Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining performing R&D through alliances: Implications for the business model of Italian dedicated biotech firms

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

Abstract

In recent years management scholars and practitioners have been interested in Research and Development (R&D) partnering, especially in high-tech industries. While the motivations of research partnership formation have been widely explored in literature, little attempt has been undertaken to examine the effects of research partnerships on R&D productivity and the implications for business models of the new ventures. In this paper we try to shed some light on the business models of the young ventures involved in R&D partnerships and their effect on R&D productivity. Our hypotheses are that experience in previous alliances, repeated partnerships and tight relationships have positive effects on R&D productivity while rigid governance structures and public R&D subsidies have negative effects on such productivity. We discuss how these aspects affect the business models of biotech firms. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 55 Italian DBFs (Dedicated Biotech Firms). Results support our hypotheses. Managerial implications and further issues for future research are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. (1994). On the management of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 1185–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almus, M., & Czarnitzky, D. (2003). The effect of public R&D subsidies on firms’innovation activities: The case of eastern germany. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21(2), 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliance. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2003). Small-Firm strategic research partnerships: The case of biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(2), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36, 930–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigliardi, B., Nosella, A., & Verbano, A. (2005). Business model in Italian biotechnology industry: a quantitative analysis. Technovation, 25(11), 1299–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biopolo (2008). Italian biotechnology directory. Facts&Trends analysis. Report 2008. Resource document Biopolo.

  • Bleeke, J., & Ernst, D. (1991). The way to win in cross border alliances. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossom (2008). Biotecnologie in Italia. Analisi Strategica e Finanziaria. Rapporto Blossom Associati-Assobiotec. http://www.farmindustria.it/pubblico/Rapporto_Blossom.pdf.

  • Blossom (2009). Biotecnologie in Italia. Analisi Strategica e Finanziaria. Rapporto Blossom Associati-Assobiotec.

  • Busom, I. (2000). An empirical evaluation of the effects of R&D subsidies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9, 111–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum: Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, B. C. (2002). Biotech and pharma: State of the relationship in the new millennium. Drug Development Research, 57, 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Hitt, M. A., & Levitas, E. (1997). Selecting partners for successful international alliances: Examination of US and Korean firms. Journal of World Business, 32(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danzon, P. M., Nicholson, S., & Pereira, N. S. (2005). Productivity in pharmaceutical-biotechnology R&D: The role of experience and alliances. Journal of Health Economics, 24, 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datamonitor. (2006). Biotechnology in Italy. Industry profile. London: Datamonitor Europe.

  • De Carolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D. L., & Hill, C. W. L. (1996). Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeds, D. L., DeCarolis, D. M., & Coombs, J. (2000). Dynamics capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G. (1996). The dynamics of technical innovation: The evolution and development of information technology. Chelternham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G. G., Kok, G., & Vaandrager, M. (1999). Crafting successful strategic technology partnerships. R&D Management, 29(4), 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamics capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst & Young (2006) Beyond borders. Global Biotechnology Report. Global Biotechnology Center.

  • Ernst & Young (2008) Beyond borders. Annual Global Biotechnology Report. Global Biotechnology Center.

  • Freeman, J. G. R., Carroll, R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadde, L. E., Huemer, L., & Hakansson, H. (2003). Strategizing in industrial networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A. (1990). Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32, 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goerzen, A. (2007). Alliance network and firm performance: The impact of repeated ties. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes-Casseres, B. (1996). The alliance revolution: The new shape of business rivalry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity, R&D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970’s. American Economic Review, 76(1), 41–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, S., & Hart, O. (1986). The costs and the benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 691–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rational of strategic technology partnering: interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Trends and Patterns in strategic technology partnering since the early seventies. Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Schakenraad, J. (1990). Strategic partnering and technological co-operation. In B. Dankbaar, et al. (Eds.), Perspectives in industrial economics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Schakenraad, J. (1992). Leading companies and networks of strategic alliances in information technologies. Research Policy, 21, 163–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Lorenz-Orlean, S., & Kranenburg, H. (2006). Inter-firm technology transfer: Partnership-embedded licensing or standard licensing agreement? Working Paper Series.

  • Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 133–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Strategies for Joint Ventures. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2005). The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 332–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M. M., et al. (2007). The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change. Research Policy, 36, 566–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G., & Daft, R. (1987). The information environment of organizations. In F. Jablin, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, Y., & Park, S. H. (2007). The organizational life cycle as a determinant of strategic alliance tactics: Research propositions. International Journal of Management, 24(3), 427–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Ross, J. (2001). Why do some strategic alliances persist beyond their useful life? California Management Review, 44(1), 132–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipi. (2007). Il settore delle biotecnologie in Italia. Roma: Un quadro conoscitivo degli operatori e dei programmi di sostegno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablin, F., Putnam, L., Roberts, K., & Porter, L. (1987). Handbook of Organizational Communication. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2007). Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm level alliance success. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 981–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1989). When Giants Learn to Dance. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (2007). Applied Regression Analysis and Multivariable Methods 4 th Edition. Boston: Duxbury Press.

  • Klette, T. J., Moen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, 471–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1989). The stability of joint ventures: reciprocity and competitive rivalry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lawton-Smith, H., Dickson, K., & Smith, S. L. (1991). There are two sides to every story: Innovation and collaboration within networks of large and small firms. Research Policy, 20, 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (1999). The evolution of industrial districts and regional networks: The case of the biotechnology region munich/martinsried. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(4), 309–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R., & Mills, P. K. (1996). An information processing approach for deciding upon control strategies and reducing control loss in emerging organizations. Journal of Management, 22, 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Merges, R. P. (1998). The control of technological alliances: An empirical analysis of the biotechnology industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 125–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. In W.R. Scott (Ed.), Annual review of sociology (pp. 319-340). Greenwich: JAI Press.

  • Link, A. N. (1998a). A case study of R&D efficiency in ATP joint ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 23, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. (1998b). The U.S. display consortium: an analysis of a public/private partnership. Industry and Innovation, 5, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, M. (1988). Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms. In F. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.), Cooperative strategies in international business (pp. 301–316). Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggioni, V., Sorrentino, M., & Williams, M. (1999). Mixed consequences of government aid for new ventures. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(3), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Miles, G., & Snow, C. C. (2006). Collaborative entrepreneurship: A business model for continuous innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behaviour, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1989). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Niosi, J. (2003). Alliances are not enough explaining rapid growth in biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32, 737–750.

    Article  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), 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M. V., & McDougall-Covin, P. P. (2010). Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9154-1.

  • Orsenigo, L. (2001). The (failed) development of a biotechnology cluster: The case of lombardy. Small Business Economics, 17, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., Riccaboni, M., Bonaccorsi, A., & Turchetti, G. (1998). The evolution of knowledge and the dynamics of an industry network. Journal of Management and Governance, 1(2), 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., Arundel, A., & Hopkins, M. (2008). Sectoral innovation systems in Europe: Monitoring, analysing trends and identifying challenges in biotechnology. Europe Innova, Final Report, Bruxelles, European Commission.

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 153–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (2006). Science business: The promise, reality and future of biotech. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recap (2009). Analyst’s Notebook–Trends in Big Ticket Alliances ($ + 100 M) 1998–2007. Resource document. Recap.

  • Roijakkers, N., & Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks. Research Policy, 35, 431–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roijakkers, N., Hagedoorn, J., & van Kranenburg, H. (2005). Dual market structures and the likelihood of repeated ties–evidence from pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 34, 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Boeker, W. (2008). Old technology meets new technology. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 47–77.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, T. (1997). The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 443–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Inter-firm cooperation and start-up innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 315–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Ozdemir, S. Z., & Ding, W. W. (2007). Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy, 36, 477–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 18, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Ian C. MacMillan and Professor Donna M. De Carolis for their helpful comments on a previous draft of the paper. We would also like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategy and Quantitative Methods, Second University of Naples, Corso Gran Priorato di Malta 1, 81043, Capua, Italy

    Fabio Sorrentino

  2. Department of Business Economics and Management, University of Catania, Corso Italia, 55, 95129, Catania, Italy

    Francesco Garraffo

Authors
  1. Fabio Sorrentino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Garraffo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Sorrentino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sorrentino, F., Garraffo, F. Explaining performing R&D through alliances: Implications for the business model of Italian dedicated biotech firms. J Manag Gov 16, 449–475 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9159-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9159-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation