DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14483/22487638.21004Publicado:
28-12-2024Número:
Vol. 28 Núm. 82 (2024): Octubre - DiciembreSección:
RevisiónAlianzas interorganizacionales e innovación: una revisión exploratoria
Interorganizational alliances and innovation. A scopping review
Palabras clave:
Alliances, Innovation, Technological Proximity, Performance (en).Palabras clave:
Alianzas, Innovación, Proximidad tecnológica, desempeño (es).Descargas
Resumen (es)
Objetivo: las alianzas se posicionan como uno de los modos más comunes para obtener capacidades tecnológicas en la actualidad. Sin embargo, un gran porcentaje de estas alianzas no obtiene los resultados esperados en términos
de innovación, lo cual supone un desperdicio de tiempo y recursos para los socios colaboradores. Por tanto, resulta imperativo analizar los atributos de las alianzas tecnológicas, para así lograr un máximo desempeño innovador. En este sentido, este artículo tiene como objetivo identificar el estado actual de la literatura y ofrecer un panorama sobre los conceptos, elementos clave y sus relaciones.
Metodología: para esta revisión, se adoptó la metodología de revisión exploratoria desarrollada por Arksey y O’Malley en 2005, la cual incluye las definiciones de pregunta de investigación, selección de las fuentes de información, desarrollo de la revisión y síntesis de la información. Durante el proceso se trabajaron diferentes criterios de selección para los artículos y revisiones publicados entre 2015 y 2023, así como estrategias de diagramación y categorización para organizar la información.
Resultados: se identificaron los indicadores más frecuentes en la literatura reciente para medir el desempeño innovador. Además, se planteó el marco conceptual sobre las alianzas interorganizacionales, con hincapié en los conceptos derivados de dichas alianzas que influyen en el desempeño innovador.
Conclusiones: es posible superar los límites de las organizaciones en términos de innovación al adoptar tecnologías externas, y reconocer que las alianzas son fundamentales para la transferencia y generación de conocimiento. Sin embargo, para lograr un mejor desempeño innovador, los socios colaboradores deben establecer una estrategia
para la gestión de sus relaciones interorganizacionales y un proceso de interacción adecuado para transferir nuevos y diversos conocimientos, aprovechando la diversidad interna de las organizaciones.
Resumen (en)
Objective: Alliances are currently one of the most common ways of developing technological capabilities. However, a large percentage of these alliances fail to achieve the expected results in terms of innovation, which implies a waste of time and resources for the collaborating parties. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the attributes of technological alliances that must be taken into account in order to achieve maximum innovative performance. In this sense, this article aims to identify the current state of the literature and provide an overview of the concepts, key
elements and their relationships.
Methodology: This study was carried out by adapting the scoping review methodology developed by Arksey y O’Malley in 2005, which covers the definition of the research question, the selection of information sources, the development of the review and the synthesis of the information. During the process, different selection criteria were used for articles and reviews published between 2015 and 2023, as well as diagramming and categorization strategies to organize the information.
Results: The indicators most commonly used in recent literature to measure innovative performance were identified. In addition, the conceptual framework on interorganizational alliances is presented, emphasizing the concepts
derived from such alliances that influence innovative performance.
Conclusions: It is possible to overcome the limits of organizations in terms of innovation by adopting external technologies and recognizing that alliances are fundamental for the transfer and generation of knowledge. However, to achieve better innovative performance, collaborative partners must establish a strategy for managing their interorganizational relationships and an adequate interaction process to transfer new and diverse knowledge, taking advantage of the internal diversity of organizations.
Referencias
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105
Aldieri, L., Bruno, B., Senatore, L., y Vinci, C. P. (2020). The future of pharmaceuticals industry within the triad: the role of knowledge spillovers in innovation process. Futures, 122, 102600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102600
Anzola-Román, P., Bayona-Sáez, C., García-Marco, T., y Lazzarotti, V. (2019). Technological proximity and the intensity of collaboration along the innovation funnel: direct and joint effects on innovative performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(5), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2018-0640
Ariño, Á. (2007). Alianzas estratégicas: opciones para el crecimiento de la empresa. Estrategia Financiera, (236), 40-51. http://www.earthgonomic.org/biblioteca/Diplomado_Modulo3/Tema2_Alianzas-estrategicas-opciones-para-el-crecimiento-de-la-empresa.pdf
Arksey, H., y O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Astuti, E. S., Arifin, Z., Wilopo, W., e Iqbal, M. (2022). Effects of trading partner relationships and knowledge complementarity on innovation performance. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 16(1), 53-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-01-2019-0012
Audretsch, D. B., y Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630-640. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118216
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Cassi, L., y Plunket, A. (2014). Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox. The Annals of Regional Science, 53, 395-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0612-6
Chen, Y. (2020). Integration decisions and technology innovation in Chinese technology-sourcing overseas M&As: an empirical analysis based on PLS path modelling. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 28(3), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2020.1761260
Cohen, W. M., y Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569-596. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763
Cohen, W. M., y Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-21265-001
Collins, J., y Riley, J. (2013). Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance: examining moderators. Journal of Business and Management, 19(2), 35-50. http://jbm.johogo.com/pdf/volume/1902/JBM-1902-03-full.pdf
Criscuolo, P., Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., y Salter, A. (2018). Winning combinations: search strategies and innovativeness in the UK. Industry and Innovation, 25(2), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1286462
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., y Linder, C. (2018). Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for construction supply chains: a systematic literature review. Computers in Industry, 99, 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.039
Dhir, S., Rajan, R., Ongsakul, V., Owusu, R. A., y Ahmed, Z. U. (2021). Critical success factors determining performance of cross-border acquisition: evidence from the African telecom market. Thunderbird International Business Review, 63(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22156
Dibiaggio, L., Nasiriyar, M., y Nesta, L. (2014). Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies. Research Policy, 43(9), 1582-1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.001
Enkel, E., Groemminger, A., y Heil, S. (2018). Managing technological distance in internal and external collaborations: absorptive capacity routines and social integration for innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1257-1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9557-0
Ferguson, J.-P., y Carnabuci, G. (2017). Risky recombinations: institutional gatekeeping in the innovation process. Organization Science, 28(1), 133-151. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26179310
Ferrigno, G., Dagnino, G. B., y Di Paola, N. (2021). R&D alliance partner attributes and innovation performance: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(13), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2020-0314
Filiou, D., y Massini, S. (2018). Industry cognitive distance in alliances and firm innovation performance. R&D Management, 48(4), 422-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12283
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117-132. http://www.jstor.com/stable/2661563
Fornahl, D., Broekel, T., y Boschma, R. (2011). What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Papers in Regional Science, 90(2), 395-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00361.x
Françoso, M. S., y Vonortas, N. S. (2022). Gatekeepers in regional innovation networks: evidence from an emerging economy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48, 821-841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09922-4
García, R., Araújo, V., Mascarini, S., Gomes dos Santos, E., y Costa, A. (2018). Is cognitive proximity a driver of geographical distance of university-industry collaboration? Area Development and Policy, 3(3), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2018.1484669
Gilsing, V. A., Lemmens, C. E. A. V., y Duysters, G. (2007). Strategic alliance networks and innovation: a deterministic and voluntaristic view combined. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(2), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320601168151
Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., y Van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.010
Grant, M. J., y Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Guan, J. C., y Yan, Y. (2016). Technological proximity and recombinative innovation in the alternative energy field. Research Policy, 45(7), 1460-1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.002
Gulati, R., Lavie, D., y Madhavan, R. (2011). How do networks matter? The performance effects of interorganizational networks. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.005
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., y Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 531-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.691646
Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00120-2
Harrigan, K. R., Di Guardo, M. C., Marku, E., y Vélez, B. N. (2016). Using a distance measure to operationalise patent originality. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(9), 988-1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1260106
Ho, M. H.-W., Ghauri, P. N., y Larimo, J. A. (2018). Institutional distance and knowledge acquisition in international buyer-supplier relationships: the moderating role of trust. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(2), 427-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9523-2
Hughes, J., y Weiss, J. (2007). Simple rules for making alliances work. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 122-6, 128, 130-1.
