Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology OM 석사과정 이혜성.

Presentation on theme: "Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology OM 석사과정 이혜성."— Presentation transcript:

1 Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology
OM 석사과정 이혜성

2 Discussion * 조직 간 협력이 이루어질 때, 규모가 커질수록 성장에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠까? 1.1 규모가 크거나 네트워크의 중심에 있어 growth에 영향을 미친다는 방향이 반대로는 성립될 수 있는 것은 아닌지 검토해봐야 하지 않을까? 1.2 Usually, network centrality of firm signals reputation. Nevertheless, it also means that if firm fails this effects will spread more rapidly and destroy firm’s reputation. This paper doesn’t consider the pros and cons of network position. * 조직 간 협력이 이루어질 때, 규모가 커질수록 혁신을 위한 학습에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠까?

3 Summary Powell et al.(1996) argue that when the knowledge base of an industry is both complex and expanding and the sources of expertise are widely dispersed, the locus of innovation will be found in networks of learning. Background: complex and expanding and the sources of expertise 1) When advances build on existing know-how, established firms reap the bulk of the benefits. But when new discoveries create technological discontinuities, radical new developments have the potential to restructure a mature industry 2) Research breakthroughs are so broadly distributed that no single firm has all the internal capabilities necessary for success.

4 Collaboration and organizational Learning
* Thinking about collaboration and learning. Strategic (Teece, 1986; Williamson, 1991) : The decision to collaborate is a variant of the make-or-buy decision, framed largely in terms of transaction cost economics. 2) Learning is a social construction process (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Sources of innovation do not reside exclusively inside firms; instead, they are commonly found in the interstices between firms, universities, research laboratories, suppliers, and customers (Powell, 1990). * Powell(1996) follow Nelson (1990b) and Stinchcombe (1990) in arguing that organizational arrangements that provide access to knowledge quickly and reliably produce competitive advantage.

5 Learning through Networks
* Knowledge is broadly distributed and brings a competitive advantage, the locus of innovation is found in a network of inter-organizational relationships (Powell and Brantley, 1992). * Concept of networks of learning (1) Interorganizational collaborations are not simply a means to compensate for the lack of internal skills, (2) nor should they be viewed as a series of discrete transactions * On the social construction process perspective, collaboration enhances organizational learning.

6 Hypothesis 1. R&D alliances serve as a platform for diverse network activity. R&D collaboration is both an admission ticket to an information network and a vehicle for the rapid communication of news about opportunities and obstacles. 2. Knowledge also requires other knowledge. - When the sources of expertise are disparate, collaborative R&D opens an organization's eyes to the need for accessing ideas and Information from a variety of sources, to exploit the research findings in a commercial context. Powell et al.(1996) argues that firms learn from exploration and experience how to recognize and structure synergies across different types of alliances.

7 Hypothesis The greater (a) the number of R&D alliances and (b) experience at managing R&D and other types of collaborations a firm has, the greater the number of non-R&D collaborations pursues; and the more diverse its future portfolio of ties will become. The greater (a) the number of R&D alliances, (b) the diversity of ties, and (c) the experience at managing R&D collaborations or other ties that a firm has, the more centrally connected the firm subsequently becomes, . The greater a firm's (a) centrality in a network of relationships and (b) experience at managing ties, the more rapid its subsequent growth. The greater a firm's centrality in a network of relationships at a given time, the greater its number of subsequent R&D collaborations.

8 Results 3 2 4 3 1 1

9 Results * General findings 1. Age has no effect, while size is an outcome, not a predictor of network behavior. Growth is a process that requires time. Unlike biotic species, however, organizational growth is not programmed from age. Rather, it is the initiation of collaboration that sets the growth clock in motion, with centrality as a further stimulus. 2. network position (central connectedness) has reciprocal influences on R&D alliances, investment ties, and total collaboration. * R&D ties and other types of collaborations are the admission ticket, while diversity, experience, and centrality are the main drivers of a dynamic system in which disparate firms join together in efforts to keep pace in high-speed learning races.

10 Discussion 규모가 크거나 네트워크의 중심에 있어 growth에 영향을 미친다는 방향이 반대로는 성립될 수 있는 것은 아닌지 검토해봐야 하지 않을까? 1.2 Usually, network centrality of firm signals reputation. Nevertheless, it also means that if firm fails this effects will spread more rapidly and destroy firm’s reputation. This paper doesn’t consider the pros and cons of network position.

11 Discussion 2. I think there would be counter-effect that network centrality has. Usually, network centrality of firm signals reputation. Nevertheless, it also means that if firm fails this effects will spread more rapidly and destroy firm’s reputation. This paper doesn’t consider the pros and cons of network position. 3. 네트워크에서 혁신적인 지식은 보통 boundary spanner 또는 peripheral에서 받아들여 중심으로 가서 확장된다고 배웠는데, 이러한 learning cycle에서도 이러한 지식의 흐름이 그대로 유지되는지 궁금하다. R&D alliance에서는 오히려 중심성을 가진 기업이 지식을 가지고 나누는 과정에 시너지 효과로 혁신이 생기는 것도 가능할 것 같다.

12 Thank you