Mowery, David C., Joanne E. Oxley, and Brian S. Silverman. "Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer." (1996).

Strategic Alliances and

Interfirm Knowledge Transfer

2015/10/14 Wed.Megan Sun (孫敏倫 )

INTRODUCTION (1/3)-- MOTIVATION

Firm-specific knowledge in competitive strategyResource-based

• Stressing the capture of rents through the protection and deployment of these resources. (Penrose, 1959; Barney, 1986; Wernerfelt, 1984)

Dynamic capabilities• Focusing in particular on the development, more than the

exploitation, of firm-specific. (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997)• Dynamic capabilities >> Organizational learning >>

Strategic AllianceKnowledge-based

• Emphasize the capacity of the firm to integrate tacit knowledge (Grant, 1995)

INTRODUCTION (2/3)-- MOTIVATION

Alliances may serve other purposes, however…Knowledge in firm strategy suggests additional motives and effects of alliance

formationFirms use interfirm collaboration to gain access to other firm’s capabilities,

supporting more focused, intensive exploitation of existing capabilities within each firm (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 1995; Nakamura, 1996)

Empirical assessment hampered by assertion, it’s because of…The difficulty of measuring the technological and other capabilities of firms.

Using the citation patterns of partner firms’ patent portfolios, we measure changes in the extent to which their tech resources “overlap” with their

partners’ tech portfolios as a result of participation in an alliance

TRENDS AND MOTIVES IN STRATEGIC ALLIANCES (1/2)

Motives for the formation of these recent alliances includes:• Spread the costs and risks of innovations (Mowery, 1988)• Collaboration between users and suppliers of new products as a means of

coordinating and formulating tech stands to increase market power (Grindley, 1995)

• Acquisition of new technical skills or technological capabilities from partner firms (Mariti and Smiley, 1983; Hamel, 1989; Shan, 1990)

Alliances have become widespread in tech-intensive industries in which they were of little or no importance prior to 1975. The activities involve higher levels of knowledge exchange and tech transfer among participants.

TRENDS AND MOTIVES IN STRATEGIC ALLIANCES (2/2)

By combining some of the incentive structures of markets with the monitoring capabilities and administrative controls associated with hierarch, alliances can provide a superior means to gain access to tech and other complex capabilities.

HYPOTHESES (1/4)Opportunities for interfirm transfer of capabilities afforded by different alliance structures influences the choice among them (Kogut, 1988)

Interfirm transfer of tech capabilities will be enhanced in equity joint ventures; participants will display higher increases in tech overlap after formation of equity joint ventures than after formation of contract-based alliances.

Hypothesis 1a

An extension of this logic suggests that interfirm knowledge transfers should be more limited in unilateral contract-based alliances, such as licensing agreements. Bilateral contractual arrangements includes tech sharing or joint development agreements.

Participants in unilateral contract-based alliances will display a lower increase in tech overlap after the formation of the alliance than participants in bilateral contract-based alliances.

Hypothesis 1b

HYPOTHESES (2/4)

Possession of relevant tech skills facilitates inward tech transfer(Rosenberg, 1991; Agmon, 1991) and firms tend to establish alliances with firms which have overlapping tech capabilities (Mowery, 1997)

The extent of a firm’s absorption of tech capabilities from its alliance partners will be positively related to its pre-alliance level of tech overlap with partner firms.

Hypothesis 2a

R&D investment is a necessary condition for the creation of absorptive capacity. Scholars use R&D intensity as a proxy for absorptive capacity.

The extent of a firm’s absorption of technological capabilities from its alliance partners will be positively related to its R&D intensity.

Hypothesis 2b

“Absorptive capacity” is a necessary condition for a firm’s successful exploitation of tech capabilities or knowledge outside its boundaries.

Larger firms have more resources and more diverse tech portfolios. Therefore, they are more likely to possess tech that is relevant to the alliance in question.

The extent of a firm’s absorption of tech capabilities from its alliance partners will be positively related to its size.

Hypothesis 2c

HYPOTHESES (3/4)Interfirm learning is closely related to its “intent to learn” (Hamel, 1991)• Japanese company emerged from an alliance stronger than its partner• A survey of U.S. and Japanese firms, suggests that Japanese firms are more

effective in commercializing innovations based on external sources of tech than are U.S. firms. (Mansfield, 1988)

• National Traits: British firms share the alleged arrogance and lack of receptivity of U.S. firms and French firms’ ability to build competencies and learn from alliances approaches that of the Japanese.

Japanese companies will absorb more of the tech capabilities of alliance partners than will firms from other countries.

Hypothesis 3

HYPOTHESES (4/4)Participation in alliances need not always increase tech overlap• An alliance may enable one firm to gain access to key knowledge based

capabilities of another without internalizing or acquiring that capability. E.g., one firm designs and the other manufactures an advanced semiconductor device

• An alliance enables its members to specialize in different but complementary areas of tech. Partner firms may experience divergence in tech capabilities over the course of the alliance (reflected in lower levels of tech overlap)

• Convergent development through interfirm knowledge transfer are likely to produce inconclusive results. (Mowery et al, 1997)

• One test for alliance effects in the presence of both convergent and divergent development examines the absolute value of changes in tech overlap.

The presence of divergence and convergence within the alliance population will prevent the observation of a consistent post-alliance increase in the tech overlap of alliance partner firms.

Hypothesis 4a

The absolute value of the pre- vs. post- collaboration changes in tech overlap will be greter for alliance partners than for a similar sample of non-allying firm pairs over the same time period.

Hypothesis 4b

MEASURE (1/2)-- TECH CAPABILITIES & INTERFIRM KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

Previous research on interfirm transfer of tech capabilities in strategic alliances• Case studies or small-scale surveys (Lyles, 1988; Sobrero and Roberts,

1996)• R&D intensity used as a proxy for tech resources(Montgomery and

Hariharan, 1991; Nakamura et al., 1996)• Patent data as firms’ tech resources (Silverman, 1996; Mowery et al. 1997)Advantages of Patent Data• Better measures of the output of R&D activities and capabilities

development• More disaggregated measureLimitation of Patent Data • Systematic differences among industries• Codified knowledge that may not capture flows of the tacit knowledge. We

assume that the codified knowledge represented by patents and tacit knowledge are complements, rather than substitutes. That codified knowledge flows and the tacit knowledge flows of interest are closely linked.

MEASURE (2/2)-- TECH CAPABILITIES & INTERFIRM KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

• Citation of prior patents thus serve as an indicator of the tech lineage of new patents

• As Firmi acquires tech knowledge from its partner in an alliance, Firmj. We should see a higher rate of citation of Firmj’s patents in new patents applied for by Firmi

• An increase in this measure is an indication of the degree to which Firmi is acquiring technology-based capabilities from Firmj, i.e., of the extent of interfirm knowledge transfer in the alliance and of the tech overlap between the two companies.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS (1/3)-- SAMPLE AND METHODS

• Cooperative Agreements and Technology Indicators(CATI) database• This database includes 9000 alliances involving some 5000 firms• Collect 792 alliances data

• Involves at least one U.S. partner• Alliance formation between 1985 to 1986

• Control sample (for Hypo.4)• 858 frim pairs of non-allied firm by randomly generating in the CATI sample

132

226434

Equity joint ven-tures (16%)Unilateral con-tract-based al-liances (29%)Bilateral contract-based alliances (55%)

280

102

410

Both are U.S. firms (35%)A Japanese+ A U.S. firm (13%)Elsewhere + A U.S. firm (52%)

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS (2/3)-- SAMPLE AND METHODS

Micropatent data base• Patent granted in the United States since 1975• Constructed patent portfolios for each firm >> Multi-national or

multidivisional firms poses a challenge• Solution: Firm-level patent portfolio

• 1985 edition of Who Owns Whom (North American Edition)• Match firms in the sample with their relevant parent company, subsidiaries and/or

“sister ” subsidiaries• Collect totally 275,000 patents in 838 firms from 1975-1994

Compustat• Other info. for U.S. firms, such as SIC code, based on sales and R&D

spendingCompact Disclosure’s “Worldscope Global” data base

• Other info. for non- U.S. firms, such as SIC code, based on sales and R&D spending

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS (2/3)-- SAMPLE AND METHODS聯盟前雙向的 KT值

聯盟前後雙向KT的改變量聯盟前後單向的 KT值(吸收能力 )

用 Sales替代 Size

聯盟前對該聯盟技術的應用程度(單向 )

RESULTS(1/6)--

• n : Alliance and convergence develop• We restrict our analysis to alliances in which such

transfers take place, i.e., those exhibiting tech “convergence” (DPCTCRSS >0)

• H1a: The positive and significant coefficient for EQUITY implies that equity-based joint ventures support higher levels of transfer than contract-based alliances.

• Extra: Convergent alliances involving firms in the same product lines or markets experience lower levels of interfirm knowledge transfers than those spanning

Interfirm transfer of tech capabilities will be enhanced in equity joint ventures; participants will display higher increases in tech overlap after formation of equity joint ventures than after formation of contract-based alliances.

Hypothesis 1a (Correct)

RESULTS(2/6)--

• n : non-equity alliance and convergence develop• Using the sample of 147 non-equity alliances

exhibiting convergent development• H1b : Unilateral support lower levels of interfirm

knowledge transfer• 因為 DPCTCRSS都是正的，且 UNILAT係數為負，則當策略聯盟為單向時（ UNILAT=1）， DPCTCRSS就會「正的少一點」，即 lower increase的概念。

Participants in unilateral contract-based alliances will display a lower increase in tech overlap after the formation of the alliance than participants in bilateral contract-based alliances.

Hypothesis 1b (Correct)

RESULTS(3/6)--

• n : Alliance and both development (convergence and divergence)

• FIRMLRN : absorb capabilities • H2a : Use only PRECROSS as a measure of

absorptive capacity

The extent of a firm’s absorption of tech capabilities from its alliance partners will be positively related to its pre-alliance level of tech overlap with partner firms.

Hypothesis 2a (Correct)

RESULTS(4/6)--

• n : Subset of 838 alliance data with R&D and sales data

• FIRMLRN : absorb capabilities• H2b and H2c :

• Large firms with in this sample thus appear to absorb fewer capabilities from their alliance partners.

• Relatively R&D intensive firms do not exhibit superior capabilities absorption in alliances.

• Due in the reduction in sample size, the coefficients for both EQUITY and US-nonUS are not significant.

The extent of a firm’s absorption of technological capabilities from its alliance partners will be positively related to its R&D intensity.

Hypothesis 2b (No)

The extent of a firm’s absorption of tech capabilities from its alliance partners will be positively related to its size.

Hypothesis 2c (No)

RESULTS(5/6) • Foreign firms (FORGNCO) don’t

display significantly lower levels of capabilities acquisition than U.S. firms.

• H3: No support for the supposedly superior learning abilities of Japanese companies. If such a difference exists at all for Japan, it’s precisely the opposite of that articulated in the “received wisdom”

Japanese companies will absorb more of the tech capabilities of alliance partners than will firms from other countries.

Hypothesis 3 (No)

RESULTS(6/6) • n : all the alliance, includes non-allies• “Domestic” alliances, in which all

member firms share a common home country, are likely to produce different patterns of interfirm tech transfer and learning than that found in international alliances.

• H4a : Consistent with H4a, the coefficient on ALLIES in Equation 1 is very small and stastistically insignificant (有聯盟的人>> ALLIES為1，才會影響 DPCTCRSS， Eq 1因為考慮了 di / co，所以會互相抵銷； Eq 2是用絕對值，可見聯盟前後的 KT差其實非常明顯 )

• Megan: 丟 ALLIES是為了測量「聯盟」與否的影響性。若沒有 ALLIES變數，則無法知道是否滿足 4b。The presence of divergence and convergence within the alliance population will prevent the observation of a consistent post-alliance increase in the tech overlap of alliance partner firms.

Hypothesis 4a (Correct)

The absolute value of the pre- vs. post- collaboration changes in tech overlap will be greater for alliance partners than for a similar sample of non-allying firm pairs over the same time period.

Hypothesis 4b (Correct)

CONCLUSION(1/2)--

• Uses a novel technique for measuring change in firms’ tech capabilities that allows us to track the effects of alliance activity on interfirm knowledge transfers and the transfer of tech-based capabilities from on partner to another.

• H1a >> Equity joint ventures appear to be more effective conduits for the transfer of complex capabilities than are contract-based alliances such as licensing agreements. (Kogut, 1988)

• H1b >> Lower levels of transfer occur in unilateral contracts than in bilateral non-equity arrangements (Oxley, 1996)

• H2a >> Experience in related tech areas is an important determinant of absorptive capacity (depends on the pre-alliance relationship between the two firms’ patent portfolios) (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990)• Further research on this issue requires better measures of the structure and

activities of individual alliances.

CONCLUSION(2/2)--

• Extra >> U.S. firms’ alliances with non-U.S. firms seem to result in lower levels of interfirm knowledge transfer than those involving only U.S. companies. (Gulati, 1996)

• Convergent/divergent development: Our results suggest the need for a richer conceptual framework in considering the effects of alliance activity on firm-specific knowledge and capabilities.

• Measure of changing firm-specific tech capabilities have considerable promise for broader application to the analysis of firm strategy and tech innovation.

FUTURE WORK AFTER THIS THEORY

• Cited 3249 times.Measure Knowledge Diffusion• SINGH, JASJTT. "MULTINATIONAL FIRMS AND KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION:

EVIDENCE USING PATENT CITATION DATA." Academy of Management Proceedings. Vol. 2004. No. 1. Academy of Management, 2004.

• Appleyard, Melissa M., and Gretchen A. Kalsow. "Knowledge diffusion in the semiconductor industry." Journal of Knowledge Management 3.4 (1999): 288-295.

Tech capability (absorb capability)• Kim, Changsu, and Jaeyong Song. "Creating new technology through

alliances: An empirical investigation of joint patents." Technovation 27.8 (2007): 461-470.

引用其管理上的結論 • e.g. 「有股份的 KT比較好」的結論

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING