Scientific collaboration networks and firm innovation: the contingent impact of a dynamic environment

Abstract

PurposeThe environment in high-tech industries is highly dynamic, and after COVID-19, it has become even more unpredictable. Hence, it has become critical for firms to develop strategies to cope with a highly dynamic environment. This paper aims to analyze how the impact of the scientific collaboration networks with URIs (universities and research institutes) on firm innovation performance is contingent on technological and market dynamics.Design/methodology/approachUsing a sample of 174 Chinese firms in the new-energy vehicle industry during 2004–2015, the authors applied a random-effects negative binomial modeling approach to model these relationships.FindingsA broad and strong scientific collaboration network promotes firm innovation network effects are contingent on technological and market dynamics. While technological dynamics strengthen the effect market dynamics weaken it due to the different purposes of collaboration for firms and URIs.Practical implicationsFirms should adjust the structure of scientific collaboration networks with URIs when facing different environments. The government should encourage firms to jointly research with diverse URIs and play an active role in stabilizing market environments.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the academic debate on university-industry scientific collaborations. Applying the temporary competitive advantage (TCA) framework, we provide nuances to the literature that studies the factors that condition the effects of networks. This study also adds to the research on firm scientific collaboration networks by measuring networks based on the coauthorship between firms and URIs.

The impact of network positions in scientific collaboration on pharmaceutical firms' technological innovation performance: Moderating roles of scientific collaboration strength and patent stock

“…In contrast, other studies argued that it also poses coordination and monitoring challenges due to the cognitive distance ( 11 ), divergent incentives, and different targets between firms and URIs ( 2 , 12 ). To overcome the disagreement, Social Network Analysis (SNA) has been widely adopted in this field recently ( 3 , 8 , 13 , 14 ).…”

“…From the social network perspective, pharmaceutical firms exchange information, ideas, knowledge, and resources with other actors in complex scientific collaboration networks constructed through scientific collaboration linkages ( 3 ). Extant literature has provided valuable insights indicating that actors' characteristics and network attributes were key explanations for pharmaceutical firms' innovation performance ( 5 , 8 , 15 , 16 ). Specifically, the number of partners ( 15 ), collaboration diversity ( 5 ), network breadth, and network strength ( 8 ) were conductive to pharmaceutical firms' innovation performance.…”

“…Extant literature has provided valuable insights indicating that actors' characteristics and network attributes were key explanations for pharmaceutical firms' innovation performance ( 5 , 8 , 15 , 16 ). Specifically, the number of partners ( 15 ), collaboration diversity ( 5 ), network breadth, and network strength ( 8 ) were conductive to pharmaceutical firms' innovation performance. In addition, some studies investigated the moderating roles of scientific collaboration and firms' innovation links, such as the level of international openness ( 2 ), technological dynamics, and market dynamics ( 8 ).…”

“…Specifically, the number of partners ( 15 ), collaboration diversity ( 5 ), network breadth, and network strength ( 8 ) were conductive to pharmaceutical firms' innovation performance. In addition, some studies investigated the moderating roles of scientific collaboration and firms' innovation links, such as the level of international openness ( 2 ), technological dynamics, and market dynamics ( 8 ). However, little literature has been focused on the impacts of pharmaceutical firms' network positions in scientific collaboration on their innovation performance and the moderating factors even though some studies have shown that network positions were beneficial to research institutes in their scientific collaboration ( 13 ).…”

“…Wang et al ( 19 ) indicated that network centrality positively influenced organizational innovation, and it was stronger for organizations in knowledge-intensive industries as well as in developed institutional environments. In addition, Yang et al ( 8 ) pointed out that structural holes and network intensity still needed more work, as they were important dimensions of scientific collaboration networks. In this context, some valuable and important topics are worthy of our attention.…”