Multi-technology corporations: Why they have "distributed" rather than "distinctive core" competencies

California Management Review

Volumn , Issue 4, 1997, Pages 8-25

  Granstrand, Ove ^a   Patel, Pari ^a   Pavitt, Keith ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031509001     PISSN: 00081256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/41165908     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. G. Dosi, D. Teece, and S. Winter, "Towards a Theory of Corporate Coherence: Preliminary Remarks," in G. Dosi, R. Giannetti, and P. A. Toninelli, eds., Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).
2. C. Prahalad and G. Hamel, "The Core Competencies of the Firm," Harvard Business Review (May/June 1990), pp. 79-91.
3. See M. Tushman and P. Anderson, "Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments," Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (1986): 439-465.
4. See Prahalad and Hamel, op. cit.
5. One further possibility is using the technical field of qualification of corporate employees, especially engineers. This is used in some of our case studies. However, only a few countries apart from Sweden have collected comprehensive data on a regular basis. See S. Jacobsson and C. Oskarsson, "Educational Statistics as an Indicator of Technological Activity," Research Policy, 24 (1995): 127-136.
6. See F. Narin, E. Noma, and R. Perry, "Patents as Indicators of Corporate Technological Strength," Research Policy, 16 (1987): 143-155; "The Global Patent Race Picks Up Speed," Business Week, August 9, 1993, pp. 49-54.
7. See F. Narin, E. Noma, and R. Perry, "Patents as Indicators of Corporate Technological Strength," Research Policy, 16 (1987): 143-155; "The Global Patent Race Picks Up Speed," Business Week, August 9, 1993, pp. 49-54.
8. These are pharmaceuticals, other chemicals, mining and petroleum, textiles, rubber and plastics, paper and wood, food, drink and tobacco, building materials, metals, machinery, electrical-electronic, computers, instruments, motor vehicles, and aircraft.
9. See Table 2 for the 34 technical fields, which are based on U.S. patent classes and sub-classes. The correspondence is available from P. Patel at SPRU, University of Sussex.
10. P. Patel and K. Pavitt, "The Wide (and Increasing) Spread of Technological Competencies in the World's Largest Firms: A Challenge to Conventional Wisdom," in A. Chandler, P. Hagstrom, and O. Solvell, eds., The Dynamic Firm, Oxford (Oxford: University Press, forthcoming).
11. Comparisons between technological and product diversity are particularly difficult given the problems of making one-to-one correspondences between the two sets of classification units. Suffice to say that, in spite of twice as many technological as product classes, firms in Table 1 are active in a higher number of the former than the latter.
12. N. Rosenberg, "Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry," Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
13. A. Prencipe, "Technological Competencies and Product's Evolutionary Dynamics: a Case Study from the Aero-Engine Industry," Research Policy, 25 (1997): 1261-1276.
14. Patel and Pavitt (forthcoming), op. cit.
15. J. Hagedoorn, "Trends and Patterns in Strategic Technology Partnering since the Early Seventies," Review of Industrial Organization, 11 (1992): 601-616.
16. Prencipe, op. cit.
17. A similar pattern can also be observed in Japanese firms in opto-electronics. In the late 1960s, they began to explore the potential opportunities offered by recent scientific advances in the field. Their initial experimentation was across a broad front and, after an extensive period of trial, error, and learning, they began to identify and target specific applications related to their core businesses. For example, Sharp was able to accumulate its competencies in liquid crystal displays through incremental learning and to find multiple applications: from simple matrix displays in watches, calculators, and word processors to active matrix displays in computers and television. See K. Miyazaki, Building Competencies in the Firm: Lessons from Japanese and European Optoelectronics (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1995).
18. In other words, Patent Share (PS) = Pij/∑li Pij, where Pij is the number of patents granted in technical field i to firm j.Similarly, Revealed Technology Advantage (RTA) = PS ÷ ∑ljPij/∑li∑ljPij.
19. "Few companies are likely to build world leadership in more than five or six fundamental competencies. A company that compiles a list of 20 to 30 capabilities has probably not produced a list of core competencies." Prahalad and Hamel, op. cit., p.84.
