Tough Road to Take: Collaboration in the Nanotechnology Sector

  • Neslihan Aydogan-Duda
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM, volume 14)


Nanotechnology companies have to engage in a large array of collaborative projects as the technology itself can be applied in a variety of sectors. This nature pushes companies to collaborate with other companies (and institutions) in a variety of industries to commercialize products that use nanotechnology. At this point of course, we need to ask ourselves as to what would be an effective corporate form as such collaborations would require a complex technology to be transferred across company boundaries and often from universities to companies. Ronald Coase exquisitely explains in his pathbreaking work as to how these boundaries between the markets and the firm are drawn based on efficiency. It is recently that we discuss these issues based on the characteristics of different industries related particularly to their knowledge assets. For companies that intend to commercialize nanotechnology, interdisciplinary collaboration in private markets has to be almost second nature. However, as mentioned above for the two or several companies with different organizational structures, different ways of handling the products and processes and different heuristics to collaborate might prove itself rather difficult. So pertaining to this fact what would be the best way to collaborate? Should two or more companies engage in long-term contracts, should they build a joint venture or could it be the case that licensing could solve the issue? As it turns out, the answer to this question may not be so simple, and in the case of nanotechnology industries, a wide array of institutional arrangements might be needed.


  1. Bucher, P et al. (2003) Management principles for evaluating and introducing disruptive technologies: the case of nanotechnology in Switzerland. In: R&D Management. v. 33, n. 2Google Scholar
  2. Contractor FJ, Lorange P (1988) Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economic basis for cooperative ventures. In: Contractor FJ, Lorange P (eds) Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  3. Escalante M et al (2009) Assessing innovation networks in nanotechnology. Georgia Institute of Technology Publication Center.
  4. Forfás (2004) Innovation networks. Europe, June 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gemünden HG, Heydebreck P, Herden R (1992) Technological interweavement: a means of achieving innovation success. R&D Manage 22:359–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.1992.tb01206.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gulati R (1998) Alliances and networks. Strat Manage J 19(4):293–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagedoorn J (1993) Understanding the rationale of strategic technological partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strat Manage J 14:371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Inoue R, Tadashi N, Ken I, Jun F (2003) Valley of death phenomenon and industrial revitalization. J Mitsubishi Res Inst 42:6–33Google Scholar
  9. Kirihata T (2008) Working paper no.113. The formation process and characteristics of the Japanese Venture Capital Industry.
  10. Meyer M (2006) What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Disponível em <;uk-www;> acesso em nov 2006Google Scholar
  11. Miyazaki K, Islan N (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation: an analysis of industry and academy research activities. Technovation 27:661, 675Google Scholar
  12. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Polanyi M (1962a/2002) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Polanyi M (1962b) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 1:54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Polanyi M (1964/1966) Science, faith and society. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Polanyi M (1966/1983) The tacit dimension. Peter Smith, GloucesterGoogle Scholar
  17. Polanyi M (1969) Knowing and being. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Rothwell R (1994), Towards the fifth- generation innovation process. International Marketing Review. v. 11, n.1, pp 7–31Google Scholar
  19. Rycroft Robert. Self Organizing Innovation networks: implications for Globalization. The George Washington University s/dGoogle Scholar
  20. Salamanca-Buentello, F Persad D.L., Court, E.B., Martin D.K., Daar A.S., Singer, P. (2005) Nanotechnology and the development world. In: `LoS Medicine. v.2, 5, pp 100–103Google Scholar
  21. Saviotti, P. P., M. A. de Looze, et al. (2000) “The changing marketplace of bioinformatics.” Nature Biotechnology, 18, pp. 1247–1249Google Scholar
  22. Steward F and Conway S (2000) Building Networks of Innovation Diffusion in Europe: learning from the SPRIT Program. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies. v., 1, n. 3, pp 281–301Google Scholar
  23. Van Horn C, Fichtner A (2008) The workforce needs of companies engaged in nanotechnology research in Arizona. New Brunswick, NJ: John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  24. Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. Firm, market, relational contracting. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Williamson OE (1991) Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strat Manage J 12:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhao L, Aram JD (1995) Networking and growth of young technology intensive ventures in China. J Bus Venturing 10(5):349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Walker Center for Global EntrepreneurshipThunderbird School of Global ManagementGlendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations