Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why do firms join consortial research centers? An empirical examination of firm, industry and environmental antecedents

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test 10 hypotheses for why firms join research centers that are consortial in nature. We describe research centers with a formal arrangement for accommodating external membership as being consortial research centers (CRC). Although traditional analysis of why firms form collaborative research arrangements have tended to focus upon firm level variables, this study takes a broader view on antecedent factors. We derive hypotheses from resource dependence theory, market forces theory, and strategic behavior model explanations for such firm behavior. Panel data from 503 firms, in 104 industries from 1978 through 1996 were used to test the hypotheses. The decision to join a CRC was modeled using multivariate binomial probit analysis. Results showed that industry competitiveness, technological opportunities and the production of complementary innovations are all positively related to propensity to join a CRC. Slack resources are related to joining propensity in a non-linear fashion.

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

Notes

  1. Where they do occur, the differences between research centers and consortia are a matter of degree rather than a clear distinction. These differences include the extent of contribution of resources, influence over the focus or projects conducted by the organization (consortium or center) and extent to which members have ownership rights over products. Since these differences involve only the potential for greater contribution, influence and ownership, it is quite possible for entities referred to as consortia to have characteristics that are consistent with research centers and research centers that have characteristics consistent with R&D consortia. Perhaps the most famous example of research centers that are consortial in nature are those formed under the Industry-University Cooperative Research Center program established by the National Science Foundation. Members of such research centers may contribute resources beyond membership fees, including personnel and equipment, and may influence the research programs of the center.

References

  • Aldrich, H., & Sasaki, T. (1995). R&D consortia in the United States and Japan. Research Policy, 24(2), 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. H. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. (1993). The mechanisms of technology transfer, II: Technology consortia in complementary innovations. In W. Baumol (Ed.), Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of payoffs (pp. 193–222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, M. K. (1993). Organizational innovation and substandard performance: When is necessity the mother of innovation? Organization Science, 4(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, S. E. (1968). Estimate of the number and size distribution of domestic joint subsidiaries. Antitrust Law and Economics Review, 1, 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. G. (1987). The strategy and structure of collective action. Organization Studies, 8(4), 341–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Faulkner, D. (1998). Strategies of cooperation: Managing alliances, networks and joint ventures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (1988a). Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (1988). Competition vs cooperation: A benefit/cost framework for choosing between fully-owned investments and cooperative relationships. Management International Review Special Issue, 28(4), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., Olk, P., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia. Which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M., & Olk, P. (1990). R&D consortia: A new U.S. organizational form. Sloan Management Review, 31(3), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausfeld, H. I., & Haklisch, C. S. (1985). Cooperative R&D for competitors. Harvard Business Review, 63, 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, E. (1995). Industry-university technology cooperation: A theory of interorganizational relationships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 661–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, D., & Rogers, E. (1988). The MCC comes to Texas. In F. Williams (Ed.), Measuring the information society (pp. 91–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes-Casseres, B., Hagedoorn, J., & Jaffe, A. B. (2006). Do alliances promote knowledge flows? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(1), 5–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. (2003). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 670–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Schakenraad, J. (1994). The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15(4), 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbison, J. R., & Pekar, P. (1998). Smart aliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Strategies for joint ventures. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, W. L., & Snell, S. A. (1988). External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M. L., & Ordover, J. A. (1990). R&D cooperation and competition. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Special Issue Microeconomics, 137–191.

  • Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, F. (1992). Technology fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, 70(4), 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorange, P., Roos, J., & Cimcic Bronn, P. (1992). Building successful strategic alliances. Long Range Planning, 25(6), 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, W., & Singh, K. (1996). Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 169–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, R. N., & Hagedoorn, J. (1997). The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G., & Bolton, M. K. (1988). The logic of joint R&D. California Management Review, 30, 9–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M. (2002). Formation of R&D consortia: Industry and company effects. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1033–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, M. B., Echambi, R. A. J., & Harrison, J. S. (2001). Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press (English translation, 1936).

  • Shan, W. (1990). An empirical analysis of organizational strategies by entrepreneurial high-technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, W., & Visudtibhan, K. (1990). Cooperative strategy in commercializing an emerging technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 47, 172–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soni, P. K., Lilien, G. L., & Wilson, D. T. (1993). Industrial innovation and firm performance: A re-conceptualization and exploratory structural equation analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 365–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M., Schrader, S., & Sobrero, M. (1995). Discouraging opportunistic behavior in collaborative R&D: A new role for government. Research Policy, 24, 367–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P. (1986). Product diversity and firm performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 50, 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonortas, N. S. (1997). Cooperation in research and development. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by funding from the National Science Foundation (Grant # EEC-9712481). The authors would like to thank Shaker Zahra and Paul Olk for their comments and ideas in regard to this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bocconi University and SDA Bocconi School of Business, Via Roentgen, 20136, Milan, Italy

    James C. Hayton

  2. African Development Bank, Regional Department West Africa II, B.P. 323, 1002, Tunis-Belvédère, Tunisia

    Saloua Sehili

  3. Department of Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Vida Scarpello

Authors
  1. James C. Hayton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saloua Sehili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vida Scarpello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James C. Hayton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayton, J.C., Sehili, S. & Scarpello, V. Why do firms join consortial research centers? An empirical examination of firm, industry and environmental antecedents. J Technol Transf 35, 494–510 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9157-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9157-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation