How does alliance network embedding affect firm innovation? Evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry

Expand
  • 1College of Business Administration, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China;
    2College of Business Administration, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou 362021, China
†Wenhao Zhou (E-mail: wenhaoz2021@stu.hqu.edu.cn; ORCID: 0000-0001-9421-8526).

Received date: 2024-06-22

  Revised date: 2024-10-01

  Accepted date: 2024-11-28

  Online published: 2025-01-24

Abstract

Purpose: This study explores the combined effects of structural and relational embeddedness within alliance networks on firm innovation. By focusing on the interplay between network structures and relationships, this study provides a nonlinear framework to unravel the complex dynamics between alliance networks and firm innovation performance within the manufacturing industry.
Design/methodology/approach: Using social network analysis, this study examines the topological structure of firms’ alliance networks. An exploratory approach involving K-Means clustering and decision tree methods is employed to identify heterogeneous network types within the alliance networks. The analysis further explores the nonlinear relationships between network characteristics, including closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, clustering coefficient, and relational attributes, including collaboration intensity and breadth, and their combined influence on firm innovation.
Findings: The study identified four distinct heterogeneous network types: dyadic, star, ringlike, and complex networks. Each type reveals unique network characteristics and their impact on innovation performance. Key decision rules were extracted, showing that strong relational embeddedness can hinder innovation in dyadic networks, while a greater distance from the central firm correlates with higher innovation performance in star alliance networks. For ringlike alliance networks, moderate cooperation intensity is beneficial for innovation when the clustering coefficient is not high. In complex alliance networks, the combined effects of cooperation intensity, breadth, and clustering coefficient significantly influence innovation.
Research limitations: The research presented in this study, while offering valuable insights into the relationship between alliance networks and firm innovation within the manufacturing sector, is subject to several limitations. A focus on the manufacturing industry may restrict the generalizability of our findings to other sectors, where the dynamics of innovation and collaboration might differ significantly. Additionally, our reliance on patent data, while providing a quantifiable measure of innovation, may overlook other forms of innovation that are equally critical in different contexts, such as service innovations or business model transformations.
Practical implications: This research offers significant insights into how firms can leverage both network structure and relational aspects to enhance innovation outcomes. By revealing the nonlinear and complex interactions between network embeddedness dimensions, this study makes a valuable contribution to both theory and practice. This highlights that strategic management of both structural and relational embeddedness can foster superior innovation performance, offering firms a competitive advantage by optimizing their alliance network configurations.
Originality/value: This study’s originality lies in its examination of the combined effects of structural and relational network embeddings on innovation performance. By identifying distinct network types and their impact on innovation, this study advances the theoretical understanding of how network characteristics interact to shape firm innovation. It contributes to the literature by offering a novel, multidimensional framework that integrates social network theory and resource-based view, providing new insights for firms to leverage their network positions and relationships for competitive advantage.

Cite this article

Zhiwei Zhang, Wenhao Zhou, Hailin Li . How does alliance network embedding affect firm innovation? Evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 0 : 20250124 -20250124 . DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2025-0008

