Centrality Of Firms Research Articles

Ties that tear apart: The social embeddedness of strategic alliance termination

Strategic alliances between firms are inherently unstable, and many alliances fail before the planned termination date. Most studies of the instability of strategic alliances focus on internal factors, such as tensions between alliance partners. In the present study social networks, in particular the centrality of firms in an alliance network, are considered as factors explaining alliance instability. The study examines 1061 ICT-alliances that were formed in the period 1975–1989. As expected, it was found that differences in centrality increase alliance instability. Contrary to the expectation, the sum of centralities of firms in an alliance does not affect alliance instability.

Network position of a firm and the tendency to collaborate with competitors – a structural embeddedness perspective

Collaboration between competing firms (coopetition) is increasingly important for firms operating in knowledge-intensive business sectors. There are, however, firm-specific differences in the tendency to form such relationships. In order to address the issue, this study explores why certain firms in the global ICT sector are better able and more likely to collaborate with their competitors than others. We approach the issue from the structural embeddedness perspective, examining firm centrality in its competitive and alliance networks. The findings indicate that firms with a central position in competitor networks are relatively more likely to engage in coopetition than those not so centrally placed. On the other hand, the findings show that firms holding a central position in their alliance networks collaborate relatively more with complementary partners than with their competitors.

What determines technological hits?: Geography versus firm competencies

The centrality of firms vis-à-vis regions underlines a general contrast between two models of producing innovations. This paper uses a new database composed of 4262 European chemical patents applied by 693 firms during 1987–1996 to compare the relative effect of firm and regional characteristics on the production of technological “hits” (highly cited patents). By using extensive controls, the main finding of the paper is that technological hits in the “traditional” chemical sectors are explained only by R&D intensity at the firm level and the scale of the research projects. Firm competencies, particularly technological specialisation, are still important in biotechnology. However, the distinct feature of the biotechnology model is that localised knowledge spillovers also matter.