Collaborate or Not to Collaborate , this is the Discussion : The Role of Network Structures and Collaboration Characteristics on Inventors ’ Output

Title: To Collaborate or Not to Collaborate, this is the Discussion: The Role of Network Structures and Collaboration Characteristics on Inventors’ Output Name: Ecem Bilge DELICIK Affiliation: SKEMA Business School, Universite Cote d'Azur (GREDEG) Year of enrolment: 2018 Expected final date: 31 August 2021 E-mail : ecembilge.delicik@skema.edu Extended Abstract: Individuals are the smallest building blocks of any organization. Organizational, as well as individual performance, depends on connections among these components. In the context of innovation, previous literature has demonstrated that a number of network characteristics such as degree centrality, number of indirect connections and existence of structural holes in a firm’s collaborative network affect its innovative performance (Ahuja 2000). It has also shown that benefits of a tie depend on diversity (Sosa 2011) and complexity of knowledge (Sorenson et al. 2006) shared through these collaborations. However, most of the contributions in the field are not concerned by the productivity at inventor level. As a result, the precise mechanism through which collaborations affect the rate of invention remains an open question. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to identify which characteristics of the individual’s collaborative network explain his/her inventive productivity. Second, the paper further investigates the effects of the nature of shared knowledge through individual’s collaborative network. Combining inventor’s ego-network characteristics with the nature of knowledge shared through collaboration will provide a better understanding of inventor’s productivity compared to the current state of art. Pinning down the mechanism through which collaborations affect inventor productivity has important implications. This will inform inventors on how to optimize their collaborative networks, as well as help policy makers to design incentive schemes which would maximize organizational performance. This paper theorizes and empirically examines the following two arguments: 1. The role of network structure: The greater an inventor’s number of direct and indirect ties, the greater the subsequent innovation output of the inventor. On the other hand, benefits of direct ties on an inventor’s innovation output will be moderated by the level of the inventor’s indirect ties. Structural holes are proposed to have both negative and positive affect depending on the nature of innovation. 2. The role of nature of shared knowledge: The breadth of diverse knowledge domains acquired through collaborations is positively associated with the innovation output. The relationship between the knowledge cohesion (between co-inventors) and inventive productivity has an inverted U shape, implying a goldilocks effect in the optimal distance between co-inventors in the knowledge space. To test these hypotheses, we conduct an empirical study. The unit of analysis is a single inventor embedded in the collaborative network. We used the European Patent Office worldwide patent statistical database to construct collaborative networks. Nodes are inventors, co-inventor relations create ties between these nodes. The nature of knowledge created through inventors’ prior work. The analyses include 587 750 inventors and 516 368 unique patents granted by IPO in the period from 1998 to 2006. Preliminary results show that network characteristics affect inventors’ innovation output. While both direct and indirect ties have a positive effect on innovation output, there is a tradeoff between benefits of direct ties and indirect ties. We show that a high level of indirect ties decreases benefits delivered by inventor’s direct ties. We also find that inventor’s productivity increases when they are surrounded by structural holes and when they have more diverse prior knowledge. The importance of prior knowledge diversity and the positive impact of structural holes point to the importance of tie content and the level of knowledge cohesion. Therefore, as the next step, the innovative performances of solo inventors and the effect of the nature of knowledge on inventor’s productivity will be investigated. References Ahuja, G. (2000) "Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes And Innovation: A Longitudinal Study" Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 425-55 Sorenson O. , Rivkin J. W. , Fleming L. (2006) "Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow" Research Policy, vol. 35, pp. 994-1017 Sosa, M. E. (2011) "Where Do Creative Interactions Come From" The Role of Tie Content and Social Networks" Organization Science, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 121