Knowledge creation and application in technology collaboration portfolio

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims at developing a better understanding of the different mechanisms that affect technology collaboration portfolio management. How do firms manage their technology collaboration portfolio? Despite some thoughtful scholars have advanced the understanding of the phenomenon of technology collaboration portfolio, there is not much research that has been done in terms of understanding the endeavors of firms when they collectively use a range of actors for the best interests of the firms. Additionally, little attention has been paid to the trade-offs and managing mechanisms for the collaborations between different partners from a portfolio-level perspective, especially in emerging markets. Design/methodology/approach – A multiple-case study of two Chinese high-tech firms, an inductive approach. Findings – The authors identified three primary mechanisms that underlie successful knowledge creation and application in technology collaboration portfolio context: informally mobilizing boundary-spanning brokers for domestic academic collaborations, formally institutionalizing learning activities for industry collaborations and integrating formal and informal mechanisms for technology collaborations between focused firms and foreign organizations. Originality/value – The authors extend the line of organizational ambidexterity literature with a focus on strategic alliance, proposing that firms need to balance academic and industry collaborations from a portfolio level. Moreover, the authors intend to extend the literature of alliance portfolio by suggesting three different learning mechanisms of managing different technology collaborations for the purpose of balancing successful knowledge creation and application.

The effect of institutional support and relational capital on knowledge mobilization in public administration research

“…The concept of KMb has not been widely introduced in China, but the importance of connecting research with practice has long been recognized, for example, Choi et al (2016); Y. Liu, Ying, and Fagerlin (2015). The theoretical framework of KMb can offer a systematic approach to maximize the impact of public administration.…”

Catch‐up through Collaborative Innovation: Evidence from China

“…In addition, by integrating institutional theory and knowledge‐based view, we suggest and empirically verify that there are two ways through which latecomer firms could commit themselves into R&D collaboration (i.e., alliance with universities and independent research institution and alliance with other enterprises), which influence their innovation catch‐up, thus deepening our knowledge of the literature on university‐industry relationship (Bjerregaard, ; Perkmann & Walsh, ) and R&D alliance (Sampson, ). Specifically, industrial collaborations among Chinese firms face the risk of opportunism, lack of trust, and paradox of being unwilling to give up control rights, while academic collaborations are also difficult to be sustainable because of certain amount of conflicts among partners (Liu et al, ). We extend this line of arguments by finding that moderate levels of industrial and academic collaborations could enhance innovation catch‐up of latecomer firms in an emerging economy, thereby contributing to the literature on R&D collaboration in a distinct way.…”

“…R&D collaboration, defined as the union of two or more parties, institutions or individuals in pursuit of a distinct R&D assignment together, has become the key part of R&D network boundary spanning. Moreover, R&D collaboration mainly includes academic collaborations (i.e., cooperating with universities or independent research institutions) and industrial collaborations (i.e., cooperating with other firms) (Liu et al, ). In China, as the legal environment continues to improve, the government strongly encourages industry‐university‐research institution collaborations (Perkmann & Walsh, ), which results in more and more alliances among firms, universities, and independent research institutions.…”

“…Extant literature on collaborative innovation has highlighted its consequence of innovation performance (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996 ;Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010 ). However, the majority of research has examined the influence of research and development (R&D) collaboration on innovation performance in developed countries, whereas the collaborative innovation in emerging economies (e.g., China) has received relatively less attention (Liu, Ying, & Fagerlin, 2015 ;Zeng, Xie, & Tam, 2010 ). Due to institutional voids and subnational differences in a large, complex emerging economy (Mair & Marti, 2009 ;Shi et al, 2012 ), latecomer firms face a more complex environment and have to adopt more flexible strategies when implementing the collaborative innovation strategy to enhance their innovation performance.…”

Balancing local and international knowledge search for internationalization of emerging economy multinationals

“…However, EMNEs face liabilities of newness, smallness and foreignness during the international process because of lacking of international knowledge and experiences accumulation (Deng et al , 2018; Luo and Tung, 2007; Chin et al , 2017). Hence, seeking knowledge spanning a firm’s boundaries is critical for innovation and success in international markets (Elango and Pattnaik, 2007; Guler and Guillen, 2010; Cano-Kollmann et al , 2016; Ibeh and Kasem, 2011; Patel et al , 2014; Liu et al , 2015).…”