IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v39y2010i3p400-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms

Author

Listed:
  • Fiedler, Marina
  • Welpe, Isabell M.

Abstract

We examine the antecedents for cooperative behaviour in the commercialisation of nanotechnology for both small/medium and large firms. For small and medium firms (SMEs) our results confirm the influence of complementary assets and transaction costs, but surprisingly do not support any influence of intellectual property rights protection on cooperative behaviour. For large firms the results show a negative relationship for both intellectual property rights protection and ownership of complementary resources with cooperative behaviour. Overall, collaboration-based commercialisation in nanotechnology for both small/medium as well as large firms seems to follow antecedents previously identified in earlier studies. In addition, we find that in the current stage of the nanotechnology commercialisation environment, intellectual property rights protection for small/medium-sized enterprises is associated with the acquisition of other firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:3:p:400-410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00011-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    2. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    3. Jason Owen-Smith & Massimo Riccaboni & Fabio Pammolli & Walter W. Powell, 2002. "A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 24-43, January.
    4. Galambos, Louis & Sturchio, Jeffrey L., 1998. "Pharmaceutical Firms and the Transition to Biotechnology: A Study in Strategic Innovation," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 250-278, July.
    5. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    6. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    8. Kenney, Martin & Richard Goe, W., 2004. "The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 691-707, July.
    9. Avenel, E. & Favier, A.V. & Ma, S. & Mangematin, V. & Rieu, C., 2007. "Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 864-870, July.
    10. Gregory G. Dess & Richard B. Robinson, 1984. "Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately‐held firm and conglomerate business unit," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 265-273, July.
    11. Michael L. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2010. "Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 143-164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2005. "Variability in organisational forms of biotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 555-570, May.
    13. Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus, 2003. "Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 639-658, April.
    14. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Grid Thoma, 2005. "Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance," LEM Papers Series 2005/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    16. William H. Glick & George P. Huber & C. Chet Miller & D. Harold Doty & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, 1990. "Studying Changes in Organizational Design and Effectiveness: Retrospective Event Histories and Periodic Assessments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 293-312, August.
    17. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    18. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    19. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2005. "Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and NanoBank," NBER Working Papers 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Oxley, Joanne E, 1997. "Appropriability Hazards and Governance in Strategic Alliances: A Transaction Cost Approach," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 387-409, October.
    21. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(2), pages 419-451, June.
    22. Bruce A. Blonigen & Christopher T. Taylor, 2000. "R&D Intensity and Acquisitions in High‐Technology Industries: Evidence from the US Electronic and Electrical Equipment Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 47-70, March.
    23. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:06 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Brush, Candida G. & Vanderwerf, Pieter A., 1992. "A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 157-170, March.
    25. George P. Huber & Danial J. Power, 1985. "Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 171-180, April.
    26. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    27. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    28. Kollmer, Holger & Dowling, Michael, 2004. "Licensing as a commercialisation strategy for new technology-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1141-1151, October.
    29. WHC Knol, 2005. "Micro and nanotechnology commercialization: balance between exploration and exploitation," Development and Comp Systems 0501002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    30. Mowery,David C. & Nelson,Richard R. (ed.), 1999. "Sources of Industrial Leadership," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521645201.
    31. Greis, Noel P. & Dibner, Mark D. & Bean, Alden S., 1995. "External partnering as a response to innovation barriers and global competition in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 609-630, July.
    32. 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.
    33. Autio Erkko & Yli--Renko Helena, 1998. "New, technology--based firms as agents of technological rejuvenation," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 71-92, January.
    34. Sobrero, Maurizio & Roberts, Edward B., 2002. "Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 159-182, January.
    35. Michael Keenan, 2003. "Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 129-160.
    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. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    2. Alexiev, Alexander S. & Volberda, Henk W. & Van den Bosch, Frans A.J., 2016. "Interorganizational collaboration and firm innovativeness: Unpacking the role of the organizational environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 974-984.
    3. Islam, Nazrul & Gyoshev, Stanley & Amona, Daniel, 2020. "External complexities in discontinuous innovation-based R&D projects: Analysis of inter-firm collaborative partnerships that lead to abundance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Vestal, Alex & Danneels, Erwin, 2018. "Knowledge exchange in clusters: The contingent role of regional inventive concentration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1887-1903.
    5. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    6. Kay, Luciano & Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip, 2014. "Signs of things to come? What patent submissions by small and medium-sized enterprises say about corporate strategies in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 17-25.
    7. Mendi, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, José J., 2020. "Cooperation for innovation and technology licensing: Empirical evidence from Spain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Symeonidou, Noni & Bruneel, Johan & Autio, Erkko, 2017. "Commercialization strategy and internationalization outcomes in technology-based new ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 302-317.
    9. Shakeri, Roya & Radfar, Reza, 2017. "Antecedents of strategic alliances performance in biopharmaceutical industry: A comprehensive model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 289-302.
    10. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    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. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    2. Kasch, Silja & Dowling, Michael, 2008. "Commercialization strategies of young biotechnology firms: An empirical analysis of the U.S. industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1765-1777, December.
    3. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    4. Henkel, Joachim & Rønde, Thomas & Wagner, Marcus, 2015. "And the winner is—Acquired. Entrepreneurship as a contest yielding radical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 295-310.
    5. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    6. Kang, Inje & Yang, Jiseong & Lee, Wonjae & Seo, Eun-Yeong & Lee, Duk Hee, 2023. "Delineating development trends of nanotechnology in the semiconductor industry: Focusing on the relationship between science and technology by employing structural topic model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    7. Fabrizi, Simona & Lippert, Steffen & Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2007. "Venture Capitalists, Asymmetric Information and Ownership in the Innovation Process," MPRA Paper 6265, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Marx, Matt & Hsu, David H., 2015. "Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1815-1826.
    9. Andersson, Martin & Xiao, Jing, 2016. "Acquisitions of start-ups by incumbent businesses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 272-290.
    10. Carolin Haeussler & Matthew J. Higgins, 2012. "Explaining Preferences for Control Rights in Strategic Alliances: A Property Rights and Capabilities Perspective Approach," NBER Working Papers 18364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Grilli, Luca & Murtinu, Samuele, 2018. "Selective subsidies, entrepreneurial founders' human capital, and access to R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1945-1963.
    12. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    13. Joshua S. Gans & Lars Persson, 2013. "Entrepreneurial commercialization choices and the interaction between IPR and competition policy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 131-151, February.
    14. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    15. Jean-François Hennart, 2020. "More than intent: A bundling model of MNE–SME interactions," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(7), pages 1176-1194, September.
    16. Devarakonda, Ramakrishna & Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Tadikonda, Harsha, 2022. "Founder social capital and value appropriation in R&D alliance agreements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    17. Ushijima, Tatsuo, 2009. "R&D intensity and acquisition and divestiture of corporate assets: Evidence from Japan," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 415-433, September.
    18. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars & Tå̊g, Joacim, 2014. "Acquisitions, entry, and innovation in oligopolistic network industries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-12.
    19. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Ugo Finardi, 2010. "Temporal and spatial relations between patents and scientific journal articles: the case of nanotechnologies," CERIS Working Paper 201007, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.

    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:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:3:p:400-410. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.