Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Tính toán đồng bộ đổi mới nhân đôi: Các thử nghiệm trong các hoạt động công nghệ
Tóm tắt
Công nghệ đổi mới hưởng lợi từ sự tương tác có sự thay đổi về tốc độ và mức độ tác động, tùy thuộc vào việc chúng có tính chất bổ sung hay nhân đôi. Sự tương tác đổi mới bổ sung được xây dựng dần dần trên các công nghệ quen thuộc (như được phản ánh trong các công nghệ được phát triển từ các tiền đề tương ứng trong bằng sáng chế của chúng) và thời gian tác động của nó tồn tại ngắn hơn. Sự tương tác đổi mới nhân đôi phát sinh từ việc kết hợp các tỷ lệ lớn hơn của các công nghệ đa dạng và tác động của chúng có kéo dài hơn. Các quá trình học tập tổ chức hiệu quả nhất đi kèm với việc tiếp xúc với các dòng công nghệ kỳ lạ thông qua việc mua công nghệ sẽ xảy ra nếu các công ty đã đầu tư một cách hợp lý vào khả năng thích ứng để tổng hợp các phát minh bằng cách sử dụng kiến thức chưa quen thuộc. Trong các thử nghiệm đầu tiên về sự tương tác đổi mới đối với hiệu suất của công ty, chúng tôi thấy rằng sự mới mẻ công nghệ trong nội dung bằng sáng chế cải thiện lợi tức tài sản cho các công ty đã đầu tư liên tục vào R&D. Sử dụng điểm số nội dung bằng sáng chế để khái quát xem các nhà phát minh đã tích hợp tỷ lệ lớn hơn các tiền đề công nghệ kỳ lạ vào các phát minh của họ (hay không), chúng tôi kiểm tra tác động của sự tương tác đổi mới đến hiệu suất của các công ty sau các hoạt động mua công nghệ. Tư thế đa dạng hóa (có thể là một giải thích thay thế cho sự khác biệt về hiệu suất) có tương quan tiêu cực với sự tương tác đổi mới trong kết quả của chúng tôi.
Từ khóa
#Đổi mới công nghệ #Tương tác đổi mới #Bằng sáng chế #Hiệu suất doanh nghiệp #Tư thế đa dạng hóaTài liệu tham khảo
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.
Aharonson, B. S., & Schilling, M. A. (2016). Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution. Research Policy, 45, 81–96.
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in large corporations: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521–543.
Alcácer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774–779.
Alcácer, J., Gittelman, M., & Sampat, B. (2009). Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38, 415–427.
Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.
Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.
Argyres, N. S. (1996). Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 395–410.
Arthur, W. B. (1996). Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 100–109.
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Paleari, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1–9.
Barney, J. B. (1988). Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: Reconsidering the related hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 71–78.
Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998a). GMM estimation with persistent panel data: An application to production functions. Working paper presented at Eighth International Conference on Panel Data, Göteborg University.
Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998b). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.
Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2010). The M&S dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 141–180.
Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2011). Valuing university-based firms: The effects of academic affiliation on IPO performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 755–776.
Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Economic Journal, 110(463), 388–410.
Cassiman, B., Colombo, M. G., Garrone, P., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The impact of M&A on the R&D process—An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness. Research Policy, 34(2), 195–220.
Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research Policy, 35, 642–668.
Coff, R. W. (2010). The coevolution of rent appropriation and capability development. Strategic Management Journal, 31(7), 711–733.
Coff, R. W., & Lee, P. M. (2003). Insider trading as a vehicle to appropriate rent from R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 183–190.
Cohen, W. M. (2010). Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 129–213)., Chapter 4: Handbooks in economics series Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.
Corredoira, R. A., & Banerjee, P. M. (2015). Measuring patent’s influence on technological evolution: A study of knowledge spanning and subsequent inventive activity. Research Policy, 44, 508–521.
Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34, 717–737.
Derwent Innovations Index. (2015). Web of science. New York, NY: Thomson Reuters.
Eccles, R. G., Lanes, K. L., & Wilson, T. C. (1999). Are you paying too much for that acquisition? Harvard Business Review, 79(4), 136–146.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.
Fulghieri, P., & Hodrick, L. S. (2006). Synergies and internal agency conflicts: The double-edged sword of mergers. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 15(3), 549–576.
Galasso, A., & Schankerman, M. (2010). Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 41(3), 472–503.
Gittelman, M. (2008). Note on the value of patents as indicators of innovation: Implications for management research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 21–27.
Goel, R. K., & Rich, D. P. (2005). Organization of markets for science and technology. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 161(1), 1–17.
Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1998). Desperately seeking synergy. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 131–143.
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, S29–S47.
Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2014). Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: The role of intellectual property rights. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1762–1780.
Grossman, S. T., & Hart, O. D. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 691–719.
Gupta, D., & Gerchak, Y. (2002). Quantifying operational synergies in a merger/acquisition. Management Science, 48(4), 517–533.
Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). The effect of mergers and acquisitions on the technological performance of companies in a high-tech environment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 14, 67–89.
Harrigan, K.R. (1983). Strategies for vertical integration. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company, Lexington Books (reprinted in 2003 as Vertical Integration, Outsourcing and Corporate Strategy. Frederick, MD: Beard Group).
Harrigan, K. R. (1988). Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 141–158.
Haspeslagh, P. C., & Jemison, D. B. (1991). Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal. New York: Free Press.
Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 24, 248–270.
Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59.
Hill, C. W. L. (1992). Strategies for exploiting technological innovations—When and when not to license. Organization Science, 3(3), 428–441.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Ireland, R. D., & Harrison, J. S. (1991). Effects of acquisitions on R&D inputs and outputs. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 693–706.
Hoetker, G., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Death hurts, but it isn’t fatal: The postexit diffusion of knowledge created by innovative companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 446–467.
Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1–4), 5–50.
Jung, H. J., & Lee, J. S. (2016). The quest for originality: A new typology of knowledge search and breakthrough inventions. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1725–1753.
Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1435–1457.
Karim, S., & Kaul, A. (2015). Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking internal knowledge synergy through structural change. Organization Science, 26(2), 439–455.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.
Kerin, R. A., Varadarajan, P. R., & Peterson, R. A. (1992). 1st-mover advantage—A synthesis, conceptual-framework, and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 33–52.
Kim, S. K., Arthurs, J. D., Sahaym, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2013). Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 999–1009.
Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures-theoretical and empirical-perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319–332.
Kogut, B. (1991). Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management Science, 37(1), 19–33.
Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resources perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization. Organization Science, 10(1), 1–26.
Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2006). Learning from users for radical innovation. International Journal of Technology Management, 33, 25–45.
Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, C. A. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1111–1125.
Lien, L. B., & Klein, P. G. (2009). Using competition to measure relatedness. Journal of Management, 35(4), 1078–1107.
Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. (2010). Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 602–628.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1994). Related diversification, core competencies and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 149–165.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (1997). Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 626–657.
Miller, D. J. (2004). Firms’ technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1097–1119.
Miller, D. J. (2006). Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 601–619.
Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1998). Paths of innovation: Technological change in 20th-century America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nair, S. S., Mathew, M., & Nag, D. (2011). Dynamics between patent latent variables and patent price. Technovation, 31, 648–654.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard.
Nerkar, A. (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 2, 211–229.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petruzzelli, A. M., Rotolo, D., & Albino, V. (2015). Determinants of patent citations in biotechnology: An analysis of patent influence across the industrial and organizational boundaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91, 208–221.
Rhodes-Kropf, M., & Robinson, D. T. (2008). The market for mergers and the boundaries of the firm. The Journal of Finance, 63(3), 1169–1211.
Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 287–306.
Schoenmakers, W., & Duysters, G. (2010). The technological origins of radical inventions. Research Policy, 39, 1051–1059.
Sears, J. B., & Hoetker, G. (2014). Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in technological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 48–67.
Sherry, E. F., & Teece, D. J. (2004). Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy, 33(2), 179–191.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Value maximization and the acquisition process. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(1), 7–20.
Singh, J., & Agrawal, A. (2011). Recruiting for ideas: How firms exploit the prior inventions of new hires. Management Science, 57(1), 129–150.
Sirower, M. L. (1997). The synergy trap: How companies lose the acquisition game. NY: Free Press.
Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. (2003). Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science, 49(4), 351–365.
Standard & Poor’s. (2013). COMPUSTAT Database. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811.
Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 21–38.
Tassey, G. (2010). Rationales and mechanisms for revitalizing US manufacturing R&D strategies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(3), 283–333.
Thomson Reuters. (2013). Thomson One Mergers & Acquisitions. New York, NY: Thomson Reuters.
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5, 19–50.
Verhoeven, D., Bakker, J., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Research Policy, 45, 707–723.
Veuglers, R., & Cassiman, B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80.
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995.
Zaheer, A., Castañer, X., & Souder, D. (2013). Synergy sources, target autonomy and integration in acquisitions. Journal of Management, 39(3), 604–632.
Zhou, Y. M. (2011). Synergy, coordination costs, and diversification choices. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4), 624–639.
Ziedonis, R. H. (2004). Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science, 50(6), 804–820.