Huo, D. (2021). Local search or beyond? The influence of interfirm technological distance on co-innovation success. Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(4), 966-982. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtab013
Ismail, M., Bello-Pintado, A., y García-Marco, T. (2024). How many to be different? The role of number and the partner type on innovation performance. Innovation, 26(1), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2022.2084545
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., y Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
Jee, S. J., y Sohn, S. Y. (2020). Patent-based framework for assisting entrepreneurial firms’ R&D partner selection: leveraging their limited resources and managing the tension between learning and protection. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 57, 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101575
Kaiser, U. (2002). Measuring knowledge spillovers in manufacturing and services: an empirical assessment of alternative approaches. Research Policy, 31(1), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00159-1
Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 340-355. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2640227
Kim, C., y Song, J. (2007). Creating new technology through alliances: an empirical investigation of joint patents. Technovation, 27(8), 461-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.02.007
Knoben, J., y Oerlemans, L. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121.x
Krammer, S. M. (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, 45(2), 517-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.014
Lane, P. J., y Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199805)19:5<461::AID-SMJ953>3.3.CO;2-C
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., y Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833-863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527456
Laursen, K., Leone, M. I., y Torrisi, S. (2010). Technological exploration through licensing: new insights from the licensee’s point of view. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(3), 871-897. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq034
Lee, J., y Kim, M. (2014). Market-driven technological innovation through acquisitions: the moderating effect of firm size. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1934-1963. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314535439
Li, J., Liu, G., y Ma, Z. (2021). RD internationalization, domestic technology alliance, and innovation in emerging market. PloS ONE, 16(6), e0252669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252669
Lin, J.-Y. (2020). What affects new venture firm’s innovation more in corporate venture capital? European Management Journal, 38(4), 646-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.004
Lin, C., Wu, Y.-J., Chang, C., Wang, W., y Lee, C.-Y. (2012). The alliance innovation performance of R&D alliances—the absorptive capacity perspective. Technovation, 32(5), 282-292.
Liu, J., y Ma, T. (2019). Innovative performance with interactions between technological proximity and geographic proximity: evidence from China electronics patents. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(6), 667-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1542672
March, J G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940
Martínez Ardila, H. E., Castro, F. L., y Chaparro, M. (2020). Distancia tecnológica entre bases de conocimiento de las organizaciones socias y valor de la innovación conjunta en alianzas interorganizativas. Estudio basado en patentes tecnológicas. Profesional de la Información, 28(6), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.nov.15
Martínez Ardila, H. E., Mora Moreno, J. E., y Camacho Pico, J. A. (2018). Networks of collaborative alliances: the second order interfirm technological distance and innovation performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(4), 1255-1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9704-2
Mattes, J. (2012). Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1085-1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.552493
Mindruta, D., Moeen, M., y Agarwal, R. (2016). A two-sided matching approach for partner selection and assessing complementarities in partners’ attributes in inter-firm alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 206-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2448
Müller, M., Kudic, M., y Vermeulen, B. (2021). The influence of the structure of technological knowledge on inter-firm R&D collaboration and knowledge discovery: an agent-based simulation approach. Journal of Business Research, 129, 570-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.067
Nan, D., Liu, F., y Ma, R. (2018). Effect of proximity on recombination innovation in R&D collaboration: an empirical analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(8), 921-934. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1424327
Nooteboom, B. (2000). Institutions and forms of co-ordination in innovation systems. Organization Studies, 21(5), 915-939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600215004
Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. A., y Van den Oord, A. (2006). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. *CentER Discussion Paper Series n.° 2006-33*. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=90374
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, y European Statistical Office. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4a. ed.). The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. OECD Publishing.
Peña, I., y Aranguren, M. J. (2002). Transferencia de conocimiento mediante acuerdos de colaboración. Economía Industrial, (346), 67-80. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=716704
Plunket, A., y Starosta de Waldemar, F. (2022). Regional recombinant novelty, related and unrelated technologies: a patent-level approach. Regional Studies, 57(7), 1267-1288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2114595
Rothaermel, F. T., y Boeker, W. (2008). Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 47-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.634
Sarkar, M. B., Aulakh, P. S., y Madhok, A. (2009). Process capabilities and value generation in alliance portfolios. Organization Science, 20(3), 583-600. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614676
Schumpeter, J. A. (2021). The theory of economic development. Routledge.
Shah, R. H., y Swaminathan, V. (2008). Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: the moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 471-494. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.656
Song, Y., Berger, R., Rachamim, M., Johnston, A., y Colladon, A. F. (2022). Modeling the industry perspective of university-industry collaborative innovation alliances: player behavior and stability issues. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 14, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790221097235
Subramanian, A. M., Bo, W., y Kah-Hin, C. (2018). The role of knowledge base homogeneity in learning from strategic alliances. Research Policy, 47(1), 158-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.005
Sudhindra, S., Ganesh, L. S., y Kaur, A. (2020). Strategic parameters of knowledge sharing in supply chains. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 18(3), 310-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1654417
Todorova, G., y Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774-786. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159334
Un, C. A., y Rodríguez, A. (2018). Local and global knowledge complementarity: R&D collaborations and innovation of foreign and domestic firms. Journal of International Management, 24(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.09.001
Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331-360. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555595
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2022). *Global innovation index 2022: What is the future of innovation-driven growth?* https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.46596
Yan, Y., Dong, J. Q., y Faems, D. (2020). Not every coopetitor is the same: the impact of technological, market and geographical overlap with coopetitors on firms’ breakthrough inventions. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.02.006
Yayavaram, S., y Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333-362. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.2.333
Yoruk, D. E. (2019). Dynamics of firm-level upgrading and the role of learning in networks in emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 341-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.042
Zhang, Z., y Luo, T. (2020). Network capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations——from the perspective of network dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152, 119910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119910
Zhang, J., y Tan, R. (2022). Radical concept generation inspired by cross-domain knowledge. Applied Sciences, 12(10), 4929. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12104929
Zhu, S., Hagedoorn, J., Zhang, S., y Liu, F. (2021). Effects of technological distance on innovation performance under heterogeneous technological orientations. Technovation, 106, 102301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102301
Zineldin, M., Fujimoto, H., Li, Y., Kassean, H., Vasicheva, V., y Yu, W. F. (2015). Why do both marriages and strategic alliances have over 50 % failure rate? A study of relationship quality of strategic alliances in China, Japan and Mauritius. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSBA.2015.069305
Zoogah, D. B., Noe, R. A., y Shenkar, O. (2015). Shared mental model, team communication and collective self-efficacy: an investigation of strategic alliance team effectiveness. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 4(4), 244. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSBA.2015.075383
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Ana Isabel Gómez Acevedo, Hugo Ernesto Martínez Ardila, Elda Alejandra Torres Reyes
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Esta licencia permite a otros remezclar, adaptar y desarrollar su trabajo incluso con fines comerciales, siempre que le den crédito y concedan licencias para sus nuevas creaciones bajo los mismos términos. Esta licencia a menudo se compara con las licencias de software libre y de código abierto “copyleft”. Todos los trabajos nuevos basados en el tuyo tendrán la misma licencia, por lo que cualquier derivado también permitirá el uso comercial. Esta es la licencia utilizada por Wikipedia y se recomienda para materiales que se beneficiarían al incorporar contenido de Wikipedia y proyectos con licencias similares.
