New working paper: "Knowledge Diversity in the Emerging Global Bio-Nano Sector"

My co-authors and I have a new working paper out on SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1672506


Knowledge Diversity in the Emerging Global Bio-Nano Sector

Elicia Maine 

Management of Technology; Policy Analysis, Simon Fraser University

Martin J. Bliemel 

Australian School of Business - Strategy and Entrepreneurship

Armstrong Murira 

affiliation not provided to SSRN

August 31, 2010

Abstract:    
Great opportunities and radical innovation are most likely to occur at the convergence of two or more technology streams. A bio-nano sector is emerging from such a convergence and may eventually provide radical innovation and new dominant firms. As there are no comprehensive reviews on this emerging sector, this paper provides a descriptive overview, identifying what types of firms are entering, from what knowledge base, where they are located, and their strategic choices in terms of technological diversity, R&D strategy, business model, and areas of clinical focus.

The firms engaged in bio-nano research and development span the range from start-up firm to multinational pharmaceutical, biotech, chemical, and electronics firms: three quarters of bio-nano firms are relatively young and relatively small. The United States dominates this sector, with more than half of all bio-nano firms located in the USA. Even within this sector which epitomizes the convergence of technology, there is a broad range of technological diversity, with the most diverse firms overall coming from a base in electronics, the most diverse start-up firms coming from a base in nanomaterials, and the most narrowly focused firms coming from a biotechnology/pharmaceutical base. We compare firm size with R&D strategy. The smaller firms have less diverse patent portfolios and are more likely to follow a hybridization knowledge diversity strategy, while the larger firms have more diverse patent portfolios and more widespread use of a juxtaposition R&D strategy.

Keywords: knowledge diversity, biotechnology, nanotechnology, technology convergence, radical innovation, emerging technology sector, hybridization, juxtaposition

IJTE publication available now and organizations that support innovation in BC

This is just s short announcement that the IJTE article I co-authored with Elicia Maine is now available via Inderscience:

• Bliemel, M.J., Maine, E.M.A. (2008) Network embeddedness as a predictor of performance for New Technology-Based Firms, International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 1(3), pp. 313 - 341

Also, here's a fun course projected I worked on with Ben, Josh and co during their MBA at SFU. It's a reapplication of Puttick's Complexity Grid to organizations in Vancouver and BC that promote innovation (link):

Here's another interesting article that's applied it to Clusters:

• Carrie, A. (1999) Integrated clusters – the future basis of competition, International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 1(1), pp. 45-50(6)

PS: Congrats to Ben & Josh at Saltworks for scooping 1st place and the sustainability prize at New Ventures BC!

Publication announcement: Network Embeddedness as a Predictor of Performance for New Technology-Based Firms

Another publication I am a co-author of just got accepted for publication at the International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship:

Network Embeddedness as a Predictor of Performance for New Technology-Based Firms
by Martin J. Bliemel, Elicia M.A. Maine
Abstract: The logic of network embeddedness has been widely used in the technology entrepreneurship literature in recent years, yet its operationalization and use are neither well understood nor agreed upon. This paper provides a literature review of the logic of network embeddedness as it has been invoked and operationalized to predict the performance of New Technology-Based Firms (NTBFs). We find that: 1) existing studies, both inside and outside of the technology entrepreneurship literature, employ the logic of embeddedness and operationalize network embeddedness in vastly different ways; 2) empirical NTBF studies frequently use linear and unidimensional measures when invoking embeddedness to explain NTBF performance; and 3) surprisingly few studies rationalize NTBF performance using curvi-linear methods, interaction effects or contingency factors that account for firm contexts and firm constraints. All other operationalizations are subject to unbounded conclusions, thus overlooking the costs of maintaining network relationships. The studies that consider such constraints support the logic of network embeddedness, in that there is a growth-stage appropriate portfolio size and composition that leads to superior performance. Network embeddedness appears to be a useful predictor for NTBF performance when operationalized at both the dyad and network levels and accounting for firm characteristics and environmental conditions. Without accounting for such firm and environment specific variations, the predictive value of network embeddedness is far lower. An appropriate operationalization of embeddedness for predicting the performance of NTBFs should take both the relative benefits and the relative drawbacks of strong and weak ties into account. We propose that it should also account for the limited capacity of the firm to engage in external exchanges of either strength. With such contingencies, network embeddedness can guide executive’s decisions in managerial resource allocation, and policymakers in industry networking activities to stimulate regional firm growth.
Keywords: Network Embeddedness, Growth, Technology Entrepreneurship, New Technology-Based Firm, Networks, Performance

To learn more about my research, you'll have to either read my papers, or just meet me in person. My upcoming presentation at AOM is a good start.
For more info about Elicia's research, you can also check out her new Advanced Materials Commercialization site with Jim Utterback and Elizabeth Garnsey.

Publication announcement: A comparison of R&D indicators for the Vancouver biotechnology cluster

The Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (like a Harvard Business Review for biotechnology companies) just released another article I am a co-author of:

"A comparison of R&D indicators for the Vancouver biotechnology cluster"
Journal of Commercial Biotechnology advance online publication, June 3, 2008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/jcb.2008.16

This article was co-authored with Monica Salazar, who is the Executive Director for the Columbian Observatory of Science and Technology, and Adam Holbrook, who is the associate director of the Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology (CPROST) and also a member if the Innovation Systems Research Network (ISRN).

This article uses data from StatCan, ISRN, and BC Biotech/LifeSciences BC to take a look at whether there actually is a biotechnology cluster in Vancouver, and compares several of the indicators to other regions in Canada.

This article also has a brilliant metaphor for Vancouver's biotechnology sector portrayed as a garden.

3 posts in 1: ASAC, my first official publication, and EBC

I've been suffering a little blog-stipation recently and have some more reviews, news, and ideas to release. First the reviews.

Reviews: ASAC 2008

I just for back from ASAC 2008 in Halifax, where I presented a paper I am working on with my supervisor that is suggesting a new method for network analysis that accepts the fact that any one person can be involved in multiple activities, AND any one activity can involve multiple people. Sounds revolutionary, I know, but the fact of the matter is that most social network analysis tends to typecast people into single roles and single purpose relationships. More on that piece once it's released.

At ASAC, I saw Joe Bower's presentation on CEO succession. In a way it reminded me of a theory I had during my MBA about what a CKO (chief knowledge officer) should do. In my mind, a CKO's role is to find information asymmetries and facilitate the exchange of knowledge until they are no longer needed. In other words, they work to make themselves obsolete. Well, in Joe Bower's research, he suggests that CEO succession should be planned approximately 4-5 years in advance of it being forced (retirement, disaster-contingency planning, whatever). BUT, if the average CEO is only in office for ~5 years, then they need to think about who is going to replace them the day they start. Imagine the extra mental load: "Congratulations on becoming CEO. Now start planning your replacement."

News: Published Papers on Innovation

A paper I co-authored with my supervisor has just been made available online by the publisher:

Bliemel, M. J., & McCarthy, I. P. (2008). Networks of dedicated
biotechnology and service firms in Vancouver. Journal of Commercial
Biotechnology.

The Journal of Commercial Biotechnology is like a Harvard Business Review for biotechnology firms. The research is written in a way that is meant to make a balanced impact on industry as well as academia. This piece is related to my PhD research, and draws on data from the ISRN.

Ideas: How to leverage your start-up investment by 43%

The other month I met with someone from the BC Ministry of Economic Development, who gave me a brochure that explains the Eligible Business Corporation (EBC) tax credit system better than their online version. In a nutshell, if an investor invests cash into a start-up that is certified as an EBC, they can get 30% of their investment back. However, doesn't that defeat the purpose of fostering innovation? What if the cash credited back to the invested were reinvested into the start-up? Well, then the start-up would get 30% more cash, and the investor would get more equity plus another 9% (30% of 30%) cash back. Reiterate the process to a total of 10 times, and the numbers converge on 43% of the investor's cash being matched by the government, with the extra equity going to the investor. After all, should the investors be in it to capitalize in the longer term on the management and innovation, rather than short-term tax credit kick backs?