IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v196y2023ics0040162523005395.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How firms support formal standardization: The role of alliance portfolio and internal technological diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Wen, Jinyan
  • Li, Jian
  • Zhou, Qing
  • Zeng, Deming
  • Harms, Rainer

Abstract

Influencing formal standard setting through supporting the technical solutions advocated by leading firms is crucial for firms to make their technology become a part of the ecosystem of the dominant standards and to ensure market acceptance. Nevertheless, the problem is that potential supporters do not know how to improve their ability to support formal standardization. This problem is relevant because supporters are the majority of firms in technology ecosystems, failing to contribute to the standard may render firms irrelevant in future markets, and a low degree of support slows down standardization processes and hence technological innovation. Using the knowledge-based view of the firm, we hypothesize that the diversity of a firm's external alliance portfolio and internal technology base affects the firm's capability of supporting standardization. An analysis of panel data of 186 vehicle manufacturers in the Chinese automobile industry from 1999 to 2020 shows that the alliance portfolio diversity (APD) has an inverted U-shaped relationship with firms' ability to support formal standardization. A firm enjoys an advantage in supporting standardization when it maintains a technology base with highly related diversity but suffers a disadvantage when it is highly diversified across unrelated domains. Further, related and unrelated technological diversity steepens the slopes of the inverted U-shape relationship between alliance portfolio diversity and the ability to support standardization. This study extends standardization literature, adding new insight of knowledge-driven to the research on the antecedents of the firm capability to influence standardization.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen, Jinyan & Li, Jian & Zhou, Qing & Zeng, Deming & Harms, Rainer, 2023. "How firms support formal standardization: The role of alliance portfolio and internal technological diversity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:196:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005395
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523005395
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122854?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barry L. Bayus & Rajshree Agarwal, 2007. "The Role of Pre-Entry Experience, Entry Timing, and Product Technology Strategies in Explaining Firm Survival," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1887-1902, December.
    2. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Gagliardi, Luisa, 2018. "The innovative performance of firms in heterogeneous environments: The interplay between external knowledge and internal absorptive capacities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 782-795.
    3. Caillaud, Bernard & Jullien, Bruno, 2003. "Chicken & Egg: Competition among Intermediation Service Providers," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 309-328, Summer.
    4. Ardito, Lorenzo & Peruffo, Enzo & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2019. "The relationships between the internationalization of alliance portfolio diversity, individual incentives, and innovation ambidexterity: A microfoundational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    5. Simon Rodan & Charles Galunic, 2004. "More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(6), pages 541-562, June.
    6. Konstantinos Grigoriou & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2017. "Organizing for knowledge generation: internal knowledge networks and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 395-414, February.
    7. Carolina Castaldi & Koen Frenken & Bart Los, 2015. "Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 767-781, May.
    8. Richard F. J. Haans & Constant Pieters & Zi-Lin He, 2016. "Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1177-1195, July.
    9. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    10. Tianxu Chen & Lihong Qian & Vadake Narayanan, 2017. "Battle on the Wrong Field? Entrant Type, Dominant Designs, and Technology Exit," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(13), pages 2579-2598, December.
    11. Escribano, Alvaro & Fosfuri, Andrea & Tribó, Josep A., 2009. "Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 96-105, February.
    12. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    13. Funk, Jeffrey L., 2003. "Standards, dominant designs and preferential acquisition of complementary assets through slight information advantages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1325-1341, September.
    14. Marianna Makri & Michael A. Hitt & Peter J. Lane, 2010. "Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 602-628, June.
    15. ., 2003. "Introduction: Two Images of Economics," Chapters, in: Modeling Rational Agents, chapter 1, pages 1-40, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Suzuki, Jun & Kodama, Fumio, 2004. "Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: Two case studies of large Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 531-549, April.
    17. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    18. Schott, Lennart & Schaefer, Kerstin J., 2023. "Acceptance of Chinese latecomers' technological contributions in international ICT standardization — The role of origin, experience and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    19. Sobrero, Maurizio & Roberts, Edward B., 2002. "Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 159-182, January.
    20. Zhu, Kejia & Malhotra, Shavin & Li, Yaohan, 2022. "Technological diversity of patent applications and decision pendency," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    21. Pek‐Hooi Soh, 2010. "Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 438-461, April.
    22. Eocman Lee & Jeho Lee & Jongseok Lee, 2006. "Reconsideration of the Winner-Take-All Hypothesis: Complex Networks and Local Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1838-1848, December.
    23. Ram Ranganathan & Anindya Ghosh & Lori Rosenkopf, 2018. "Competition–cooperation interplay during multifirm technology coordination: The effect of firm heterogeneity on conflict and consensus in a technology standards organization," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3193-3221, December.
    24. Ruihua Joy Jiang & Qingjiu Tom Tao & Michael D. Santoro, 2010. "Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(10), pages 1136-1144, October.
    25. Flor, M. Luisa & Cooper, Sarah Y. & Oltra, María J., 2018. "External knowledge search, absorptive capacity and radical innovation in high-technology firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 183-194.
