In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups

Colombo, Massimo G.; Grilli, Luca; Piva, Evila

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.002

Cited by 298 publications

(261 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

239

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite their innovative capacity, new ventures often lack knowledge and capabilities required for the commercialization of their ideas, 'such as marketing, competing manufacturing, and after sales support' (Colombo et al, 2006(Colombo et al, , p. 1166. By forming partnerships with established firms, young firms can overcome the liability of newness and resource constraints and benefit from reputational spillover effects (Baum et al, 2000).…”

Section: Firm Agementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Established firms often suffer from a decreasing innovativeness (Das and He, 2006), because their mature organizational structure frequently lacks flexibility and hampers sustained product innovation (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996). Therefore, they form alliances with young firms to explore new growth opportunities by exploiting the younger partners' technological competencies (Colombo et al, 2006;Reuer and Tong, 2010;Shan et al, 1994).…”

Section: Firm Agementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit

Decker

Baade

2016

J Brand Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores how consumers evaluate co-branding alliances between dissimilar partner firms. Customers are well aware that different firms are behind a co-branded product and observe the partner firms' characteristics. Drawing on signaling theory, we assert that consumers use organizational characteristics as signals in their assessment of brand fit and for their purchasing decisions. Some organizational signals are beyond the control of the co-branding partners or at least they cannot alter them on short notice. We use a quasi-experimental design and test how cobranding partner dissimilarity affects brand fit perception. The results show that co-branding partner dissimilarity in terms of firm size, industry scope, and country-of-origin image negatively affects brand fit perception. Firm age dissimilarity does not exert significant influence. Because brand fit generally fosters a benevolent consumer attitude towards a co-branding alliance, the findings suggest that high partner dissimilarity may reduce overall co-branding alliance performance.

show abstract

Section: Firm Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Firm Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit

Decker

Baade

2016

J Brand Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alliance formation (Colombo et al, 2006;Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996) and management under conditions of high uncertainty would, therefore, appear to be a critical capability for startups and new ventures within an incumbent firm. Previous literature has identified the need for a highly integrated value network as a key factor in performance (Prajogo & Olhager, 2012), but this presupposes a strong understanding of the needs and capabilities of the alliance partners.…”

Section: Integration Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergent Innovation in Emerging Healthcare Technology Ecosystems: Addressing Complexity and Integration

Phillips¹,

Harrington²,

Srai³

2017

TIM Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, despite the extensive literature on the role of networks in technological entrepreneurship (Elfring and Hulsink, 2003;Slotte-Kock and Coviello, 2010) there is still limited research on the nature of the relationships that are established as part of the "bridging" process. At this level, the literature tends to focus on the interaction between the spin-off and the parent organisation (Audretsch and Lehmann, 2005;Colombo et al 2006;Heblich and Slavtchev, 2013;Semadeni and Cannella, 2011) giving less attention to the downstream relationships established with other types of organisations to further develop and commercialise the technology. Among these, technological relationshipsthat is, those concerned with completing the development of technologies (that are often in a very incipient stage), with defining product and/or process requirements and with conducting product development activities, prior to commercialisation -which are likely to require a set of technological competences located downstream from academic research, are particularly absent, despite their relevance for this type of firm.…”

Section: The Nature Of Rbsos Technological Relations: "Bridging" Betwmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research-based spin-offs as agents of knowledge dissemination: evidence from the analysis of innovation networks

Conceição¹,

Sousa²,

Fontes³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The paper addresses the role played by research-based spin-offs (RBSOs) as knowledge dissemination mechanisms, through their position in knowledge networks. For this purpose the paper analyses the formal networks established by the Portuguese RBSOs in the context of publicly funded research, technology and pre-commercial product development projects, and investigates their configuration along two levels. At organisational level, in order to understand whether RBSOs extend their reach beyond the academic sphere; and if they do, whether they relate with similar firms or connect to organisations located downstream in the knowledge value chain, and which is their position in networks involving both research organisations and other firms. At spatial level, in order to understand whether RBSOs extend their reach beyond the region where they are created, thus potentially acting as connectors between diverse regions. The analysis starts from the population of RBSOs created in Portugal until 2007 (387) and identifies those that have established formal technological relationships as part of projects funded by all the programmes launched in the period 1993-2012. As a result, the analysis encompasses 192 collaborative projects and involves 82 spin-offs and 281 partners, of which only 20% are research organisations, the remaining being other firms and a variety of other user organisations. The results, although still preliminary, provide some insights into the knowledge networking behaviour of the RBSOs. As expected, research organisations are a central actor in spin-offs' networks, being the sole partner for some of them. But half of the RBSOs have moved beyond the academic sphere, being frequently a central element in tripartite technological relationships between research and other organisations and occupying an intermediation position in the network, thus potentially acting as facilitators in knowledge circulation and transformation. Also as expected, RBSOs are predominantly located in the main metropolitan areas and tend to relate with organisations similarly located. But while geographical proximity emerges as important in the choice of partners, in about half of the cases, RBSOs knowledge networks have extended beyond regional boundaries. Given their central position in the network this suggests a role as connectors across regions that will be explored in subsequent research.

show abstract

In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups

Cited by 298 publications

References 114 publications

Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit

Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit

Convergent Innovation in Emerging Healthcare Technology Ecosystems: Addressing Complexity and Integration

Research-based spin-offs as agents of knowledge dissemination: evidence from the analysis of innovation networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About