Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obscure but important: examining the indirect effects of alliance networks in exploratory and exploitative innovation paradigms

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates how the alliance partners’ ego-network advantages, measured by the betweenness centrality, clustering coefficient and degree, affect focal firms’ ego-network advantages, innovation performance and the alliance stability. Under the exploitative innovation paradigm, alliance partners holding greater ego-network advantages would significantly improve focal firms’ ego-network advantages; Clustering coefficient and degree of alliance partners’ ego-network significantly improves focal firms’ innovation performance; However, they generate significant but mixing effect on the alliance stability. As innovation becomes more exploitation oriented, all of these effects weaken. Alliance partners’ ego-networks generate relatively weaker indirect effects on the focal firms as that of their own ego-networks. This suggests that the indirect network effects are not negligible. Our study suggests that alliance partners play a rather periphery role under exploratory innovation paradigm compared with that under the exploitative innovation paradigm. This is because the former requires more indigenous efforts to make breakthrough inventions. The results based on the counterfactual simulation process focus on the effect of key alliance partners’ ego-networks and reach generally similar conclusions, which confirms the robustness of this study. We discuss these findings and formulate policy implications at the end of this study.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Alliance partners are limited to firms only in this study.

References

  • Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science,23(2), 434–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahlmann, M. D. (2014). Geographic network diversity: How does it affect exploratory innovation? Industry and Innovation,21(7–8), 633–654.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2010). Network-independent alliance partner selection and the evolution of innovation networks. Management Science,56(11), 2094–2110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C., Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2014). Does evidence of network effects on firm performance in pooled cross-section support prescriptions for network strategy? Strategic Management Journal,35, 652–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2009). Knowledge portfolios and the organization of innovation networks. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 320–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., Jonard, N., & Zimmermann, J. (2007). Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks. Management Science,53(7), 1051–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, S., Sen, P. K., & Sengupta, S. (1998). Impact of strategic alliances on firm valuation. Academy of Management Journal,41, 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, Y. Q., Song, B. J., Duan, H. B., Tsvetanov, T. G., & Wu, Y. Y. (2019). Multi-renewable management: Interactions between wind and solar within uncertain technological ecological system. Energy Conversion and Management,187, 232–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G., & Lokshin, B. (2011). Determinants of alliance portfolio complexity and ties effect on innovative performance of companies. Journal of Product Innovation Management,28(4), 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy,30(7), 1019–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, R. J. (2014). Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,57(1), 193–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, B., & Dousset, B. (2005). Innovation and network structural dynamics: Study of the alliance network of a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Research Policy,34, 1457–1475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy,35, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V. A., Nooteboomb, B., Vanhaverbekec, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oorda, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweeness centrality and density. Research Policy,37(10), 1717–1731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review,26(3), 431–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Liu, N. (2016). Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy. Research Policy,45, 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Sociological structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,40, 619–652.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. (2012). The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organization Science,23(2), 449–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofman, E., Halman, J. I. M., & Song, M. (2017). When to use loose or tight alliance networks for innovation? Empirical evidence. Journal of Product Innovation Management,34(1), 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, J., & Duysters, G. (2017). Alliance network configurations and the co-evolution of firms’ technology profiles: An analysis of the biopharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,120, 90–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, H., Xia, J., Cannella, A. A., & Xiao, T. (2018). Do ongoing networks block out new friends? Reconciling the embeddedness constraint dilemma on new alliance partner addition. Strategic Management Journal,39(1), 217–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J., Tao, Q., & Santoro, M. (2010). Alliance portfolio diversity and corporate performance—The case of global automobile industry. Strategic Management Journal,31(10), 1136–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, R., & Zaheer, A. (2018). Determinants of alliance partner choice: Network distance, managerial incentives, and board monitoring. Strategic Management Journal,39(10), 2745–2769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamanos, A. G. (2016). Effects of a firm’s and their alliance partners’ alliance ego-network structure on its innovation output in an era of ferment. R&D Management,46(S1), 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019). ego-network stability and innovation in alliances. Academy of Management Journal,62(3), 691–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacetera, N., Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. (2004). Do firms change capabilities by hiring new people? A study of the adoption of science-based drug discovery. In J. A. C. Baum & A. McGahan (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (pp. 133–159). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laureiro-Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration-exploitation dilemma: an fmri study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 319–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal,53(4), 865–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,14(S2), 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lungeanu, A., & Contractor, N. S. (2015). The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: The emergence of a new scientific field. American Behavioral Scientist,59(5), 548–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay, C. D., Richard, O. C., Peng, M. W., & Hasenhuttl, M. (2018). Alliance network centrality, board composition, and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics,151(4), 997–1008.

    Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32–62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., Fernhaber, S. A., Mcdougall-Covin, P. P., & van Der Have, R. P. (2014). Beating competitors to international markets: The value of geographically balanced networks for innovation. Strategic Management Journal,35, 691–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C. 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.

    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, 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sá, C., & Lee, H. (2012). Science, business, and innovation: Understanding networks in technology-based incubators. R&D Management,42, 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salman, N., & Saives, A. L. (2005). Indirect networks: An intangible resource for biotechnology innovation. R&D Management,35, 203–215.

    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(7), 1113–1126.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, M., Kale, P., & Corsten, D. (2009). What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic Management Journal,30, 1395–1419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy,35, 994–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 791–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T., & Podolny, J. (1999). Positional causes and correlates of strategic alliances in the semiconductor industry. In S. Andrews & D. Knoke (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 161–182). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, B. N., Haunschild, P., & Page, K. (2007). Organizations non-gratae? The impact of unethical corporate behavior on interorganizational networks. Organization Science,18(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal,49, 723–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todo, Y. (2003). Empirically consistent scale effects: An endogenous growth model with technology transfer to developing countries. Journal of Macroeconomics,25, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortoriello, M., McEvily, B., & Krackhardt, D. (2015). Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure. Organization Science,26(2), 423–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. Y. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal,57(2), 890–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, J. K. M., & Koput, K. W. (2019). The downside of prominence in a network of marketing alliances. Journal of Business Research, 104, 196–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior,20, 77–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, J., Wang, Y. G., Lin, Y., Yang, H. B., & Li, S. L. (2018). Alliance formation in the midst of market and network: Insights from resource dependence and network perspectives. Journal of Management,44(5), 1899–1925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamakawa, Y., Yang, H. B., & Lin, Z. (2011). Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Research Policy,40, 287–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of technology spillovers on the originating firms. Academy of Management Journal,53(2), 371–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. M., Jiang, H., Wu, R., & Li, J. Z. (2019). Reconciling the dilemma of knowledge sharing: A network pluralism framework of firms’ R&D alliance network and innovation performance. Journal of Management,45(7), 2635–2665.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by [National Natural Science Foundation of China] grant number [71872169, 71874177, 71843002, 71810107004, 71772014], [Beijing Natural Science Foundation] grant number [9202019], [University of Chinese Academy of Sciences] grant number [Y8540XX1P2, Y8540XX1Z2], [National Social Science Foundation of China] grant number [18ZDA101], and [IBSS Development Fund].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Gupeng Zhang

  2. International Business School Suzhou, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China

    Xiao Wang

  3. School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Hongbo Duan

Authors
  1. Gupeng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongbo Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongbo Duan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, G., Wang, X. & Duan, H. Obscure but important: examining the indirect effects of alliance networks in exploratory and exploitative innovation paradigms. Scientometrics 124, 1745–1764 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03586-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03586-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation