Configurational analysis of proximities in innovation alliances
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Alliances have become a critical factor for innovation development. However, the lack of proximity between partners, which goes beyond the geographical facet, can influence alliance’ outcomes. Despite this understanding, little is known about the interrelationship of proximities in innovation alliances. This research aims to underscore which proximities’ combinations lead to exploration and exploitation alliances. To achieve this goal, we conducted a survey with 174 high-tech companies and adopted the method of Comparative Qualitative Analysis (QCA). The results underline the exploration alliances reliance on social, cognitive, or institutional proximity with physically close partners. Furthermore, exploitation alliances are dependent on cognitive and social proximity, in addition to the absence of organizational proximity. We conclude that alliances innovative orientation does not differ across all proximities dimensions and we highlight the relevance of social ties.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
A RAE compromete-se a contribuir com a proteção dos direitos intelectuais do autor. Nesse sentido:
- adota a licença Creative Commoms BY (CC-BY) em todos os textos que publica, exceto quando houver indicação de específicos detentores dos direitos autorais e patrimoniais;
- adota software de detecção de similaridades;
- adota ações de combate ao plagio e má conduta ética, alinhada às diretrizes do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
References
Alves, A. C., Fischer, B., Vonortas, N. S., & Queiroz, S. R. R. D. (2019). Configurações de ecossistemas de empreendedorismo intensivo em conhecimento. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 59(4), 242-257. doi: 10.1590/S0034-759020190403
Ardito, L., Peruffo, E., & Natalicchio, A. (2019). The relationships between the internationalization of alliance portfolio diversity, individual incentives, and innovation ambidexterity: A microfoundational approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119714. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119714
Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907-920. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.883598
Barbosa, A. P. F. P. L. (2018). Managing collaborative R&D projects with different types of knowledge sources (Ph.D Thesis, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade). Recuperado de https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/12/12139/tde-12062018-121650/fr.php
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. doi: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
Bishop, K., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2011). Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 40(1), 30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.009
Blindenbach‐Driessen, F., & Ende, J. Van den. (2014). The locus of innovation: The effect of a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 1089-1105. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12146
Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320887
Boschma, R. A. (2021). The role of non-local linkages for innovation (Working Paper). Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography.
Bouncken, R. B., Pesch, R., & Kraus, S. (2015). SME innovativeness in buyer–seller alliances: Effects of entry timing strategies and inter-organizational learning. Review of Managerial Science, 9(2), 361-384. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0160-6
Broekel, T. (2015). The co-evolution of proximities: A network level study. Regional Studies, 49(6), 921-935. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.1001732
Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbr010
Davids, M., & Frenken, K. (2018). Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: Towards an integrated framework. Regional Studies, 52(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1287349
Enkel, E., & Heil, S. (2014). Preparing for distant collaboration: Antecedents to potential absorptive capacity in cross-industry innovation. Technovation, 34(4), 242-260. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.010
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
Garcia, R., Araujo, V., Mascarini, S., Santos, E. G. Dos, & Costa, A. (2018). Is cognitive proximity a driver of geographical distance of university–industry collaboration? Area Development and Policy, 3(3), 349-367. doi: 10.1080/23792949.2018.1484669
Geldes, C., Heredia, J., Felzensztein, C., & Mora, M. (2017). Proximity as determinant of business cooperation for technological and non-technological innovations: A study of an agribusiness cluster. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(1), 168-179. doi: /10.1108/JBIM-01-2016-0003
Gonçalves, E., & Fajardo, B. D. A. G. (2011). A influência da proximidade tecnológica e geográfica sobre a inovação regional no Brasil. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, 15(1), 112-142. Recuperado de https://www.scielo.br/j/rec/a/MtKkTL4ZXgQrmgqmgZZGtTs/?format=pdf&lang=pt
Gonzalez, R. V. D., & Melo, T. M. D. (2018). Inovação por exploração e explotação do conhecimento: Um estudo empírico do setor automobilístico. Gestão & Produção, 25(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1590/0104-530X3899-17
Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619-652. doi: 10.2307/2393756
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2012). Análise multivariada de dados. Porto Alegre: Bookman Editora.