References

[1] Ahuja, G., (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study.Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.
[2] Alcácer J., & Gittelman M., (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations.Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774-779.
[3] Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
[4] Bellamy M. A., Ghosh S., & Hora M. (2014). The influence of supply network structure on firm innovation.Journal of Operations Management, 32(6), 357-373.
[5] Broekel T., Brenner T., & Buerger M. (2015). An investigation of the relation between cooperation intensity and the innovative success of German regions.Spatial Economic Analysis, 10(1), 52-78.
[6] Burt R. S.(1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
[7] Cammarano A., Michelino F., & Lamberti E. (2017). Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 204-222.
[8] Casanueva C., Castro I., & Galan J. L. (2013). Informational networks and innovation in mature industrial clusters.Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 603-613.
[9] Chakravarty A., Zhou C., & Sharma A. (2020). Effect of Alliance Network Asymmetry on Firm Performance and Risk.Journal of Marketing, 84(6), 74-94.
[10] Cheng H., Xu X. J., Li Z. Z., & Zhang Z. Y. (2022). The synergy of inventor cooperative network dual embeddedness and firm innovation: The mediating role of ambidextrous learning.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(1), 89-104.
[11] Chuluun T., Prevost A., & Upadhyay A. (2017). Firm network structure and innovation.Journal of Corporate Finance, 44, 193-214.
[12] Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
[13] Cong H. B., Zou D. L., & Wu F. X. (2017). Influence mechanism of multi-network embeddedness to enterprises innovation performance based on knowledge management perspective.Cluster Computing-the Journal of Networks Software Tools and Applications, 20(1), 93-108.
[14] de Leeuw T., Lokshin B., & Duysters G. (2014). Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm’s innovative performance and productivity.Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1839-1849.
[15] Dong J. Q., McCarthy K. J., & Schoenmakers W. (2017). How central is too central? Organizing interorganizational collaboration networks for breakthrough innovation.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4), 526-542.
[16] Freeman, L. C., (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification.Social Network, 1(3), 215-239.
[17] Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptations of social capital.Organization Science, 11(2), 183-196.
[18] Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
[19] Grimaldi, M., & Cricelli, L. (2020). Indexes of patent value: A systematic literature review and classification.Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 18(2), 214-233.
[20] Guan J. C., Zhang J. J., & Yan Y. (2015). The impact of multilevel networks on innovation.Research Policy, 44(3), 545-559.
[21] Han S. J., Lyu Y. B., Ji R. N., Zhu Y. Q., Su J. Q., & Bao L. N. (2020). Open innovation, network embeddedness and incremental innovation capability.Management Decision, 58(12), 2655-2680.
[22] Huang H. S., Zhang J. P., Yan J., Gong Y., & Wang L. K. (2022). Supply chain network structure and firm’s R&D investments: Empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms.European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(2), 551-571.
[23] Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial networks and open innovation: The role of strategic and embedded ties.Industry and Innovation, 24(4), 403-435.
[24] Jacob, J., & Duysters, G. (2017). Alliance network configurations and the co-evolution of firms’ technology profiles: An analysis of the biopharmaceutical industry.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 90-102.
[25] Jiang H., Xia J., Cannella A. A., & Xiao T. (2018). Do ongoing networks block out new friends? Reconciling the embeddedness constraint dilemma on new alliance partner addition.Strategic Management Journal, 39(1): 217-241.
[26] Jin, Y., & Shao, Y. F. (2022). Power-leveraging paradox and firm innovation: The influence of network power, knowledge integration and breakthrough innovation.Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 205-215.
[27] Kohtamaki M., Heimonen J., Sjodin D., & Heikkila V. (2020). Strategic agility in innovation: Unpacking the interaction between entrepreneurial orientation and absorptive capacity by using practice theory.Journal of Business Research, 118, 12-25.
[28] Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view.Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638-658.
[29] Li Y., Wang X., Chen C., Jing C.,& Wu, T.(2020). Exploring firms’ innovation capabilities through learning systems. Neurocomputing, 409, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.03.100
[30] Morandi, V. (2013). The management of industry-university joint research projects: How do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 69-92.
[31] Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community.Organization Science, 15(1), 5-21.
[32] Park B. J., Srivastava M. K., & Gnyawali D. R. (2014). Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance.Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 210-221.
[33] Protogerou A., Caloghirou Y., & Siokas E. (2013). Twenty-five years of science-industry collaboration: The emergence and evolution of policy-driven research networks across Europe.Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 873-895.
[34] Reck, F., & Fliaster, A. (2024). Far-reaching or closely knit, innovative or complementary? Network configurations and firm-level innovation in the German energy sector.Strategic Organization, 22(4), 668-698.
[35] Reck F., Fliaster A., & Kolloch M. (2022). How to build a network that facilitates firm-level innovation: An integration of structural and managerial perspectives.Journal of Management Studies, 59(4), 998-1031.
[36] Schilling, M.A., & Phelps, C.C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation.Management Science, 53(7), 1113-1126.
[37] Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy.Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
[38] Thomaz, F., & Swaminathan, V. (2015). What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact of Marketing Alliances on Firm Risk and the Moderating Role of Network Density.Journal of Marketing 79(5), 63-79.
[39] Tian M. Y., Su Y. W., & Yang Z. (2022). University-industry collaboration and firm innovation: An empirical study of the biopharmaceutical industry.Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(5), 1488-1505.
[40] Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
[41] Wang M. C., Chen P. C., & Fang S. C. (2018). A critical view of knowledge networks and innovation performance: The mediation role of firms’ knowledge integration capability.Journal of Business Research, 88, 222-233.
[42] Wasserman S.,& Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications Cambridge University Press Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
[43] Xie X. M., Fang L. X., & Zeng S. X. (2016). Collaborative innovation network and knowledge transfer performance: A fsQCA approach.Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5210-5215.
[44] Yan Y., Zhang J. J., & Guan J. C. (2020). Network embeddedness and innovation: Evidence from the alternative energy field.Ieee Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(3), 769-782.
[45] Yao Y. H., Gao H., & Sun F. Q. (2020). The impact of dual network structure on firm performance: The moderating effect of innovation strategy.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(9), 1020-1034.
[46] Zhang J. M., Jiang H., Wu R., & Li J. Z. (2019). Reconciling the dilemma of knowledge sharing: A network pluralism framework of firms’ R&D alliance network and innovation performance.Journal of Management, 45(7), 2635-2665.
[47] Zhang Y., Qian Y., & Huang Y. (2017). An entropy-based indicator system for measuring the potential of patents in technological innovation: Rejecting moderation.Scientometrics, 111(3), 1925-1946.
[48] Zhang, Z. W., & Zhou, W. H. (2024). How does network intermediary affect collaborative innovation? Evidence from Chinese listed companies.Journal of Data and Information Science, 9(4), 49-70.
[49] Zhao J. Y., Wei J., Xi X., & Wang S. S. (2020). Firms’ heterogeneity, relationship embeddedness, and innovation development in competitive alliances.Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 114-128.
[50] Zhou, W. H., & Li, H. L. (2023). A study on the multidimensional driving mechanism of cross-regional scientific collaboration network in China.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(11), 3667-3681.
[51] Zhou, W. H. & Li, H. L. (2024). R&D team network configurations, knowledge diversity and breakthrough innovation: A combined effect framework. European Journal of Innovation Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2023-1004
Outlines

/

京ICP备05002861号-43

Copyright © 2023 All rights reserved Journal of Data and Information Science

E-mail: jdis@mail.las.ac.cn Add:No.33, Beisihuan Xilu, Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China

Support by Beijing Magtech Co.ltd E-mail: support@magtech.com.cn