Nanotechnology is now increasing attention to inter-firm collaboration and alliances for developing nanotechnology commercialisation opportunities. This study explores and examines nanotechnology alliance networking behaviour to determine fully what types of factors drive nanotechnology alliance activities. The proposed research frameworks attempt to fill the gap in knowledge regarding emerging nanotechnology alliance behaviour and to explore the alliance decisions driving inter-firm nanotechnology alliances that are grounded in deeper knowledge of nanotechnology alliances. The primary focus of nanotechnology alliance activity for nanotechnology-based firms confirms that nanotechnology alliances are influenced directly by inter-firm R&D ties and by joint interactions among inter-firm R&D ties, network positions and technological uncertainty. Specifically, we propose that a nanotechnology-based firm is highly likely to engage in alliances regarding decision-making activity. Using an original dataset of nanotechnology-based firms in the emerging nanotechnology alliance activity, we found that the joint effect of a position of high network centrality and a high level of technological uncertainty weakens inter-firm nanotechnology alliances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhujaG. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.
2.
AgrestiA. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
3.
Atuahene-GimaK.MurrayJ.Y. (2004). Antecedents and outcomes of marketing strategic comprehensiveness. Journal of Marketing, 68, 33–46.
4.
BarringerB.R.HarrisonJ.S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403.
5.
BatjargalB. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial performance in Russia: A longitudinal study. Organization Studies, 24(4), 535–556.
6.
BorgattiS.P.EverettM.G.FreemanL.C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Needham, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BozemanB.LaredoP.MangematinV. (2007). Understanding the emergence and deployment of ‘nano’ S&T. Research Policy, 36(6), 807–812.
8.
BrassD.J. (1992). Power in organizations: A social network perspective. In MooreG.WhiteJ. A. (Eds), Research in politics and society (pp. 295–323). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9.
BurtR.S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BurtR.S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1355.
11.
EisingerichA.B.BellS.J.TraceyP. (2010). How can clusters sustain performance? The role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Research Policy, 39, 239–253.
12.
EverettM.BorgattiS.P. (2005). Ego network betweenness. Social Networks, 27, 31–38.
13.
FiedleraM.WelpebI.M. (2010). Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms. Research Policy, 39, 400–410.
14.
FleischerT.DeckerM.FiedelerU. (2005). Assessing emerging technologies—Methodological challenges and the case of nanotechnologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 1112–1121.
FreemanL.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
17.
GnyawalD.R.MadhavanR. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 431–445.
18.
GoerzenA. (2007). Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 487–509.
GulatiR. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 397–420.
21.
GulatiR. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.
22.
GulatiR. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619–652.
23.
HagedoornJ. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 371–385.
24.
HagedoornJ.LinkA.N.VonortasN. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.
25.
HolmstromB. (1989). Agency costs and innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12, 305–327.
26.
HungS.C.ChuY.Y. (2006). Stimulating new industries from emerging technologies: Challenges for the public sector. Technovation, 26, 104–110.
27.
InkpenA.C.BeamishP.W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22, 177–200.
28.
IslamN.MiyazakiK. (2010). An empirical analysis of nanotechnology research domains. Technovation, 30, 229–237.
29.
IslamN.MiyazakiK. (2009). Nanotechnology innovation system: Understanding hidden dynamics of nanoscience fusion trajectories. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 128–140.
30.
JaworskiB.J.KohliA.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.
31.
KennedyP. (1998). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
KokaB.R.PrescottJ.E. (2008). Designing alliance networks: The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 639–661.
33.
LaumannE.O.MarsdenP.V.PrenskyD. (1983). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In BurtR. S.MinorM. J. (Eds), Applied Network analysis (pp. 18–34). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
34.
LeeG.K. (2007). The significance of network resources in the race to entry emerging product markets: The convergence of telephony communications and computer networking 1989-2001. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 17–37.
35.
LeyedesdorffL.ZhouP. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70, 693–713.
LiJ.J.PoppoL.ZhouK.Z. (2008). Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic VS. foreign firms. Strategic management journal, 29(4), 383–400.
38.
LinN.FuY.HsungR. (2001). The position generator: Measurement techniques for social capital. In LinN.CookK.BurtR. (Eds), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 57–81). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
39.
LongJ.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, C.A: SAGE.
40.
MeyerM.PerssonO. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and Differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.
41.
MinerA.S.AmburgeyT.L.StearnsT. (1990). Interorganizational linkages and population dynamics: Buffering and transformational shields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 689–713.
42.
MiyazakiK.IslamN. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation—An analysis of industry and academic research activities. Technovation, 27, 661–675.
43.
NahapietJ.GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
44.
NikulainenT.PalmbergC. (2010). Transferring science-based technologies to industry—Does nanotechnology make a difference?Technovation, 30, 3–11.
45.
PandzaK.WilkinsT.A.AlfoldiE.A. (2011). Collaborative diversity in a nanotechnology innovation system: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme. Technovation, 31(9). 476–489.
46.
PowellW. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional development. California Management Review, 30, 67–87.
47.
PowellW. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40, 228–240.
48.
PowellW.W.KoputK.W.Smith-DoerrL. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
49.
PowellW.W.WhiteD.R.KoputK.W.Owen-SmithJ. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1132–1205.
50.
PorterA.L.YoutieJ. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology?Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.
51.
RafolsI.MeyerM. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263–287.
52.
RafolsI.MeyerM. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–650.
53.
RennO.RocoM.C. (2006). Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(2), 153–191.
54.
RocoM.C. (2003). Nanotechnology: Convergence with modern biology and medicine. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 14, 337–346.
55.
SampsonR.V. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.
56.
SastryR.K.RashmiH.B.RaoN.H.IlyasS.M. (2010). Integrating nanotechnology into agri-food systems research in India: A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77, 639–648.
57.
ScottJ. (1991). Social network analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
58.
SchummerJ. (2004). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425–465.
59.
ShanerJ.MaznevskiM. (2011). The relationship between networks, institutional development, and performance in foreign investments. Strategic management journal, 32, 556–568.
60.
SohP.H. (2003). The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications for new product performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 727–744.
61.
SongM.Montoya-WeissM.M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 61–80.
62.
StuartT.E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8). 791–811.
63.
StuartT.E. (1998). Network positions and propensities to collaboration of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 668–698.
64.
TolfreeD. (2006). Commercialising nanotechnology concepts–products–markets. International Journal of Nanomanufacturing, 1(1), 117–133.
65.
UldrichJ.NewberryD. (2003). The next big thing is really small: How nanotechnology will change the future of your business. New York: Crown Business, a division of Random House Inc.
66.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698.
67.
VassoloR.S.AnandJ.FoltaT.B. (2004). Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: A real options-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1045–1061.
68.
VeugelersR.CassimanB. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities: Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23, 355–379.
69.
von RaesfeldA.GeurtsP.JansenM.BoshuizenJ.LuttgeR. (2012). Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes: A study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands. Technovation, 32(3–4), 227–233.
70.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
WiekA.ZempS.SiegristM.WalterA.I. (2007). Sustainable governance of emerging technologies-Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technology in Society, 29, 388–406.
72.
WilkinsonJ.M. (2003). Nanotechnology applications in medicine. Medical Device Technology, 14, 29–31.
73.
YangH.LinZ.J.PengM.W. (2011). Behind acquisitions of alliance partners Exploratory learning and network embeddedness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1069–1080.
