The required policy tools of collaboration between new nanotechnology ventures and incumbents


1 Doctoral Researcher, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran

2 Corresponding author, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran

3 Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran


Policy tools for developing innovation are challenging topic. The synergy of new firms and incumbents within new product development is the main goal of innovation policies. Yet very little research has explained detailed data on the policy tools that are required for the new product development process. We consider longitudinal multi-case study method and data collected from semi-structured interviews and direct and participative observation from 2010 to 2017. The contribution of this research is available in two parts. First, we introduced policy tools that are required for the joint new product development such as motivational and informational instrument, trust building instrument, technology assurance instrument, market standardization, and so on and second we introduced policy tools in each phases of new product development process. We provide new insight about policy tools in inter-organizational relationships for new product development and offer policy recommendations.


1- جعفری مقدم، سعید، زالی، محمدرضا و ثنایی پور، هادی، 1394، سیاستگذاری توسعه کارآفرینی در گردشگری: مطالعه تطبیقی کشورهای برگزیده، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی سیاستگذاری عمومی، دوره 1، شماره 4، صفحه 27 -48.
2- خوشبویی، زهرا، حسینی، محمد و ابوترابی، محمدعلی، 1396، مداخله‌های دولت در بازار هنرهای نمایشی ایران: تجربیات و دلالت‌های سیاستی، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی سیاستگذاری عمومی، دوره 3، شماره 3، صفحه 9 -33.
3- ستاد ویژه توسعه فناوری نانو، گزارش عملکرد پیشرفت فناوری نانو در ایران، 1395.
4- سلطانی، علی‌محمد، خوشنویس، یاسر و رضا اسدی فرد، 1397، مجموعه مقالات منتخب سیاستگذاری در حوزه­های فناوری­های نوظهور، نشر رسا (در حال چاپ).
5- مهدوی، ابوالقاسم و محمدلو، حمید عزیز، 1395، بررسی تأثیر ساختار سیاستگذاری صنعتی بر کیفیت و کارکرد سیاست‌های طراحی شده در حوزه صنایع کوچک و متوسط ایران، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی سیاستگذاری عمومی، دوره 2، شماره 3، صفحه 57 -77.
6- Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2013). Strategizing as networking for new ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1033-1041.
7- Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41-56.
8- Ansari, S. S., & Krop, P. (2012). Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics. Research policy, 41(8), 1357-1374.
9- Bers, J. A., Dismukes, J. P., Mehserle, D., & Rowe, C. (2014). Extending the Stage-Gate Model to Radical Innovation-the Accelerated Radical Innovation Model. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(4), 706-734.
10- Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological forecasting and social change, 80(8), 1513-1522.
11- Ciabuschi, F., Perna, A., & Snehota, I. (2012). Assembling resources when forming a new business. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 220-229.
12- Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among Five approaches (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13- Dahler-Larsen, P. (2018). Evaluability of policy instruments: A case study of Danish work place assessments under EU directive 89/391.
14- Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Kale, P. (2008). Splitting the pie: rent distribution in alliances and networks. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2‐3), 137-148.
15- Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research policy, 41(10), 1757-1769.
16- Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 25-32.
17- Eppinger, S., & Ulrich, K. (2015). Product design and development. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
18- European Commission, (2011). Key Enabling Technologies. Available at, Accessed: 6th January 2018.
19- Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’for innovation. Research policy, 40(5), 702-713.
20- Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
21- Fogelberg, H., & Sandén, B. A. (2008). Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: An analysis of Swedish nanotechnology discourse and organization.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 65-81.
22- GEM, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Global Report, 2016., access date: 2017/08/17.
23- Gesseneck, J., Toffanin, R.,Gesseneck, J. (2018). Innovation system foresight and systemic innovation for the overseas countries. foresight, (just-accepted), 00-00.
24- Given, L.M. (Ed.), (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks California.
25- Givoni, M., Macmillen, J., Banister, D., & Feitelson, E. (2013). From policy measures to policy packages. Transport Reviews, 33(1), 1-20.
26- Hennicke, P. (2004). Scenarios for a robust policy mix: The final report of the German study commission on sustainable energy supply. Energy Policy, 32(15), 1673–1678.
27- Howlett, M. (2017). The criteria for effective policy design: character and context in policy instrument choice. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-22.
28- Howlett, M., & del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: Verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1233-1245.
29- Justen, A., Fearnley, N., Givoni, M., & Macmillen, J. (2014). A process for designing policy packaging: Ideals and realities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 9-18.
30- Knight, F. H. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Courier Corporation.
31- La Rocca, A., & Snehota, I. (2014). Relating in business networks: Innovation in practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 441-447.
32- Liao, Z. (2018). Environmental policy instruments, environmental innovation and the reputation of enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 1111-1117.
33- Linnarson, H. (2005). Patterns of alignment in alliance structure and innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(2), 161-181.
34- Mangematin, V., & Walsh, S. (2012). The future of nanotechnologies, Technovation, 32 (3-4), pp.157-160.
35- Milkman, K. L., Mazza, M. C., Shu, L. L., Tsay, C. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Policy bundling to overcome loss aversion: A method for improving legislative outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 158-167.
36- Nikulainen, T. (2010). Identifying nanotechnological linkages in the Finnish economy–An explorative study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(5), 513-531.
37- Pérez, L, J Florin and J Whitelock (2012). Dancing with elephants: The challenges of managing asymmetric technology alliances. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 23(2), 142–154.
38- Prange, C., Eng, T. Y., & Li, J. (2015). Collaborative new product alliances: A review of the literature and research perspectives. Strategic Change, 24(4), 351-371.
39- Prashantham, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Dancing with gorillas: How small companies can partner effectively with MNCS”, California Management Review, 51(1), pp. 6–23.
40- Sarkar, S., Osiyevskyy, O., & Clegg, S. R. (2017). Incumbent capability enhancement in response to radical innovations. European Management Journal.
41- Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 217-226.
42- The Global Innovation Index, (2016). Availible at:
43- Wasserman, N. O. A. M. (2006). Rich versus king: strategic choice and the entrepreneur. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management, Harvard Business School.
44- Whitbread, S., Linnane, K., & Davidson, A. (2017). Policy innovation New thinking. New skills. New tools.
45- Yin, R., K., (2014). Case Study Research: design and Methods. 5th Edition. Sage Publication.