伙伴社会价值对企业突破性创新的影响研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究基于交易成本理论分析了在研发联盟组合中，研发合作伙伴的社会价值（中心企业的研发合作伙伴的伙伴数的平均值来衡量）如何作用于企业的突破性创新；同时分析了研发联盟伙伴技术多样性以及地理多样性的调节作用。基于1997年至2017年中国医药制造业构建研发联盟的数据，采用负二项回归分析发现：（1）在研发联盟组合中，研发联盟伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的关系为倒U形；（2）研发联盟伙伴技术多样性减弱了伙伴社会价值对企业突破性创新的倒U作用；（3）研发联盟伙伴地理多样性增强了伙伴社会价值对企业突破性创新的倒U作用。本文的研究结论不仅完善了现有的研发联盟组合文献和伙伴多样性研究文献，还基于交易成本理论为企业管理者进行伙伴选择及联盟组合管理提供重要的思路启发。

本文以1997—2017年间中国医药制造业上市企业为研究对象，从交易成本理论视角探究了研发联盟伙伴社会价值对企业突破性创新的影响作用，以及研发联盟伙伴技术多样性和地理多样性的调节作用。结果表明：（1）研发联盟伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新呈倒U形关系；一方面，研发联盟伙伴具有较高的社会价值能够为企业带来整个行业中企业创新者的技术和信息，并且其具有较强的合作能力和合作经验，能促进中心企业对异质性技术和资源的吸收和利用，从而促进企业的突破性创新，另一方面，具有较高社会价值的伙伴具有较高的议价能力，会利用自己的高议价能力为自身谋利从而增加交易成本和联盟的风险，不利于企业的突破性创新。（2）研发联盟组合中，伙伴技术多样性正向调节伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的倒U形关系，表现为伙伴技术多样性越高，伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的倒U形关系越平缓。（3）研发联盟组合中，伙伴地理多样性负向调节伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的倒U形关系，表现为伙伴地理多样性越高，伙伴社会价值与突破性创新的倒U形关系越陡峭。
本研究的研究结论不仅具有一定的理论价值，丰富了现有的研发联盟组合以及伙伴多样性文献，同时也为企业管理者如何进行伙伴选择以及联盟组合管理提供了重要的思路启发。首先，本研究丰富了研发联盟组合文献。先前的研究分析了伙伴的社会价值的作用机制，但大多基于二元联盟的视角，较少的关注在研发联盟组合层面上的伙伴社会价值对于企业突破性创新的作用机制。本研究基于交易成本理论，提出并验证了研发联盟伙伴对企业突破性创新的倒U形影响作用。其次，本研究基于交易成本理论，探究了研发合作伙伴技术多样性与地理多样性作为边界条件对研发联盟伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的影响作用。企业在构建研发联盟组合的过程中不可避免地会与多样化的伙伴建立合作关系，而伙伴的多样性特征会影响企业从研发联盟组合中的技术和资源的吸收和利用，影响研发联盟的交易成本，从而影响企业的突破性创新。但是现有的研究忽略了研发联盟伙伴多样性特征，尤其是技术多样性和地理多样性的调节作用。本研究提出并探究了研发伙伴技术多样性会减弱伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的倒U形关系，地理多样性会增强伙伴社会价值与企业突破性创新的倒U形关系，在一定程度上丰富了现有的伙伴多样性研究文献。
最后，本研究启示企业的管理者应该意识到与高水平社会价值伙伴合作带来的好处和坏处。虽然，高水平社会价值的伙伴能为企业带来遍布整个行业的资源和信息。但过高的伙伴平均社会价值使得此类伙伴具有较高的议价能力，增加了研发联盟组合资源和信息交换的阻力和研发联盟组合管理成本和复杂性。企业的管理者在构建研发联盟组合过程中应该保持一个中等水平伙伴平均社会价值，避免其负向作用过高损害企业的突破性创新的发展。并且，企业管理者应该意识到研发合作伙伴相对于中心企业的技术多样性和地理多样性的关键作用。在伙伴社会价值从低水平到中等水平的过程中，伙伴的技术多样性会减弱伙伴社会价值的正向作用，但是地理多样性会增强其正向作用。此时，若想达到较好的突破性创新产出，企业管理者应该尽量构建在地理位置上具有多样性的研发联盟组合而不是具有技术多样性的研发联盟组合。在伙伴社会价值从中等水平到高水平的过程中，伙伴技术多样性会减弱伙伴社会价值的负向效应，但是地理多样性会增强其负向效应。此时，企业管理者应该尽量构建在技术上具有多样性的研发联盟组合而不是具有地理位置多样性的研发联盟组合，使得企业能够充分利用伙伴社会价值带来的优势，并减弱其对突破性创新产出带来的不利影响。

关键词: 伙伴社会价值, 伙伴技术多样性, 伙伴地理多样性, 企业突破性创新

Abstract: In a volatile business environment, firms usually build and operate a set of R&D alliances with multiple external partners as R&D alliance portfolios to achieve economic and technological objectives. However, due to the less transparent information disclosure process in emerging markets, it is difficult for firms to obtain reliable information about potential partners through public sources. As a result, firms trend to view the high frequency with which a specific partner is selected by other firms as a convincing signal of quality, because others′ actions can help the focal firm to reduce information asymmetries associating with partner selection decisions. Thus, the R&D alliance portfolio is often featured with high partners′ social value. Previous studies have examined how partners′ social value of the R&D alliance portfolio influence firms′ innovation outcomes, however, the conclusions are inconsistent. Specifically, how partners′ social value influences firms′ critical innovation still remains unknown. This study attempts to fill this gap by drawing on transaction cost theory to examine how partners′ social value of R&D alliance portfolio (which is measured as the average of the linkages of all partners in R&D alliance portfolio) influences firms′ critical innovation.
Because few of the previous studies focus on exploring the boundary effect of partners′ social value on firms′ critical innovation, while, the attributes of participants in the alliance portfolio can indeed affect the information obtained by the focal firm from external partners, especially the technological diversity and geographic diversity of R&D partners in the R&D alliance portfolio. Still, how partners′ technological diversity and geographic diversity moderate the relationship between partners′ social value and firms′ critical innovation remains unclear.
The empirical study, leveraging Chinese listed biopharmaceutical firms during a twenty-year period (1997-2017), and using a negative binomial regression model, aims to fill these gaps by posing two research questions. First, how partners′ social value of R&D alliance portfolio influences firms′ critical innovation. Second, how partners′ technological diversity and geographic diversity moderate the relationship between partners′ social value and firms′ critical innovation. Our results indicate that: (1) Partners′ social value has an inverted U-shaped effect on firms′ critical innovation; (2) Partners′ technological diversity weakens the inverted U-shaped effect of partners′ social value on firms′ critical innovation. The higher the technological diversity of the partners, the inverted-U shaped relationship between partners′ social value and firms′ innovation is weakened; (3) Partners′ geographic diversity has enhanced the inverted U-shaped effect of partners′ social value on firms′ critical innovation. The higher the geographical diversity of partners, the inverted-U shaped relationship between partners′ social value and firms′ critical innovation is steeper. Because existing research provides multiple measurements of firms′ critical innovation, we also use the number of citations of firms′ patent as the measurement of firms′ critical innovation to conduct a robustness test, the results further indicate that the conclusion of this article is still robust.
Relevant research results not only help supplement the existing literature on alliance portfolio and partner diversity but also can provide useful references for managers of the focal firms to select partners and manage their R&D alliance portfolio, thereby improving their innovation capabilities and innovation investment efficiency.

Key words: partners′ social value, partners′ technological diversity, partners′ geographic diversity, firms′ critical innovation

毕静煜谢恩. 伙伴社会价值对企业突破性创新的影响研究[J]. 科研管理, 2021, 42(1): 67-77.

Bi Jingyu, Xie En. A research on the impact of partner′s social value on firms′ critical innovation[J]. Science Research Management, 2021, 42(1): 67-77.

参考文献

[1] 王龙伟,任胜钢,谢恩.合作研发对企业创新绩效的影响研究—基于治理机制的调节分析 [J]. 科学学研究, 2011, 29(5): 785 – 792.

[2] 王道平，韦小彦，方放.基于技术标准特征的标准研发联盟合作伙伴选择研究 [J]. 科研管理,2015, 36(1): 81 – 89.

[3] Li H, Zhang Y. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China’s transition economy [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28(8): 791 – 804.

[4] Peng M W, Buck T, Filatotchev I. Do outside directors and new managers help improve firm performance? An exploratory study in Russian privatization [J]. Journal of World Business, 2003, 38(4): 348 – 360.

