Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wholly proprietary versus wholly open knowledge strategies: some empirical evidences from Italian biotech firms

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

Abstract

This paper focuses on biotechnologies and biotech companies. Our aim is to develop a model for assessing the openness degree of knowledge governance strategies, applying it to the biotech firms. Biotech production is described as an emerging meta-industry in the global economy, fostering through new products, many socio-economic fields. Its main features are: a close relationship among knowledge, innovation and competitiveness; the need for collaborative research; the importance of small firms. Our paper begins with a brief characterization of the biotech meta-sector. We then review the literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of “wholly proprietary” versus “wholly open” knowledge strategies. Next we propose a model and report the main results of its application to biotech companies in Italy. In conclusion, we evaluate the degree of openness of the company knowledge strategies based upon empirical evidence from our research in the field.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allansdottir, A., Bonaccorsi, A., Gambardella, A., Mariani, M., Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., & Riccaboni, M. (2002). Enterprise papers – No. 7, European Commission Directorate-General.

  • Amburgey, T., Shan, W. J., & Singh, J. (1994). Cooperative strategy and technological competition in biotechnology. Dallas, TX: Academy of Management Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arena, R., Rainelli, M., & Toree, A. (1985). Dal concetto di filiera all’analisi di un tentativo teorico. L’Industria, 3, 301–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attemi, A., & Tyzack, T. (2001). Geni della discordia. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H. (2008). Thar’s gold in them thar constructs. The data base for advances in information systems, 3.

  • Barley, S. R., Freeman, J., & Hybels, R. C. (1992). Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellon, B. (1984). La filiera di produzione. Economia e politica industriale, 42, 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzécri, J. P. (1973). L’analyse des données (Vol. 2). Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berra, M., & Raffaele Meo, A. (2006). Libertà di software, hardware e conoscenza. Informatica solidale 2. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bio4EU Study. (2007). Consequences, opportunities and challenges of modern biotechnology for Europe—The analysis report—Contributions of modern biotechnology to European policy objectives. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Communities. Spain.

  • Biopolis. (2007). Inventory and analysis of national public policies that stimulate biotechnology research, its exploitation and commercialisation by industry in Europe in the period 2002–2005. Final report. TNO (NL)—Fraunhofer (DE)—SPRU (UK).

  • Boisot, M. H. (1995). Is your firm a creative destroyer? Competitive learning and knowledge flows in the technological strategies of firms. Research Policy, 24, 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge asset. Securing competitive advantage in the information economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotec. (2006). Fondazione per l’innovazione tecnologica. Finanziamenti alla ricerca biotecnologica in Italia 2004–2005. Technical report 02/2006. Roma.

  • Critical, I. (2005). Biotechnology in Europe: 2005 Comparative study, BioVision. Lyon.

  • Critical, I. (2006). Biotechnology in Europe: 2006 comparative study, Critical I comparative study for Europabio. Brussels.

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 3(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to metanational. How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst & Young (2001). European life science report. E&Y.

  • Eurobarometer, Final report (2006), May, 64 (3) http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf.

  • European Commission. (2006). Green paper towards a future maritime policy for the union: A European vision for the oceans and seas, Sec 689. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/pdf/SEC(2006)_689%20_10.pdf.

  • European Commission. (2007a). Competitiveness of the European biotechnology industry, Enterprise and industry DG. Working document.

  • European Commission (2007b). Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the European economic and social committee of the regions on the mid term review of the strategy on life sciences and biotechnology, SEC 441, Brussels, 10 April.

  • Faccipieri, S. (1988). Concorrenza dinamica e strategie d’impresa. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmindustria (2004). Indagine Conoscitiva Sulle Biotecnologie in Italia Nel Settore Salute. www.farmindustria.it.

  • Gille, L. (2005). La protezione della proprietà intellettuale, fattore della divisione internazionale della conoscenza. In A. Pilati & A. Perrucci (Eds.), Economia della conoscenza. Bologna: il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golinelli, G. M. (2008). L’approccio sistemico al governo dell’impresa. Verso la scientificazione dell’azione di governo del sistema impresa (Vol. II). Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Towards a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter special issue), 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39, 1–34, Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H. (1996). Spillover effects and the science base of innovations reconsidered: An empirical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6, 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierny, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istituto per la Promozione Industriale (IPI). (2007). Il settore delle biotecnologie in Italia. Un quadro conoscitivo degli operatori e dei programmi di sostegno. January.

  • Lacetera, N. (2001). Corporate governance and the governance of innovation: The case of pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(1), 29–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1992). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muffatto, M., & Faldani, M. (2004). Open source. Strategie, organizzazione, prospettive. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). A Framework for Biotechnology Statistics, http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/index.htm.

  • Onetti, A. (2007). Attrazione degli investimenti e prospettive di sviluppo del settore biotech. in rapporto blossom associati-assobiotec 2007, Biotecnologie in Italia 2007. Analisi strategica e finanziaria. http://www.farmindustria.it/pubblico/blossom.pdf.

  • Onetti, A. (2008). Il biotech in Italia: caratteristiche e dinamiche di sviluppo, Presentazione del Rapporto Blossom Associati-Assobiotec, Biotecnologie in Italia. Analisi strategica e finanziaria 2008, Milan, May 29, http://www.assobiotec.federchimica.it.

  • Onetti, A., & Fratocchi, L. (2008). Le scelte di localizzazione delle attività a valore aggiunto nei settori high tech. Il caso del pharma biotech in Italia. In C. Pepe & A. Zucchella (Eds.), L’internazionalizzazione delle imprese italiane: Contributi di ricerca (pp. 283–313). Bologna: Il Mulino, Collana AIDEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onetti, A., Versaggi, C. S., & Mackler, B. F. (2009). Italian biotech revamps old-world mindset. Casting off traditional business customs expected to push the industry forward. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), 29(14), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onetti, A., & Zucchella, A. (2007). Le biotecnologie in Italia: dimensioni del settore e prospettive di evoluzione. Economia e politica industriale, 215–233.

  • Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M. V., & McDougall-Covin, P. P. (forthcoming). 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”.

  • Osservatorio per il settore chimico & Ministero dell’Industria e del Commercio e dell’Artigianato. (2001). Le piccole imprese biotecnologiche in Italia: le tecnologie, i prodotti, e servizi. http://www.osservatoriochimico.it/allegati/manuali/07010000-PI_Biotech_Italia.PDF.

  • Pammolli F., & Riccaboni M. (2001). Technological regimes and the growth of networks. An empirical analysis, laboratory of economics and management (LEM). Papers series 2001/07. Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa.

  • Panati, G., & Golinelli, G. M. (1991). Tecnica economica, industriale e commerciale. Imprese, strategie e management (Vol. I e II). Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parco Scientifico dell’Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata” (2003). Il settore biofarmaceutico nel Lazio: valorizzazione della conoscenza e innovazione per lo sviluppo locale. http://www.parcoscientifico.eu/IMG/pdf/Ricerca_settore_Biofarmaceutico_nel_Lazio.pdf.

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral pattern of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistella, F. (2005). La ricerca e l’innovazione come strumento per il rilancio dell’Italia: l’apporto del CNR. Economia italiana, 3, 659–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228–240.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapporto Blossom Associati—Assobiotec. (2006). Biotecnologie in Italia 2006. Milano: Analisi strategica e finanziaria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapporto Blossom Associati—Assobiotec. (2007). Biotecnologie in Italia 2007. Analisi strategica e finanziaria, Milano. http://www.farmindustria.it/pubblico/blossom.pdf.

  • Rapporto Blossom Associati—Assobiotec (2008). Biotecnologie in Italia 2008. Analisi strategica e finanziaria, Milano. http://www.farmindustria.it/pubblico/Rapporto_Blossom.pdf.

  • Regione Lombardia. (2005). Documento Strategico per la ricerca e l’innovazione. Iniziative per il Forum Regionale su Ricerca e Innovazione.

  • Reitzig, M. (2004). Strategic management of intellectual property. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring, 45(3), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (2000). Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 78(1), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romeder, J. M. (1973). Méthodes et programmes d’analyse discriminante. Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullani, E. (2004a). Economia della conoscenza. Roma: Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullani, E. (2004b). La fabbrica dell’immateriale. Roma: Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. (2005). Strategic management of technological innovation. Milano: McGraw-Hill Companies.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). The art of standards wars. California Management Review, 41(2), 8–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Società di Bioinformatica Italiana. (2009). www.bioinformatics.it.

  • Sorrentino, M. (2008). Le imprese science-based. Roma: Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter special issue), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E. (2006). La globalizzazione che funzione. Torino: Einaudi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Studi e Ricerche per il Mezzogiorno (SRM). (2008). Il Sud in competizione. L’innovazione nei settori produttivi e la crescita delle imprese emergenti. Napoli: Giannini Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1989). Come trarre profitto dall’innovazione: implicazioni per l’integrazione, la collaborazione, gli accordi di licenza e le politiche pubbliche. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), La sfida competitiva. Milan McGraw-Hill: Strategie per l’innovazione.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. (2000). Transaction cost and resource-based explanations of joint venture: A comparison and synthesis. Organization Studies, 21(1), 215–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter special issue), 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Beuzekom, B., & Arundel, A. (2006). OECD biotechnology statistics. France: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vona, R. (2008). Management delle biotecnologie Competizione, innovazione e sviluppo imprenditoriale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J. (2003). How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policies, 32(7), 1259–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Jason, D. (2000). Innovation and control in standard architecture: The rise and fall of Japan’s PC-98. Information System Research, 11(2), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (1989). Conoscenza e competenze come risorse strategiche. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), La sfida competitiva. Strategie per l’innovazione. Milano: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zika E., Papatryfon I., Wolf O., Gómez-Barbero M., Stein A. J., & Bock A. (2007). Consequences, opportunities and challenges of modern biotechnology for Europe. JRC Reference Reports, European Communities, Spain.

  • Zucchella, A. (2007). Le imprese biotech: un quadro internazionale. In Rapporto Blossom Associati—Assobiotec 2007, Biotecnologie in Italia 2007. Analisi strategica e finanziaria. http://www.farmindustria.it/pubblico/blossom.pdf.

  • Zucchella, A. (2008). I cluster biotech europei. Presentazione del Rapporto Blossom Associati—Assobiotec, Biotecnologie in Italia. Analisi strategica e finanziaria 2008, Milan, 29 May. http://www.farmindustria.it/pubblico/Rapporto_Blossom.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza, University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano, 9, 00166, Rome, Italy

    Cristina Simone & Luca Proietti

Authors
  1. Cristina Simone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luca Proietti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Simone.

Additional information

Despite this paper is the result of a research jointly conducted by both Authors, parr. 1, 2, 3, 3.1 have to be attributed to Cristina Simone; parr. 3.2, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 have to be attributed to Luca Proietti; par. 5 has to be attributed to Cristina Simone and to Luca Proietti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simone, C., Proietti, L. Wholly proprietary versus wholly open knowledge strategies: some empirical evidences from Italian biotech firms. J Manag Gov 16, 425–447 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9158-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9158-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation