Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic and Innovation Networks in the Flanders Biotechnology Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Strategy and Communication for Innovation

Abstract

For organizations in high-technology industries, knowledge is a critical resource that can be accessed through inter-organizational networks. However, for industries characterized by a heterogeneous set of actors, little is known about how different networks within the industry interact. Therefore, our research question is: How similar are the strategic network and the innovation network in the biotechnology industry? To answer our research question, we study two networks of interest. First, the Board-of-Directors-network serves as a proxy for the strategic network that fosters knowledge transfer between organizations. Second, we analyze the innovation network by using the patent network that emerged from collaborative innovation activities. Subject of analysis is the Flanders biotechnology industry, which is characterized by strong performing research institutions, large firms and innovative SMEs. We use social network analysis methods to measure the similarity of both networks and to identify their key actors. We find that a connection between two organizations in the strategic network increases the probability of forming a new connection between the same organizations in the innovation network, or vice versa. This shows that collaborations between two organizations on one network level can lead to an interlocking of the organizations at other network levels. Our results also suggest that few companies establish and maintain a strong position in the biotechnology innovation network. This network is dominated by academic institutions, which are the key producers of scientific knowledge. Interestingly, the BoD-network has a more balanced composition and power structure and knowledge on strategic issues is transferred across a wide range of industrial actors. We also highlight the strong position of spin-off companies in the BoD-network and the absence of large firms in both networks. Our findings call for more research on the causal mechanisms of network formation and on the relationship between multiple networks within one industry.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Original dataset is available upon request.

  2. 2.

    Importantly, we narrow down our analysis towards these organizations present in the network infrastructure, thus omitting organizations that are not connected to the BoD- or patent network.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45, 905–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., Rowley, T. J., & Shipilov, A. V. (2004). The small world of Canadian capital markets: Statistical mechanics of investment bank syndicate networks, 1952–1989. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(4), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., & Zuniga, P. (2010). Diversity of science linkages: A survey of innovation performance effects and some evidence from Flemish firms. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A. K., Dror, I., & Eakabuse, N. (1993). Interorganizational transfer of knowledge: An analysis of patent citations of a defense firm. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 40(1), 91–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Asheim, B. T. (2004). Nodes, networks and proximities: On the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon valley biotech cluster. European Planning Studies, 12(7), 1003–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Frazzini, A., & Malloy, C. (2008). The small world of investing: Board connections and mutual fund returns. Journal of Political Economy, 116(5), 951–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conyon, M. J., & Muldoon, M. R. (2006). The small world of corporate boards. Journal of Business Finance Accounting, 33(9/10), 1321–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conyon, M. J., & Muldoon, M. R. (2008). Ownership and control: A small-world analysis. Advances in Strategic Management, 25, 31–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crispeels, T., Willems, J., & Brugman, P. (in press). The relationship between organizational characteristics and membership of a biotechnology industry board-of-directors-network. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. Brussels, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Greve, H. R. (1997). Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Mizruchi, M. S. (1999). The money center cannot hold: Commercial banks in the U.S. system of corporate governance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., Yoo, M., & Baker, W. E. (2003). The small world of the American corporate elite: 1982–2001. Strategic Organization, 1(3), 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clerq, D., & Dimov, D. (2008). Internal knowledge development and external knowledge access in venture capital investment performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 585–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, P. C. (1969). The interlocking directorate. The American Economic Review, 59(3), 314–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38, 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34, 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 473–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Walker, G. (2001). The small world of Germany and the durability of national networks. American Sociological Review, 66, 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Chen, H., Huang, Z., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3), 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liben-Nowell, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2007). The link-prediction problem for social networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1019–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University–industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. A., & Raymer, A. L. (2000). Stalking the wily multinational: Power and control in the US food system. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nauwelaers, C. (2007). Case study-biotechnology in Belgium. Maastricht: UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Non, M., & Franses, P. (2007). Interlocking boards and firm performance: Evidence from a new panel database. Available at SSRN 978189.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005). A framework for biotechnology statistics (Technical Report). Brussels, Belgium: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Innovation in pharmaceutical biotechnology: Comparing national innovation systems at the sectoral level. Paris, France: OECD.

    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, 41,116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2006). Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 747–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Pérez, M., & Sánchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23(10), 823–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, G., & Alexander, M. (2004). Small worlds among interlocking directors: Network structure and distance in bipartite graphs. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(1), 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53, 1113–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, P., & Prevezer, M. (1996). A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology. Research Policy, 25, 1139–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009). Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 90–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 809–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Thomas Crispeels, Radu Huculeci, Jurgen Willems & Ilse Scheerlinck

  2. VIB, Brussels, Belgium

    Radu Huculeci

  3. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Jurgen Willems

  4. Vesalius College, Brussels, Belgium

    Ilse Scheerlinck

Authors
  1. Thomas Crispeels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Radu Huculeci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jurgen Willems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ilse Scheerlinck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Crispeels .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ISEIC Consulting UG, Bremen, Germany

    Nicole Pfeffermann

  2. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Tim Minshall

  3. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Letizia Mortara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crispeels, T., Huculeci, R., Willems, J., Scheerlinck, I. (2013). Strategic and Innovation Networks in the Flanders Biotechnology Industry. In: Pfeffermann, N., Minshall, T., Mortara, L. (eds) Strategy and Communication for Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41479-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation