Business-University Alliances and Innovation in New and Adolescent Technology Ventures

Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 26)


The dynamic resource based view introduces the concept of capability lifecycles. Applying this theory to new and adolescent technology ventures, we propose and test a model of the sources of heterogeneous knowledge capabilities that impact innovation. We suggest that the characteristics of the top management of these ventures impacts business-university alliance formation – a critical knowledge capability that affects innovation. Building on prior research, we also examine the source of firm specific knowledge through geographical munificence. Our results suggest that there are paths to knowledge capability development and innovation and that people are critical to the building of collaborative relationships, not merely being in the right location.


Intellectual Capital Strategic Alliance Organizational Knowledge Capability Development Firm Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev 27(1):17–41Google Scholar
  2. Almeida P, Kogut B (1999) Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Manage Sci 45(7):905–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbuckle JL (1999) AMOS 4.0.
  4. Arora A, Gambardella A (1990) Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. J Ind Econ 38:361–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE, Warning S (2005) University spillovers and new firm location. Res Policy 34:1113–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bantel K, Jackson S (1989) Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strateg Manage J 10:107–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17:99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum JA, Calabrese T, Silverman B (2000) Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strateg Manage J 21:267–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boeker W (1997) Strategic change: the influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Acad Manage J 40(1):151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brothers KD, Brouthers LE, Werner S (2000) Influences on strategic decision-making in the Dutch financial services industry. J Manage 26(5):863–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter MA (2002) The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management heterogeneity and firm performance. Strateg Manage J 23(3):275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castanias RP, Helfat CE (2001) The managerial rents model: theory and empirical analysis. J Manage 27:661–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen W, Nelson R, Walsh J (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage Sci 48(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper AC, Gimeno-gascon FJ, Woo CY (1994) Initiel Human and Financial Capital as Predictors of New Venture Performance Journal of Business Venturing 9:371–395 Google Scholar
  15. DeCarolis D, Deeds D (1999) The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strateg Manage J 20:953–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deeds DL, Hill CWL (1996) Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. J Bus Venturing 11(1):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Manage Sci 35(12):1504–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dosi G (1997) Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change. Econ J 107(444):1530–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manage J 21:1105–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt K, Santos F (2002) Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy? In: Pettigrew A, Thomas H, Whittington R (eds) Handbook of strategy and management. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt KM, Schoonhoven CB (1990) Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Adm Sci Q 35(3):504–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzkowitz H (2000) The second academic revolution: MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. Gordon & Breach, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. George G, Zahra SA, Wood DR (2002) The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. J Bus Venturing 17(6):557–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant R (1996) Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J 17(Special Issue):109–122Google Scholar
  25. Gupta AK (1984) Contingency linkages between strategy and general manager characteristics: a conceptual examination. Acad Manage Rev 9(3):399–413Google Scholar
  26. Hambrick DC (1994) Top management groups: a conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. Res Organ Behav 16:171–215Google Scholar
  27. Hambrick D, Mason P (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manage Rev 9(2):193–206Google Scholar
  28. Hambrick DC, Cho TS, Chen M-J (1996) The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firm’s competitive moves. Adm Sci Q 41(4):659–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Helfat C, Peteraf M (2003) The dynamic resource based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg Manage J 24:997–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (1998) Universities as sources of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting. Rev Econ Stat 80(1):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hitt MA, Tyler BB (1991) Strategic decision models: integrating different perspectives. Strateg Manage J 12(5):327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoyle RH (1995) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H (2000) Learning and protection of property assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strateg Manage J 21(3):217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kogut B (1988) Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strateg Manage J 9(4):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liebeskind JP, Oliver AL, Zucker L, Brewer M (1996) Social networks, learning and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organ Sci 7:428–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacMillan I, Siegel R, Narasimha PN (1985) Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate venture proposals. J Bus Venturing 1(1):119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mansfield E, Lee J-Y (1996) The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Res Policy 25:1047–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McMillan S, Narin F, Deeds D (2000) An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Res Policy 29:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2003) Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2001, NSF 03-320, Project Officer, Joan S. Burrelli. Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson T (2003) The persistence of founder influence: management, ownership and performance effects at initial public offering. Strateg Manage J 10:125–141Google Scholar
  41. Oliver RW (2000) The coming biotech age: the business of biomaterials. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Pisano GP (1996) Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology. Res Policy 25(7):1097–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pouder R, St. John C (1996) Hot spots and blind spots: geographic clusters of firms and innovations. Acad Manage Rev 21(4):1192–1225Google Scholar
  44. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q 41:116–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saxenian A (1990) Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. Calif Manage Rev 33(1):89–112Google Scholar
  46. Shan W, Walker G, Kogut B (1994) Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strateg Manage J 15:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shook CL, Ketchen DJ, Hult GT, Kacmar KM (2004) An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strateg Manage J 25:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teece D, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manage J 18(7):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walker G, Kogut B, Shan W (1997) Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organ Sci 8:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manage J 5(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. West CT, Schwenk CR (1996) Top management team strategic consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm performance: A report on resounding nonfindings. Strateg Manage J 17(7):571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiersema M, Bantel K (1992) Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad Manage J 35(1):91–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zollo M, Winter SG (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13:339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong JS (2002) Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Manage Sci 48(1):138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LeBow College of BusinessDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations