawson, Robert M., 2009. "The ecological system of innovation: A new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy," MPRA Paper 33179, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Inga Ivanova, 2014. "Quadruple Helix Systems and Symmetry: a Step Towards Helix Innovation System Classification," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 357-369, June.
    6. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    7. Sébastien Lechevalier & Yukio Ikeda & Junichi Nishimura, 2011. "Investigating Collaborative R&D Using Patent Data: The Case Study of Robot Technology in Japan," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 305-323, July.
    8. Sébastien Lechevalier & Yukio Ikeda & Junici Nishimura, 2011. "Investigating Collaborative R&D Using Patent Data," Post-Print halshs-00656973, HAL.
    9. Salzberger Eli M., 2011. "The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 435-480, December.
    10. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    11. Sørensen Anders, 2006. "R&D Subsidies and the Surplus Appropriability Problem," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-29, August.
    12. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    13. onder Nomaler & Bart Verspagen, 2008. "Knowledge Flows, Patent Citations and the Impact of Science on Technology," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 339-366.
    14. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    15. Cinzia Colapinto & Colin Porlezza, 2012. "Innovation in Creative Industries: from the Quadruple Helix Model to the Systems Theory," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(4), pages 343-353, December.
    16. Donald Deb. Beaver, 2001. "Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(3), pages 365-377, November.
    17. Goto, Akira & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2007. "Construction of a Japanese Patent Database and a first look at Japanese patenting activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1431-1442, November.
    18. Hagedoorn, John, 2002. "Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 477-492, May.
    19. Markus Perkmann & Kathryn Walsh, 2009. "The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(6), pages 1033-1065, December.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    21. Bart Van Looy & Koenraad Debackere & Julie Callaert & Robert Tijssen & Thed van Leeuwen, 2006. "Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 295-310, February.
    22. Elias Carayannis & Ruslan Rakhmatullin, 2014. "The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 212-239, June.
    23. Jennifer W. Spencer, 2003. "Firms' knowledge‐sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 217-233, March.
    24. Knut Ingar Westeren, 2012. "Innovation: From Schumpeter to the Knowledge Economy," Chapters, in: Knut Ingar Westeren (ed.), Foundations of the Knowledge Economy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Paola Criscuolo & Rajneesh Narula & Bart Verspagen, 2005. "Role of home and host country innovation systems in r&d internationalisation: a patent citation analysis," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 417-433.
    26. Noriko Hara & Paul Solomon & Seung‐Lye Kim & Diane H. Sonnenwald, 2003. "An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(10), pages 952-965, August.
    27. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & F. M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1999. "Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 511-515, August.
    28. Peter J. Lane & Michael Lubatkin, 1998. "Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning," Post-Print hal-02311860, HAL.
    29. E. Bacchiocchi & F. Montobbio, 2009. "Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 169-181, April.
    30. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    31. Currie-Alder, Bruce & Kanbur, Ravi & Malone, David M. & Medhora, Rohinton (ed.), 2014. "International Development: Ideas, Experience, and Prospects," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199671663.
    32. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hussinger, Katrin & Leten, Bart, 2011. "The market value of blocking patent citations," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-021, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    33. Riitta Katila, 2000. "Using patent data to measure innovation performance," International Journal of Business Performance Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2/3), pages 180-193.
    34. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
    35. Metcalfe, J S, 1995. "Technology Systems and Technology Policy in an Evolutionary Framework," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 25-46, February.
    36. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    37. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mario Cervantes, 2017. "Higher Education Institutions in the Knowledge Triangle," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 27-42.
    2. Dominique Lepore & Sabrina Dubbini & Alessandra Micozzi & Francesca Spigarelli, 2022. "Knowledge Sharing Opportunities for Industry 4.0 Firms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 501-520, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hsin-Ning Su, 2017. "Global Interdependence of Collaborative R&D-Typology and Association of International Co-Patenting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-28, April.
    2. HUO Dong & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2015. "Understanding Two Types of Technological Diversity and their Effects on the Technological Value of Outcomes from Bilateral Inter-firm R&D Alliances," Discussion papers 15064, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    3. Su, Hsin-Ning, 2017. "Collaborative and Legal Dynamics of International R&D- Evolving Patterns in East Asia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 217-227.
    4. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    5. Huo, Dong & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2014. "Dilemma in Individual Collaboration for Invention: Should We be Similar or Diverse in Knowledge?," MPRA Paper 56185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    7. Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010. "International Knowledge Diffusion and Home‐bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, September.
    8. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    9. Francesco Campanella & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Stefano Bresciani & Luca Dezi, 2017. "Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 267-284, April.
    10. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    11. Antonio Malva & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Basic science as a prescription for breakthrough inventions in the pharmaceutical industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 670-695, August.
    12. Francesco Lissoni & Fabio Montobbio, 2015. "The Ownership of Academic Patents and Their Impact. Evidence from Five European Countries," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(1), pages 143-171.
    13. Pfister, Curdin & Koomen, Miriam & Harhoff, Dietmar & Backes-Gellner, Uschi, 2021. "Regional innovation effects of applied research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    14. Huo, Dong & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Gong, Han, 2019. "Team diversity as dissimilarity and variety in organizational innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1564-1572.
    15. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    16. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    17. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    18. Sterzi, Valerio, 2011. "Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?," MPRA Paper 34955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    20. Lee, Honggi, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of patent scope on licensing propensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:7:y:2016:i:1:p:43-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.