Hansen, T. (2014). Juggling with proximity and distance: Collaborative innovation projects in the Danish cleantech industry. Economic Geography, 90(4), 375-402. doi: 10.1111/ecge.12057
Hansen, T. (2015). Substitution or overlap? The relations between geographical and non-spatial proximity dimensions in collaborative innovation projects. Regional Studies, 49(10), 1672-1684. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.873120
Hansen, T., & Mattes, J. (2018). Proximity and power in collaborative innovation projects. Regional Studies, 52(1), 35-46. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1263387
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Hinzmann, S., Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2019). The role of geographical proximity for project performance: Evidence from the German leading-edge cluster competition. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(6), 1744-1783. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9600-1
Huber, F. (2011). On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: Personal knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge information technology cluster. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1169-1182. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.569539
Iammarino, S., & McCann, P. (2006). The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Research Policy, 35(7), 1018-1036. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.004
Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008
Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283-312. doi: 10.1177%2F1476127010387409
Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121.x
Lauvås, T., & Steinmo, M. (2019). The role of proximity dimensions and mutual commitment in shaping the performance of university-industry research centres. Innovation: Organization and Management, 23(2), 182-208. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1662725
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155. doi: 10.5465/19416521003691287
Leeuw, T., Lokshin, B., & Duysters, G. (2014). Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm's innovative performance and productivity. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1839-1849. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.12.005
Li, R., Fu, L., & Liu, Z. (2020). Does openness to innovation matter? The moderating role of open innovation between organizational ambidexterity and innovation performance. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 28(2), 251-271. doi: 10.1080/19761597.2020.1734037
Liu, L., Wang, F., & Li, X. (2019). Comparing the configured causal antecedents of exploration and exploitation: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 13(1), 1-25. doi: 10.1186/s11782-019-0048-z
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672. doi: 10.1177%2F0149206306290712
March, J. G. (1991).Exploration and Exploitation Organizational Learning. . Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Martin, R., & Moodysson, J. (2013). Comparing knowledge bases: On the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2), 170-187. doi: 10.1177%2F0969776411427326
Martínez-Noya, A., & Narula, R. (2018). What more can we learn from R&D alliances? A review and research agenda. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 21(3), 195-212. doi: 10.1016%2Fj.brq.2018.04.001
Marx, A., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2014). The origins, development, and application of qualitative comparative analysis: The first 25 years. European Political Science Review, 6(1), 115-142. doi: 10.1017/S1755773912000318
Mattar, F. N. (2006). Pesquisa de marketing. São Paulo, SP: Atlas.
Mattes, J. (2012). Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: Innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1085-1099. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.552493
Molina-Morales, F. X., Belso-Martínez, J. A., Más-Verdú, F., & Martínez-Cháfer, L. (2015). Formation and dissolution of inter-firm linkages in lengthy and stable networks in clusters. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1557-1562. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.051
Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
O'Connor, M., Doran, J., & McCarthy, N. (2020). Cognitive proximity and innovation performance: Are collaborators equal?. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3),637-654. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0347
Pickernell, D., Jones, P., & Beynon, M. J. (2019). Innovation performance and the role of clustering at the local enterprise level: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis approach approach. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(1-2), 82-103. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2018.1537149
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Schamp, E. W., Rentmeister, B., & Lo, V. (2004). Dimensions of proximity in knowledge-based networks: The cases of investment banking and automobile design. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 607-624. doi: 10.1080/0965431042000219978
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2013). Set-theoretic methods for social science: A guide qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2016). How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1250-1259. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.006
Tiwana, A., Jijie, W., Keil, M., & Ahluwalia, P. (2007). The bounded rationality bias in managerial valuation of real options: Theory and evidence from IT projects. Decision Sciences, 38(1), 157-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00152.x
Xu, J., Yang, F. F., & Xue, D. (2019). The geography of knowledge sourcing, personal networks, and innovation effects: Evidence from the biomedical firms in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(12), 3412. doi: 10.3390/su11123412
Yang, T. T., & Li, C. R. (2011). Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development: The moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness. Management Decision, 49(9), 1444-1470. doi: 10.1108/00251741111173934
