Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biotechnology collaborations: does business model matter?

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates how a biotechnology firm’s collaboration incidence is affected by the business model it adopts. Specifically, we compare interfirm collaboration conducted by biopharmaceutical firms adopting the hybrid business model with those using the product-focused business model. The analysis based on 1,820 collaborations conducted by 87 dedicated biopharmaceutical firms suggests that firms adopting the hybrid business model generally engage in more collaboration. They also establish a greater proportion of exploration collaboration. These findings have implications for firm’s positioning using business models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir-Aslani, A., & Negassi, S. (2006). Is technology integration the solution to biotechnology’s low research and development productivity? Technovation, 26(5–6), 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, S. H. (2008). Competitive intensity and collaboration: Impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1057–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, N., & Hültenschmidt, N. (2007). New path to profits in biotech: Taking the acquisition exit. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 13(2), 78–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresser, R., Heuskel, D., & Nixon, R. (2000). The deconstruction of integrated value chains: Practical and conceptual challenges. In R. Bresser, M. Hitt, R. Nixon, & D. Heuskel (Eds.), Winning strategies in a deconstructing world (pp. 1–50). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannopoulos, S., & Auster, E. R. (2010). External knowledge sourcing in biotechnology through acquisition versus alliance: A KBV approach. Research Policy, 39(2), 254–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2007). The financing of biopharmaceutical firms. In P. Cooke (Ed.), Growth cultures: The global bioeconomy and its bioregions (pp. 214–243). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Carolis, D. M. (2003). Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of their relationship with firm performance. Journal of Management, 29(1), 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D. L., & Hill, C. W. L. (1996). Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMasi, J. A., & Grabowski, H. G. (2007). The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: Is biotech different? Managerial and Decision Economics, 28(4–5), 469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W., & Grabowski, H. G. (2003). The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics, 22(2), 151–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, R., Bruyaka, O., & Mangematin, V. (2008). Do science and money go together? The case of the French biotech industry. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1281–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fildes, R. A. (1990). Strategic challenges in commercializing biotechnology. California Management Review, 32(3), 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisken, J., & Rutherford, J. (2002). Business models and investment trends in the biotechnology industry in Europe. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 8(3), 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R. D. (1995). The venture capitalist: A relationship investor. California Management Review, 37(2), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaziani, A., & Ventresca, M. J. (2005). Keywords and cultural change: Frame analysis of business model public talk, 1975–2000. Sociological Forum, 20(4), 523–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, J. L. (2008). Biotechnology business models work: Evidence from the pharmaceutical marketplace. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 14(2), 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C. (2007). Proactive versus reactive M&A activities in the biotechnology industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 17(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). Learning in dynamic inter-firm networks: The efficacy of multiple contacts. Organization Studies, 23(4), 525–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harianto, F., & Pennings, J. M. (1994). Technological convergence and scope of organizational innovation. Research Policy, 23(3), 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: A framework of knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 1019–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolchinsky, P. (2004). The entrepreneur’s guide to a biotech startup. Boston: Evelexa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konde, V. (2009). Biotechnology business models: An Indian perspective. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 15(3), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., & Swan, K. S. (1995). The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 16(8), 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (1999). The evolution of industrial districts and regional networks: The case of the biotechnology region Munich/Martinsried. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(4), 309–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., Shane, H., & Tsai, A. (2003). Do equity financing cycles matter? Evidence from biotechnology alliances. Journal of Financial Economics, 67(3), 411–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(Winter Special Issue), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangematin, V., Lemarié, S., Boissin, J., Catherine, D., Corolleur, F., Coronini, R., et al. (2003). Development of SMEs and heterogeneity of trajectories: The case of biotechnology in France. Research Policy, 32(4), 621–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maybeck, V., & Bains, W. (2006). Small company mergers—good for whom? Nature Biotechnology, 24(11), 1343–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, P., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2007). Shareholder returns and the exploration–exploitation dilemma: R&D announcements by biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 36(4), 548–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Verbano, C. (2005). Characteristics of the Italian biotechnology industry and new business models: The initial results of an empirical study. Technovation, 25(8), 841–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M. V., & McDougall-Covin, P. P. (2010). Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management and Governance, Special Issue on “Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management in Life Sciences. Business Models for High-Tech Companies”.

  • Pavlou, A. K., & Belsey, M. J. (2005). The therapeutic antibodies market to 2008. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 59(3), 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roijakkers, N., & Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks. Research Policy, 35(3), 431–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 687–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, H., & Kraft, A. (2006). Downstream and into deep biology: Evolving business models in ‘top tier’ genomics companies. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 12(2), 86–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, L. (2005). Concept and evolution of business models. Journal of General Management, 31(2), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Ozdemir, S. Z., & Ding, W. W. (2007). Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy, 36(4), 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyebjee, T., & Hardin, J. (2004). Biotech-pharma alliances: Strategies, structures and financing. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10(4), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, B. (2006). Market differential evaluations of strategic alliances in the pharmaceutical/biotech industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 17(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Ernst & Young’s European Biotechnology Center in Mannheim, Germany is gratefully acknowledged for its support of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305, Mannheim, Germany

    Raphael Greiner

  2. Department of Management and International Business, The University of Auckland Business School, Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Siah Hwee Ang

Authors
  1. Raphael Greiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siah Hwee Ang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siah Hwee Ang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greiner, R., Ang, S.H. Biotechnology collaborations: does business model matter?. J Manag Gov 16, 377–392 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9156-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9156-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation