Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation

By Frank T. Rothaermel. 2001

1,150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/869b8183a2086ee51c2f10bbd953bb35bf2d4240

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

1 Moving Beyond Schumpeter: Management Research on the Determinants of Technological Innovation (2008, background): “rity, a significant focus of the research has been on the relative merits and demerits of ownership of complementary assets by incumbents or the strategies of firms to obtain access to complementary assets (Rothaermel, 2001; Tripsas, 1997).”
Vertical alliance networks: The case of university–biotechnology–pharmaceutical alliance chains (2007, background): “…of technology, which is then eventually brought to the marketplace by strategic alliance partners with extensive marketing organizations and experience in managing the clinical trials process (e.g., Barley et al., 1992; Rothaermel, 2001; Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004; Robinson and Stuart, 2007).”
Offsetting Illegitimacy? How Pressures from Securities Analysts Influence Incumbents in the Face of New Technologies (2012, background): “Tripsas, 1997; Rothaermel, 2001 ) or dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997; Eisenhardt”
Unmixed signals: How reputation and status affect alliance formation (2014, background): “…for conducting clinical testing trials, manufacturing, marketing, and obtaining federal regulatory approval, but were unable to internally create the capabilities necessary to adapt to the emergence of biotechnology as the new framework of drug discovery and development (Rothaermel, 2001).”
Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances (2011, methodology): “In particular, scholars have noted with respect to the value chain function of alliances that exploration enables the acquisition of new capabilities (Mowery, Oxley, and Silverman 1996), whereas exploitation supports product commercialization (Rothaermel 2001).”
Alliance Capabilities (2015, background): “…companies has an inverted-U impact on their further alliance formation (Chung, Singh, & Lee, 2000; Gulati, 1995b) because repeated partnerships lead to diminishing marginal returns (Rothaermel, 2001) and firms want to balance the amount of embedded ties and weak ties (Capaldo, 2007; Chung et al.).”
Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms (2003, positive): “In support of this contention, Rothaermel (2001) found that incumbent industry firms were able to enhance their technological capabilities through alliances with a partner who developed a new technology.”
Managerial ties, knowledge acquisition, realized absorptive capacity and new product market performance of emerging multinational companies: A case of China (2011, background): “First, since foreignMNCpartners possess considerable advanced technology and management skills that have diverse product and process knowledge, knowledge acquisition provides potential opportunities for EMNCs to develop new products through the combination of existing and different complementary ski”
The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change (2007, background): “Firms have often used alliances or acquisitions to acquire the knowledge needed to navigate technological change (e.g., Puranam, Singh, & Zollo, 2006; Rothaermel, 2001 ).”