IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/gemptp/hal-00526726.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Large Players In The Nanogame: Dedicated Nanotech Subsidiaries Or Distributed Nanotech Capabilities?

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Mangematin

    (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

  • Khalid Errabi

    (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

  • Caroline Gauthier

    (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

Abstract

Nanotechnologies are reshaping the boundaries between industries, combining two aspects of innovation - both enhancing competences based on cumulative knowledge and experience and destroying competences by forcing the renewal of the firm's knowledge base. To analyze how worldwide R&D leaders adapt to this new technology, we conduct an econometric analysis of about 3,000 subsidiaries of the largest R&D spenders. We find that large groups are creating medium size subsidiary companies to explore nanotechnologies. Knowledge circulates mostly amongst subsidiaries within the same group and scientific clusters do not affect their involvement in nanotechnologies. Nanotechnologies remain marginal within these subsidiaries' knowledge bases and are distributed within corporate groups, stimulating recombination between nanotechnology and other technologies

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2011. "Large Players In The Nanogame: Dedicated Nanotech Subsidiaries Or Distributed Nanotech Capabilities?," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00526726, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:gemptp:hal-00526726
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-011-9209-8
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00526726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00526726/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-011-9209-8?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grid Thoma, 2009. "Striving for a large market: evidence from a general purpose technology in action," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(1), pages 107-138, February.
    2. Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2000. "Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The Transformation of NCR in the Electronic Era," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1083-1103, October.
    3. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R. & Furner, Jonathan & Liu, Robert C. & Ma, Hongyan, 2007. "Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 850-863, July.
    4. Frank T. Rothaermel & Charles W. L. Hill, 2005. "Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 52-70, February.
    5. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    6. Mogoutov, Andrei & Kahane, Bernard, 2007. "Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 893-903, July.
    7. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, April.
    8. Lionel Nesta & Vincent Mangematin, 1999. "What kind of Knowledge can a firm absorb?," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-03471555, HAL.
    9. Nesta, Lionel, 2008. "Knowledge and productivity in the world's largest manufacturing corporations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 886-902, September.
    10. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    11. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    12. Gino Cattani, 2006. "Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(2), pages 285-318, April.
    13. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    14. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Corine Genet & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2012. "Which Model of Technology Transfer for Nanotechnology? A Comparison with Biotech and Microelectronics," Post-Print hal-00749152, HAL.
    2. Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi, 2012. "The Determinants Of The Science-Based Cluster Growth: The Case Of Nanotechnologies," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00526701, HAL.
    3. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2012. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors at the regional level: a proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1211, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2012.
    4. Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi, 2012. "The Determinants of Science-Based Cluster Growth: The Case of Nanotechnology," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 128-146, February.
    5. Daniela Baglieri & Gianni Lorenzoni, 2014. "Closing the distance between academia and market: experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 52-74, February.
    6. Massaro, Sebastiano & Lorenzoni, Gianni, 2021. "Nanomedicine: a socio-technical system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. Colombelli, Alessandra & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2014. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1681-1696.
    8. Mario Coccia & Ugo Finardi & Diego Margon, 2012. "Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 777-787, October.
    9. Caroline Gauthier & Corine Genet, 2014. "Nanotechnologies and Green Knowledge Creation: Paradox or Enhancer of Sustainable Solutions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 571-583, November.

    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. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    2. Colombelli, Alessandra & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2014. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1681-1696.
    3. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2012. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors at the regional level: a proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1211, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2012.
    4. Dovev Lavie & Israel Drori, 2012. "Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 704-724, June.
    5. Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Identifying Nanotechnological Linkages in the Finnish Economy - An Explorative Study," Discussion Papers 1101, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    6. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    7. Caroline Gauthier & Corine Genet, 2014. "Nanotechnologies and Green Knowledge Creation: Paradox or Enhancer of Sustainable Solutions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 571-583, November.
    8. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    9. Li, Xu, 2024. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120131, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Andrea Schiffauerova & Catherine Beaudry, 2009. "Canadian nanotechnology innovation networks: intra-cluster, inter-cluster and foreign collaboration," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 119-146.
    11. Corine Genet & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2012. "Which Model of Technology Transfer for Nanotechnology? A Comparison with Biotech and Microelectronics," Post-Print hal-00749152, HAL.
    12. Bhussar, Manjot S. & Sexton, Jennifer C. & Zorn, Michelle L. & Song, Yue, 2022. "High-tech acquisitions: How acquisition pace, venture maturity, and founder retention influence firm innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 620-635.
    13. Sophie Hooge & Olga Kokshagina & Pascal Le Masson & Kevin Levillain & Benoit Weil & Vincent Fabreguettes & Nathalie Popiolek, 2014. "Designing generic technologies in Energy Research: learning from two CEA technologies for double unknown management," Post-Print hal-00987214, HAL.
    14. Sabatier, Mareva & Chollet, Barthélemy, 2017. "Is there a first mover advantage in science? Pioneering behavior and scientific production in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 522-533.
    15. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    17. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    18. Maryann P. Feldman & Iryna Lendel, 2010. "Under the Lens: The Geography of Optical Science as an Emerging Industry," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 86(2), pages 147-171, April.
    19. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "Firms’ influence on the evolution of published knowledge when a science-related technology emerges: the case of artificial intelligence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 209-247, January.
    20. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    incumbent; inflexibility; hybridization; nanotechnology; pre-adaptation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:gemptp:hal-00526726. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.