1. Marcus Bellamy Alun Jones Session 6: Knowledge & Collaboration Networks

2. Big Picture Keywords Knowledge Networks, Path Dependence, Economic Geography, Centrality, Collaboration Modes/Networks, Resource-Based View Intraorganizatoinal Networks, Interorganizational Networks Central Themes Network-based mechanisms are used to overcome problems of bounded rationality, uncertainty, and incomplete information Studies of innovation should take into account the dual importance of physical location and institutional anchors Drawing on statistical methods to validate network-centric arguments focused on network structure, dynamics, and nodal properties

3. Nerkar & Paruchuri (2005) Evolution of R&D Capabilities: The Role of Knowledge Networks Within a Firm Key Questions Are patents among the most valid indicators of technological competence? Are there other concrete/proxy indicators of technological competence that are supplemental, just as useful, or better? Key Perspectives (Intraorganizational View) R&D: main function is to generate new knowledge by recombining existing knowledge Structural characteristics of members: indicators of quality (fitness for use) and richness (diversity of content)

4. Nerkar & Paruchuri (2005) Evolution of R&D Capabilities: The Role of Knowledge Networks Within a Firm Key Contributions Centrality: a signal of quality; leads to greater reach to other parts of network; positively associated with likelihood of knowledge selection Spanning of structural holes: signal of richness; enjoy efficiency and control benefits (knowledge broker); unique rather than redundant information; positively associated with likelihood of knowledge selection Inventors in strategic positions within a network of inventors influence the processes of selection in their favor Incorporates sociological view into economic-oriented (socioeconomic) Reinforce & amplify each other

5. Owen-Smith & Powell (2004) Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community Key Questions What measure(s) of centrality best fits your analysis? Does the notion of channels and conduits clash with that of measures of direct and indirect links? e.g. Interorganizational alliances functioning more as channels than as conduits Key Perspectives (Interorganizational View) Strucutral Features: informal ties, board interlocks, strategic alliances Nonstrucutral Features: characteristics of the organizations, geographic location, institutional underpinnings of the larger structure Networks as both “open” Channels and “closed” Conduits

6. Owen-Smith & Powell (2004) Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community Key Contributions Integrated geographic and network explanations for innovation rates of biotechnology firms (as well as for firms in other high- technology sectors) Offered notable propositions about the relationship between propinquity, institutional diversity, network position, and innovation Considered not only networks structural features, but also node characteristics

7. Pisano & Verganti (2008) Which Kind of Collaboration is Right for You? Key Questions Given your strategy, how open or closed should your firm’s network of collaborators be? Who should decide which problems the network will tackle and which solutions will be adopted? Is it possible to use a combination of collaboration modes simultaneously to support one’s strategies? Does the same, four-mode framework still apply? Should some form of “industry weight” be incorporated into this framework? Key Perspectives Collaboration Architecture: a firm’s structure and organizing principles Open Networks: support from an unlimited number of problem solvers Closed Networks: “private clubs” Hierarchical: “kingpins” control the direction and value of innovation Flat: players are equal partners in the process and share the power to decide key issues

8. Pisano & Verganti (2008) Which Kind of Collaboration is Right for You? Key Contributions Firms that choose the most suitable collaboration mode will have the edge in the relentless race to develop new technologies designs, products, and services Open: Sample selection problem; Intangible properties difficult to screen Closed: Very risky if you don’t know where to look or who the key players are Two different collaboration modes can be just as effective by firms serving the same industry Due to differences in strategy and capabilities

9. Rijnsoever et al. (2008) A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers Key Questions In what ways does a well-kept network become a valuable resource for a scientist? In light of the limited, localized survey responses, to what extent can these research findings be used? (i.e. is it valid to generalize any portion of these findings to academia in general?) Key Perspectives Unit of analysis: individual researcher Independent Variables: Global Innovativeness, Work Experience, Dynamics of the Scientific Field, Control Variables (Dept, Sex) Dependent Variables: Academic Rank, Network Activity (Network) Affiliation Types: faculty, university, external, industry

10. Rijnsoever et al. (2008) A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers Key Contributions Supplements the current research on collaborations and networking in science by Researching at a micro perspective Investigating the factors that influence the intensity of interactions Apply a resource-based view as an explanatory mechanism The competitive advantage of an individual researcher has several dimensions: Successful cooperation can lead to a larger number of publications Advancement in academic rank Strengthened position in competition for research grants Reasons for collaboration very often relate to the individual’s own resource stock which can be used to gain a competitive advantage Innovativeness does not have any effect on industry network activity

11. Extension Including different types of ties for more comprehensive findings e.g. Going beyond only considering copatenting Extending some of the studies to include a broader base e.g. surveying more universities, different regions for understanding the interactions of university researchers