Search

We study how collaboration and internal resources drive knowledge creation and application in university research programs. Academic collaboration with fellow university scientists drives knowledge creation, whereas collaboration with industry partners drives knowledge application. Nevertheless, contrary to prior research that has underscored the merits of collaboration, we identify an optimal level of collaboration beyond which collaboration undermines both processes. Furthermore, the availability of internal resources can either complement or substitute for collaboration depending on the level of collaboration. In particular, we find that availability of internal resources mitigates the effect of academic collaboration on knowledge creation when collaboration is moderate and complements it as collaboration becomes excessive. Thus, our study reveals the contingent value of collaboration and the interplay between internal and network resources. It enhances understanding of collaboration in nascent science-driven industries and advances the resource-based view and knowledge management research.

Organizational research advocates that firms balance exploration and exploitation, yet it acknowledges inherent challenges in reconciling these opposing activities. To overcome these challenges, such research suggests that firms establish organizational separation between exploring and exploiting units or engage in temporal separation whereby they oscillate between exploration and exploitation over time. Nevertheless, these approaches entail resource allocation trade-offs and conflicting organizational routines, which may undermine organizational performance as firms seek to balance exploration and exploitation within a discrete field of organizational activity (i.e., domain). We posit that firms can overcome such impediments and enhance their performance if they explore in one domain while exploiting in another. Studying the alliance portfolios of software firms, we demonstrate that firms do not typically benefit from balancing exploration and exploitation within the function domain (technology versus marketing and production alliances) and structure domain (new versus prior partners). Nevertheless, firms that balance exploration and exploitation across these domains by engaging in research and development alliances while collaborating with their prior partners, or alternatively, by forming marketing and production alliances while seeking new partners, gain in profits and market value. Moreover, we reveal that increases in firm size that exacerbate resource allocation trade-offs and routine rigidity reinforce the benefits of balance across domains and the costs of balance within domains. Our domain separation approach offers new insights into how firms can benefit from balancing exploration and exploitation. What matters is not simply whether firms balance exploration and exploitation in their alliance formation decisions but the means by which they achieve such balance.

Alliance research has traditionally focused on structural and relational aspects of the networks in which firms are situated, paying less attention to the inherent characteristics of their partners. This study introduces the notion of alliance portfolio internationalization (API), which refers to the degree of foreignness of partners in a firm's collection of immediate alliance relationships. We develop a framework to explain how API impacts firm performance. We suggest that as a firm's API increases, financial performance is expected to initially decline, then improve, and finally decline again. This sigmoid relationship between API and financial performance is ascribed to evolving learning effects that shape the net benefits of API. When the firm's alliance portfolio, on average, consists of proximate foreign partners, the firm may fail to recognize latent national differences, but at moderate levels of API, its absorptive capacity and specialized collaborative routines support the exchange of valuable network resources. Nevertheless, high levels of API undermine firm performance because of the failure of collaborative routines and mounting liabilities of cross-national differences. We test the framework using data on the alliance portfolios of U.S.-based software firms from 1990 to 2001. The results provide support for the sigmoid relationship as well as for our predictions that firms, which have gained experience with foreign partners and maintained wholly owned subsidiaries in their partners' countries of origin, can overcome some of the liabilities of API and better leverage its benefits.