Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 696–722 | Cite as

Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: the performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation

  • Massimo G. Colombo
  • Liliana Doganova
  • Evila Piva
  • Diego D’Adda
  • Philippe Mustar
Article

Abstract

In this paper we examine the innovation performance of hybrid alliances, that is, alliances that combine exploration and exploitation activities. While previous research has emphasized the tensions engendered by the combination of exploration and exploitation, we claim that the integration of these two types of activities can generate synergies as well. We argue that, in the case of alliances involving academic spin-offs (ASOs), these synergies may outweigh the tensions under specific conditions, and thus improve alliance innovation performance. Specifically, we hypothesize that the relative performance of exploitation activities is greater in hybrid alliances when the alliance has radical innovation outcomes. Conversely, the relative performance of exploration activities is greater in hybrid alliances when the alliance has incremental innovation outcomes. These hypotheses are tested using fine-grained data on a sample of 149 alliances involving European ASOs.

Keywords

Alliances Exploration Radical innovation Academic spin-offs Ambidexterity 

JEL Classification

L26 O31 O32 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the special issue for their valuable feedback. We also thank participants in the DIME conference “Organizing for Networked Innovation”, the DRUID Summer Conference 2009 and the PICO project final conference where earlier versions of this paper were presented. This research was supported by the Sixth Framework Program of the European Commission (PICO project “Academic entrepreneurship, from knowledge creation to knowledge diffusion”). We thank the other project participants, Bart Clarysse, Margarida Fontes, Mike Wright, and their teams, for their help with data collection and analysis.

References

  1. Ács, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (1998). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. In M. Callon (Ed.), The laws of the markets (pp. 244–269). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Camerer, C., & Knez, M. (1996). Coordination, organizational boundaries and fads in business practices. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T. (1955). The informant in quantitative research. The American Journal of Sociology, 60(4), 339–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassiman, B., Colombo, M. G., Garrone, P., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness. Research Policy, 34(2), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s Curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colombo, M. G., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colombo, M. G., & Garrone, P. (1998). Common carriers’ entry into multimedia services. Information Economics and Policy, 10(1), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo, M. G., Grilli, L., & Piva, E. (2006). In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 35(8), 1166–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of academic start-ups: A conceptual model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2012). Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 41(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coombs, J. E., Mudambi, R., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). An examination of the investments in U.S. biotechnology firms by foreign and domestic corporate partners. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Czarnitzki, D., Hanel, P., & Rosa, J. M. (2011). Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation: A microeconometric study on Canadian firms. Research Policy, 40(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Man, A.-P., & Duysters, G. (2005). Collaboration and innovation: A review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation. Technovation, 25, 1377–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for future research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., & Munday, M. (2005). Understanding innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A process manifest. Technovation, 25(10), 1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoetker, G., & Mellewigt, T. (2009). Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: Matching alliance governance to asset type. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), 1025–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. John, G., & Reve, T. (1982). The reliability and validity of key informant data from dyadic relationships in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 814–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kline, S., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy (pp. 275–304). Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  39. Kotha, R., Zheng, Y., & George, G. (2011). Entry into new niches: the effects of firm age and the expansion of technological capabilities on innovative output and impact. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 1011–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koza, M., & Lewin, A. (2000). Managing partnerships and strategic alliances: Raising the odds of success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leiblein, M. J., & Reuer, J. J. (2004). Building a foreign sales base: The roles of capabilities and alliances for entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53(10), 1645–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell, W. (1989). Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents’ entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(2), 208–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitchell, W., & Singh, K. (1992). Incumbents’ use of pre-entry alliances before expansion into new technical subfields of an industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18(3), 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mustar, P. (1997). How French academics create high tech companies: Conditions of success and failure of this form of relation between science and market. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  52. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Park, S. H., Chen, R., & Gallagher, S. (2002). Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Phelps, C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 890–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  59. Postrel, S. (2002). Islands of shared knowledge: Specialization and mutual understanding in problem-solving teams. Organization Science, 13(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosenberg, N. (1969). The direction of technological change: Inducement mechanisms and focusing devices. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 18(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage: An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30(8), 1235–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sampson, R. C. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schneider, C., & Veugelers, R. (2010). On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 969–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  75. Srikanth, K., & Puranam, P. (2011). Integrating distributed work: comparing task design, communication, and tacit coordination mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8), 849–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stuart, T. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  79. Tiwana, A. (2008). Do briging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(6), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  82. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. (1996). The mechanics of learning by doing: Problem discovery during process machine use. Technology and Culture, 37(2), 312–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo G. Colombo
    • 1
  • Liliana Doganova
    • 2
  • Evila Piva
    • 1
  • Diego D’Adda
    • 3
  • Philippe Mustar
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Management, Economics and Industrial EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.MINES ParisTech, PSL Research UniversityCSI - Centre de sociologie de l’innovation, CNRS UMR 7185ParisFrance
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  4. 4.MINES ParisTech, PSL Research UniversityPOLLEN - Pôle EntrepreneuriatParisFrance

Personalised recommendations