[5] Williamson O E. The economic institutions of capitalism-transaction cost economics [J]. The Political Economy Reader Markets as Institutions, 1985: 185 – 194.

[6] Vasudeva G, Spencer J W, Teegen H J. Bringing the institutional context back in: A cross-national comparison of alliance partner selection and knowledge acquisition [J]. Organization Science, 2013, 24(2): 319 – 338.

[7] Belderbos R, Gilsing V A, Jacob J. Technology alliances in emerging economies: Persistence and interrelation in European firms’ alliance formation [J]. R&D Management, 2013, 43(5): 447 – 460.

[8] Belderbos R, Olffen W V, Zou J. Generic and specific social learning mechanisms in foreign entry location choice [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2011, 32: 1309 – 1330.

[9] Dacin M T, Oliver C, Roy J P. The legitimacy of strategic alliances: An institutional perspective [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28(2): 169 – 187.

[10] Sorenson O, Stuart T. Bringing the context back in: Settings and the search for syndicate partners in venture capital investment networks [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2008, 53(2): 266 – 294.

[11] Zheng Y, Yang H. Does familiarity foster innovation? The impact of alliance partner repeatedness on breakthrough innovations [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2015, 52(2): 213 – 230.

[12] 李靖华, 黄继生. 网络嵌入、创新合法性与突破性创新的资源获取 [J]. 科研管理, 2017, 38(4): 10 – 18.

[13] Powell W W, White D R, Koput K W, et al. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 2005, 110(4): 1132 – 1205.

[14] Sampson R C. R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(2): 364 – 386.

[15] Miller D J. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010, 27(7): 601 – 611.

[16] Gomes-Casseres B, Hagedoorn J, Jaffe A B. Do alliances promote knowledge flows [J]. Journal of Financial Economic, 2005, 80(1): 5 – 33.

[17] Ozmel U, Robinson D T, Stuart T E. Strategic alliances, venture capital, and exit decisions in early stage high-tech firms [J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2013, 107(3): 655 – 670.

[18] Shi W, Sun S L, Pinkham B C, et al. Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2014, 45(3): 338 – 362.

[19] Oehme M, Bort S. SME internationalization modes in the German biotechnology industry: The influence of imitation, network position, and international experience [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2015, 46(6): 629 – 655.

[20] Bruyaka O, Durand R. Sell–off or shut–down? Alliance portfolio diversity and two types of high tech firms’ exit [J]. Strategic Organization, 2011, 10(1): 7 – 30.

[21] Jiang R J, Tao Q T, Santoro M D. Research notes and commentaries alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010, 31(12): 1136 – 1144.

[22] Wuyts S, Dutta S. Benefiting from alliance portfolio diversity: The role of past internal knowledge [J]. Journal of Management, 2014, 40: 1653 – 1674.

[23] Lee C Y, Wang M C, Huang Y C. The double-edged sword of technological diversity in R&D alliances: Network position and learning speed as moderators [J]. European Management Journal, 2015, 33(6): 450 – 461.

[24] Page S E. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies-new edition [M]. Princeton University Press, 2008.

[25] Lahiri N. Geographic distribution of R&D activity: How does it affect innovation quality [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2010, 53(5): 1194 – 1209.

[26] 魏江, 应瑛, 刘洋. 研发活动地理分散性、技术多样性与创新绩效 [J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(5): 772 – 779.

[27] Ocasio W. Towards an attention-based view of the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010, 18(1): 187 – 206.

[28] Guan J, Liu N. Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy [J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(1): 97 – 112.

[29] 赵博, 毕克新. 基于专利的我国制造业低碳突破性创新动态演化规律分析 [J]. 管理世界, 2016, 7: 182 – 183.

[30] Phelps C C. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2010, 53(4): 890 – 913.

[31] Li J J, Poppo L, Zhou K Z. Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty, and domestic vs. foreign firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2008, 29(5): 383 – 400.

[32] Nohria N, Gulati R. Is slack good or bad for innovation [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(5): 1245 – 1264.

[33] Lind J T, Mehlum H. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship [J]. Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, 2010, 72(1): 109–118.

[34] Fieller E C. Some problems in interval estimation [J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1954, 16(2): 175 – 185.

[35] Tortoriello M, McEvily B, Krackhardt D. Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure [J]. Organization Science, 2015, 26(2): 423 – 438.