    26. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    27. Wen, Jinyan & Qualls, William J. & Zeng, Deming, 2021. "To explore or exploit: The influence of inter-firm R&D network diversity and structural holes on innovation outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    28. John Hagedoorn & Boris Lokshin & Ann‐Kristin Zobel, 2018. "Partner Type Diversity in Alliance Portfolios: Multiple Dimensions, Boundary Conditions and Firm Innovation Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(5), pages 809-836, July.
    29. Vittorio Chiesa & Giovanni Toletti, 2003. "Standard-Setting Strategies in the Multimedia Sector," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(03), pages 281-308.
    30. Gao, Xudong, 2014. "A latecomer's strategy to promote a technology standard: The case of Datang and TD-SCDMA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 597-607.
    31. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Claudia Bird Schoonhoven, 1996. "Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 136-150, April.
    32. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    33. Guan, Jiancheng & Zhao, Qingjun, 2013. "The impact of university–industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1271-1286.
    34. Nambisan, Satish, 2013. "Industry technical committees, technological distance, and innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 928-940.
    35. Yu-Shan Chen & Chun-Yu Shih & Ching-Hsun Chang, 2012. "The effects of related and unrelated technological diversification on innovation performance and corporate growth in the Taiwan’s semiconductor industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 117-134, July.
    36. Annapoornima M. Subramanian & Young Rok Choi & Soo-Hoon Lee & Chang-Chieh Hang, 2016. "Linking technological and educational level diversities to innovation performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 182-204, April.
    37. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    38. Balaji R. Koka & John E. Prescott, 2008. "Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 639-661, June.
    39. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    40. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    41. Robert M. Grant & Charles Baden‐Fuller, 2004. "A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 61-84, January.
    42. Schott, Lennart & Schaefer, Kerstin, 2023. "Acceptance of Chinese latecomers' technological contributions in international ICT standardization — the role of origin, experience and collaboration," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 116987, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    43. Dirk De Clercq & Dimo Dimov, 2008. "Internal Knowledge Development and External Knowledge Access in Venture Capital Investment Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 585-612, May.
    44. Garcia Martinez, Marian & Zouaghi, Ferdaous & Sanchez Garcia, Mercedes, 2017. "Capturing value from alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating role of R&D human capital in high and low tech industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 55-67.
    45. Corey C. Phelps, 2010. "A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation," Post-Print hal-00528392, HAL.
    46. de Leeuw, Tim & Lokshin, Boris & Duysters, Geert, 2014. "Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm's innovative performance and productivity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1839-1849.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen, Jinyan & Qualls, William J. & Zeng, Deming, 2021. "To explore or exploit: The influence of inter-firm R&D network diversity and structural holes on innovation outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Doohee Chung & Marco Jinhwan Kim & Jina Kang, 2019. "Influence of alliance portfolio diversity on innovation performance: the role of internal capabilities of value creation," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 1093-1120, November.
    3. Wadhwa, Anu & Phelps, Corey & Kotha, Suresh, 2016. "Corporate venture capital portfolios and firm innovation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 95-112.
    4. Zihanxin Li & Guilong Zhu, 2021. "Knowledge Transfer Performance of Industry-University-Research Institute Collaboration in China: The Moderating Effect of Partner Difference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Maria Chiara Di Guardo & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Elona Marku, 2019. "M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 669-692, September.
    6. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 755-785, September.
    7. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    8. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    10. Marcus Wagner & Wilfried Zidorn, 2017. "Effects of extent and diversity of alliancing on innovation: the moderating role of firm newness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 919-936, December.
    11. Martínez-Noya, Andrea & García-Canal, Esteban, 2021. "Innovation performance feedback and technological alliance portfolio diversity: The moderating role of firms’ R&D intensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    12. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2020. "Ties that matter: The impact of alliance partner knowledge recombination novelty on knowledge utilization in R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    13. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2016. "The role of diversification profiles and dyadic characteristics in the formation of technological alliances: Differences between exploitation and exploration in a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 517-532.
    14. Bae, Joonhyung & Ozmel, Umit, 2024. "The interplay between product development failures and alliance portfolio properties in the formation of exploration versus exploitation alliances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    15. Dai, Haiwen & Qualls, William J. & Zhu, You, 2024. "Win, lose, or draw? Forecasting the outcome of a race toward a dominant formal standard with machine learning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Hohberger, Jan & Almeida, Paul & Parada, Pedro, 2015. "The direction of firm innovation: The contrasting roles of strategic alliances and individual scientific collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1473-1487.
    17. Christopher R. Penney & James G. Combs, 2020. "A Transaction Cost Perspective of Alliance Portfolio Diversity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1073-1105, September.
    18. Shuman Zhang & Changhong Yuan & Chen Han, 2020. "Industry–university–research alliance portfolio size and firm performance: the contingent role of political connections," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1505-1534, October.
    19. Hugo Ernesto Martínez Ardila & Julián Eduardo Mora Moreno & Jaime Alberto Camacho Pico, 2020. "Networks of collaborative alliances: the second order interfirm technological distance and innovation performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1255-1282, August.
    20. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:196:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005395. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.