20. H. Chesbrough and D. Teece "When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation," Harvard Business Review (January/February 1996): 65-73.
21. This will include the competence to gain access to advances in university-based research. Hicks has recently shown that published research by large firms enables them to benefit from the much larger body of research performed in universities. D. Hicks, "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, 4 (1995): 401-424.
22. The main interview and questionnaire study covered 14 large Japanese firms (including Hitachi, NEC, Toshiba, Canon, Toyota), 20 European (including Ericsson, Volvo, Siemens, Philips) and 16 U.S. (including IBM, General Electric, ATT, General Motors, Texas Instruments). A subsequent analysis of published data covered 57 large firms in OECD countries. Additional case studies of various companies and product areas have also been conducted. See O. Granstrand, Technology, Management and Markets (London: Pinter, 1982); O. Granstrand and S. Sjolander, "Managing Innovation in Multi-Technology Corporations," Research Policy, 19 (1990), 35-60. O. Granstrand and C. Oskarsson, "Technology Diversification in Multi-Tech Corporations," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41 (1994): 355-364. C. Oskarsson, Technology Diversification - The Phenomenon, Its Causes and Effects, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 1993.
23. The main interview and questionnaire study covered 14 large Japanese firms (including Hitachi, NEC, Toshiba, Canon, Toyota), 20 European (including Ericsson, Volvo, Siemens, Philips) and 16 U.S. (including IBM, General Electric, ATT, General Motors, Texas Instruments). A subsequent analysis of published data covered 57 large firms in OECD countries. Additional case studies of various companies and product areas have also been conducted. See O. Granstrand, Technology, Management and Markets (London: Pinter, 1982); O. Granstrand and S. Sjolander, "Managing Innovation in Multi-Technology Corporations," Research Policy, 19 (1990), 35-60. O. Granstrand and C. Oskarsson, "Technology Diversification in Multi-Tech Corporations," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41 (1994): 355-364. C. Oskarsson, Technology Diversification - The Phenomenon, Its Causes and Effects, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 1993.
24. The main interview and questionnaire study covered 14 large Japanese firms (including Hitachi, NEC, Toshiba, Canon, Toyota), 20 European (including Ericsson, Volvo, Siemens, Philips) and 16 U.S. (including IBM, General Electric, ATT, General Motors, Texas Instruments). A subsequent analysis of published data covered 57 large firms in OECD countries. Additional case studies of various companies and product areas have also been conducted. See O. Granstrand, Technology, Management and Markets (London: Pinter, 1982); O. Granstrand and S. Sjolander, "Managing Innovation in Multi-Technology Corporations," Research Policy, 19 (1990), 35-60. O. Granstrand and C. Oskarsson, "Technology Diversification in Multi-Tech Corporations," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41 (1994): 355-364. C. Oskarsson, Technology Diversification - The Phenomenon, Its Causes and Effects, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 1993.
25. The main interview and questionnaire study covered 14 large Japanese firms (including Hitachi, NEC, Toshiba, Canon, Toyota), 20 European (including Ericsson, Volvo, Siemens, Philips) and 16 U.S. (including IBM, General Electric, ATT, General Motors, Texas Instruments). A subsequent analysis of published data covered 57 large firms in OECD countries. Additional case studies of various companies and product areas have also been conducted. See O. Granstrand, Technology, Management and Markets (London: Pinter, 1982); O. Granstrand and S. Sjolander, "Managing Innovation in Multi-Technology Corporations," Research Policy, 19 (1990), 35-60. O. Granstrand and C. Oskarsson, "Technology Diversification in Multi-Tech Corporations," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41 (1994): 355-364. C. Oskarsson, Technology Diversification - The Phenomenon, Its Causes and Effects, Department of Industrial Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, 1993.
26. A. Gambardella and S. Torrisi, "Does Technological Convergence Imply Convergence in Markets? Evidence from the Electronics Industry," Research Policy (forthcoming).
27. C. Christensen and R. Rosenbloom, "Explaining the Attacker's Advantage: Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics, and the Value Network," Research Policy, 24 (1995): 233-257.
28. C. Freeman, "Networks of Innovators: a Synthesis of Research Issues," Research Policy, 20 (1991): 499-514.