Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge Transfers in the US Biopharmaceutical Market During a Time of Transition

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the paper is to examine the effects that firm factors, multinational corporations, and location have on explicit and tacit knowledge transfers originating in US biopharmaceutical firms during a time of transition.

Methods

Examination of all known biopharmaceutical formal tacit and explicit knowledge transfers was done. The study performs logistic regression to test its hypotheses.

The study identifies tacit knowledge transfers with full or partial equity acquisitions in firms. Explicit knowledge transfers are associated with licensing agreements or product and technology acquisitions.

Results

The study finds biotechnology firms and private firms are more likely to transfer tacit knowledge than explicit knowledge. Multinational firms are more likely to acquire tacit knowledge than explicit knowledge. Local transfers (compared with non-local or foreign transfers) are more likely to be tacit knowledge transfers. Firms within clusters are also more likely to transfer explicit knowledge than tacit knowledge.

Conclusions

Given the choice between tacit and explicit knowledge transfers, firms prefer tacit knowledge transfers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Chart 1
Chart 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grant RM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J. 1996;17(S2):109–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berry H. Global integration and innovation: multicountry knowledge generation within MNCs. Strateg Manag J. 2014;35(6):869–90.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kogut B, Zander U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. J Int Bus Stud. 1993;24(4):625–45.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Felin T, Hesterly WS. The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Acad Manag Rev. 2007;32(1):195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Albino V, Garavelli AC, Schiuma G. Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm. Technovation. 1998;19(1):53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arend RJ, Patel PC, Park HD. Explaining post-IPO venture performance through a knowledge-based view typology. Strateg Manag J. 2014;35(3):376–97.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci. 1994;5(1):14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  8. DeCarolis DM, Deeds DL. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strateg Manag J. 1999;20(10):953–68.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Van Wijk R, Jansen JJ, Lyles MA. Inter-and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. J Manag Stud. 2008;45(4):830–53.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Teigland R, Wasko M. Knowledge transfer in MNCs: examining how intrinsic motivations and knowledge sourcing impact individual centrality and performance. J Int Manag. 2009;15(1):15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kostova T. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual perspective. Acad Manag Rev. 1999;24:306–24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Inkpen AC, Tsang EW. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manag Rev. 2005;30(1):146–65.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Girard J, Girard J. Defining knowledge management: toward an applied compendium. OJAKM. 2015;3(1):20.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Carayannis EG. Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and organizational cognition: the role of knowledge management. Technovation. 1999;19(4):219–31.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Biggerio L. The location of multinationals in industrial districts: knowledge transfer in biomedicals. J Technol Transfer. 2002;27:111–22.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Park C, Vertinsky I, Becerra M. Transfers of tacit vs. explicit knowledge and performance in international joint ventures: the role of age. Int Bus Rev. 2015;24:89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Polanyi M. Tacit knowing: its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Rev Mod Phys. 1962;34(4):601–16.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blome C, Schoenherr T, Eckstein D. The impact of knowledge transfer and complexity on supply chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view. Int J Prod Econ. 2014;147:307–16.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leal-Rodríguez A, Leal-Millán A, Roldán-Salgueiro JL, Ortega-Gutiérrez J. Knowledge management and the effectiveness of innovation outcomes: the role of cultural barriers. Electron J Knowl Manag. 2013;11(1):62–71.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Howells J. The geography of knowledge: never so close but never so far apart. J Econ Geogr. 2012;12:1003–20.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ranft AL, Lord MD. Acquiring new knowledge: the role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms. J High Technol Manag Res. 2000;11(2):295–319.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hedlund G. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strateg Manag J. 1994;15(S2):73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Quintas P, Lefrere P, Jones G. Knowledge management: a strategic agenda. Long Range Plan. 1997;30(3):385–91.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hall LA, Bagchi-Sen S. An analysis of firm-level innovation strategies in the US biotechnology industry. Technovation. 2007;27(1):4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Minbaeva DB. Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Manag Int Rev. 2007;47(4):567–93.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pekár P, Margulis MS. Equity alliances take centre stage. Bus Strateg Rev. 2003;14(2):50–62.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bell GG, Zaheer A. Geography, networks, and knowledge flow. Organ Sci. 2007;18(6):955–72.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eisingerich AB, Bell SJ, Tracey P. How can clusters sustain performance? The role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty. Res Policy. 2010;39:239–53.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chiaroni D, Chiesa V. Forms of creation of industrial clusters in biotechnology. Technovation. 2006;26(9):1064–76.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Xia T, Roper S. From capability to connectivity—absorptive capacity and exploratory alliances in biopharmaceutical firms: a US–Europe comparison. Technovation. 2008;28(11):776–85.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Malerba F, Orsenigo L. Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: towards a history-friendly model. Ind Corp Chang. 2002;11(4):667–703.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gupta AK, Govindarajan V. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strateg Manag J. 2000;21(4):473–96.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J. 1984;5(2):171–80.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag. 1991;17(1):99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Peteraf MA. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strateg Manag J. 1993;14(3):179–91.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hall R, Andriani P. Managing knowledge associated with innovation. J Bus Res. 2003;56(2):145–52.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Theriou NG, Aggelidis V, Theriou G. A theoretical framework contrasting the resource-based perspective and the knowledge-based view. Eur Res Stud. 2009;12(3):177.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan S, Schenkel A, von Krogh G, Weber C. Knowledge-based theories of the firm in strategic management: a review and extension. Int J Proj Manag. 2001;25:1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schweizer L. Organizational integration of acquired biotechnology companies into pharmaceutical companies: the need for a hybrid approach. Acad Manag J. 2005;48(6):1051–74.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Galambos L, Sturchio JL. Pharmaceutical firms and the transition to biotechnology: a study in strategic innovation. Bus Hist Rev. 1998;72(2):250–78.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Powell W, Brantley P. Competitive cooperation in biotechnology: learning through networks? In: Nohria N, Eccles R, editors. Networks and organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1992. p. 366–94.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Natalicchio A, Petruzzelli AM, Garavelli AC. A literature review on markets for ideas: emerging characteristics and unanswered questions. Technovation. 2014;34(2):65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lerner J, Merges RP. The control of technology alliances: an empirical analysis of the biotechnology industry. J Ind Econ. 1998;46(2):125–56.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Williams DR, Young CC, Coffey BS. Acquisitions in the biopharma-ceutical IPO market: collaboration, competition and co-opetition. Manag Decis Econ. 2017;38(8):1162–71.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Grant RM, Baden-Fuller C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. J Manag Stud. 2004;41(1):61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J. 2004;25(3):201–21.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strateg Manag J. 1996;17(S2):77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ferreira MP, Santos JC, de Almeida MIR, Reis NR. Mergers & Acquisitions Research: a bibliometric study of top strategy and International Business Journals, 1980–2010. J Bus Res. 2014;67(12):2550–8.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lodh S, Battaggion MR. Technological breadth and depth of knowledge in innovation: the role of mergers and acquisitions in biotech. Ind Corp Chang. 2014;24(2):383–415.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pisano G. The development factory. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Feldman MP, Ronzio CR. Closing the innovative loop: moving from the laboratory to the shop floor in biotechnology manufacturing. Entrep Reg Dev. 2001;13(1):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lim PL, Garnsey E, Gregory M. Product and process innovation in biopharmaceuticals: a new perspective on development. R&D Manag. 2006;36(1):27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Carlson PE. Biotechnology industry trends. 2006. http://www.regionalgrowth.com/ pubs/industry-studies/Biotech_Industry_Trends.pdf.

  54. Cockburn IM. The changing structure of the pharmaceutical industry. Health Aff. 2004;23(1):10–22.

    Google Scholar 

  55. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? Manag Decis Econ. 2007;28(4–5):469–79.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ernst & Young. Beyond Borders: global biotechnology report 2009. 2009. http://www.ey.com/Publication/ vwLUAssets/Global_ biotechnology_report_2009./$FILE/ Beyond_borders_2009.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2017.

  57. Williams DR, Young CC. Trends in biopharmaceutical IPOS: 1996-2005. J Health Care Finance. 2005;33(2):39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kogut B, Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci. 1992;3(3):383–97.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Eden L, Levitas E, Martinez RJ. The production, transfer and spillover of technology: comparing large and small multinationals as technology producers. Small Bus Econ. 1997;9(1):53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Reus TH, Lamont BT, Ellis KM. A darker side of knowledge transfer following international acquisitions. Strateg Manag J. 2016;37(5):932–44.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kramer JP, Marinelli E, Iammarino S, Diez JR. Intangible assets as drivers of innovation: empirical evidence on multinational enterprises in German and UK regional systems of innovation. Technovation. 2011;31(9):447–58.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hill CW, Hwang P, Kim WC. An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strateg Manag J. 1990;11(2):117–28.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Martin X, Salomon R. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation. J Int Bus Stud. 2003;34(4):356–73.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Reilly M, Scott PS. Subsidiary driven innovation within shifting MNC structures: identifying new challenges and research directions. Technovation. 2014;34(3):190–202.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kale P, Singh H. Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here? Acad Manag Perspect. 2009;23(3):45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Shan W, Song J. Foreign direct investment and the sourcing of technological advantage: evidence from the biotechnology industry. J Int Bus Stud. 1997;28(2):267–84.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Almeida P, Phene A. Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: the influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strateg Manag J. 2004;25(8–9):847–64.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Waxell A, Malmberg A. What is global and what is local in knowledge-generating interaction? The case of the biotech cluster in Uppsala, Sweden. Entrep Reg Dev. 2007;19(2):137–59.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L. Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strateg Manag J. 2006;27(4):369–88.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bagchi-Sen S. Strategic considerations for innovation and commercialization in the US biotechnology sector. Eur Plan Stud. 2007;15(6):753–66.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kenney M. Biotechnology and the creation of a new economic space. Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences, 1998;131–143.

  72. Powell WW, Koput KW, Bowie JI, Smith-Doerr L. The spatial clustering of science and capital: accounting for biotech firm-venture capital relationships. Reg Stud. 2002;36(3):291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Liang H, Zhang Z. The effects of industry characteristics on the sources of technological product and process innovation. J Technol Transf. 2012;37(6):867–88.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Breschi S, Lissoni F. Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. J Econ Geogr. 2009;9(4):439–68.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gray N. Untying the Gordian knot, PharmExec. 2005;84–100.

  76. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(7):509–33.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Berndt ER, Mortimer R, Bhattacharjya A, Parece A, Tuttle E. Authorized generic drugs, price competition, and consumers’ welfare. Health Aff. 2007;26(3):790–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Care Management Program, Department of Nutrition and Health Care Management, Beaver College of Health Sciences, Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32168, Boone, NC, 28608-2168, USA

    David R. Williams

Authors
  1. David R. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. Williams.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williams, D.R. Knowledge Transfers in the US Biopharmaceutical Market During a Time of Transition. J Pharm Innov 15, 445–454 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12247-019-09395-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12247-019-09395-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation