The effect of technological diversification on organizational performance: An empirical study of S&P 500 manufacturing firms

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 90, Issue PB, 2015, Pages 575-586

  Lin, Chinho ^a   Chang, Chia Chi ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Absorptive capacity; Environmental dynamism; Technological diversity

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY; ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMISMS; INNOVATION PERFORMANCE; MANUFACTURING FIRMS; ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE; TECHNOLOGICAL DIVERSIFICATION; TECHNOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS;

MANUFACTURE;

FIRM SIZE; INNOVATION; MANUFACTURING; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

EID: 84922334347     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.014     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Argyres N. Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strateg. Manage. J. 1996, 17:395-410.
2. Breschi S., Lissoni F., Malerba F. Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Res. Policy 2003, 32:69-87.
3. Suzuki J., Kodama F. Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: two case studies of large Japanese firms. Res. Policy 2004, 33:531-549.
4. Watanabe C., Hur J.Y., Matsumoto K. Technological diversification and firm's techno-economic structure: an assessment of Canon's sustainable growth trajectory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72:11-27.
5. Granstrand O. Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Res. Policy 1998, 27:465-489.
6. Benner M.J., Tushman M.L. Exploitation, exploration and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2003, 28:238-256.
7. Leten B., Belderbos R., Von Looy B. Technological diversification, coherence, and firm performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2007, 24:567-579.
8. Gemba K., Kodama F. Diversification dynamics of the Japanese industry. Res. Policy 2001, 30:1165-1184.
9. Quintana-García C., Benavides-Velasco C.A. Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: the influence of technological diversification. Res. Policy 2008, 37:492-507.
10. Subramaniam M., Youndt M.A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Acad. Manage. J. 2005, 48:450-463.
11. Nielsen A.O. Patenting, R&D and market structure: manufacturing firms in Denmark. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2001, 66:47-58.
12. Tsai K.H., Wang J.C. Does R&D performance decline with firm size? A re-examination in terms of elasticity. Res. Policy 2005, 34:966-976.
13. Trumbach C.C., Payne D., Kongthon A. Technology mining for small firms: knowledge prospecting for competitive advantage. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73:937-949.
14. Lin B.W., Chen C.J., Wu H.L. Patent portfolio diversify, technology strategy, and firm value. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 2006, 53:17-26.
15. Chiu Y.C., Lai H.C., Lee T.Y., Liaw Y.C. Technological diversification, complementary assets, and performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75:875-892.
16. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35:128-152.
17. Prahalad C.K., Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1990, 68:79-91.
18. Chang K.H., Gotcher D.F. Conflict-coordination learning in marketing channel relationships: the distributor view. Ind. Mark. Manage. 2010, 39:287-297.
19. Pandza K., Holt R. Absorptive and transformative capacities in nanotechnology innovation systems. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 2007, 24:347-365.
20. Teece D.J. Reflections on the Hymer thesis and the multinational enterprise. Int. Bus. Rev. 2006, 15:124-139.
21. Levinthal D., March J.G. The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manage. J. 1993, 14:95-112.
22. Siggelkow N., Levinthal D. Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ. Sci. 2003, 14:650-669.
23. Garcia-Vega M. Does technological diversification promote innovation? an empirical analysis for European firms. Res. Policy 2006, 35:230-246.
24. Granstrand O., Patel P., Pavitt K. Multi-technology corporations: why they have 'distributed' rather than 'distinctive core' competencies. Calif. Manage. Rev. 1997, 39:8-25.
25. D'Este P. How do firms' knowledge bases affect intra-industry heterogeneity? An analysis of the Spanish pharmaceutical industry. Res. Policy 2005, 34:33-45.
26. Hitt M.A., Beamish P.W., Jackson S.E., Mathieu J.E. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: multilevel research in management. Acad. Manage. J. 2007, 50:1385-1399.
27. Aguinis H., Boyd B.K., Pierce C.A., Short J.C. Walking new avenues in management research methods and theories: bridging micro and macro domains. J. Manag. 2011, 37:2395-2403.
28. Bettis R.A., Hitt M.A. The new competitive landscape. Strateg. Manage. J. 1995, 16:7-20.
29. Lee C., Lee K., Pennings J.M. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strateg. Manage. J. 2001, 22:615-640.
30. Rycroft R.W., Kash D.E. The Complexity Challenge: Technological Innovation for the 21st Century 1999, Pinter, London.
31. Hamel G.H., Prahalad C.K. Competing for the Future 1994, Havard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
32. Nesta L., Saviotti P.P. Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm's innovative performance: evidence from the US pharmaceutical industry. J. Indust. Econ. 2005, 53:123-142.
33. Sorescu A.B., Chandy R.K., Prabhu J.C. Source and financial consequences of radical innovation: insights from pharmaceuticals. J. Mark. 2003, 67:82-102.
34. McCutehen W.W., Swamidass P.M. Exploring larger biotech research firm strategies: projections from a comparison of small and larger firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1996, 51:173-184.
35. Chen M.J., Hambrick D.C. Speed stealth and selective attack: how small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Acad. Manage. J. 1995, 38:453-482.
36. Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20:781-796.
37. Buckley P.J. International strategy transfer by small and medium sized enterprises. Small Bus. Econ. 1997, 9:67-78.
38. Gambardella A., Torrisi S. Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Res. Policy 1998, 27:445-463.
39. Anthony R.N., Dearden J., Govindarajan V. Management Control Systems 1992, Irwin, Boston.
40. Jansen J., Van Den Bosch F., Volberda H.W. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?. Acad. Manage. J. 2005, 48:999-1015.
41. Lane P.J., Koka B., Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2006, 31:833-863.
42. Arora A., Gambardella A. Evaluating technological information and \utilizing it: scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1994, 38:361-379.
43. Zahra S.A., Filatotchev I., Wright M. How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. J. Bus. Ventur. 2009, 24:248-260.
44. Escribano A., Fosfuri A., Tribó J.A. Managing external knowledge flows: the moderating role of absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 2009, 38:96-105.
45. Gomez J., Vargas P. The effect of financial constraints, absorptive capacity and complementarities on the adoption of multiple process technologies. Res. Policy 2009, 38:106-119.
46. Lane P.J., Salk J.E., Lyles M.A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strateg. Manage. J. 2001, 22:1139-1161.
47. Block Z., MacMillan I.C. Corporate Venturing: Creating New Business within the Firm 1993, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Zahra S.A., Hayton J.C. The effect of international venturing on firm performance: the moderating influence of absorptive capacity. J. Bus. Ventur. 2008, 23:195-220.
49. Barney J.B. Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2001, 26:41-56.
50. Priem R.L., Butler J.E. Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2001, 26:22-40.
51. Lee C.Y., Wu H.L., Liu C.Y. Contextual determinants of ambidextrous learning: evidence from industrial firms in four countries. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 2013, 60:529-540.
52. Sirmon D.G., Hitt M.A., Ireland R.D. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2007, 32:273-292.
53. Wang H., Chen W. Is firm-specific innovation associated with greater value appropriation? The roles of environmental dynamism and technological diversity. Res. Policy 2010, 39:141-154.
54. Dess G.G., Beard D.W. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm. Sci. Q. 1984, 29:52-73.
55. Anderson P., Tushman M.L. Organizational environments and industry exit: the effects of uncertainty, munificence and complexity. Ind. Corp. Change 2011, 10:675-711.
56. Wiklund J., Shepherd D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configuration approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20:71-91.
57. Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strateg. Manage. J. 1992, 13:111-126.
58. Heinze N., Hu Q. The evolution of corporate web presence: a longitudinal study of large American companies. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 2006, 26:313-325.
59. Berry C.H. Corporate Growth and Diversification 1975, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
60. Denis D.J., Denis D.K., Yost K. Global diversification, industrial diversification, and firm value. J. Financ. 2002, 57:1951-1979.
61. Nachum L. Geographic and industrial diversification of developing country firms. J. Manage. Stud. 2004, 41:273-294.
62. Argote L. Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring 1999, Kluwer, Norwell.
63. Katila R., Ahuja G. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Manage. J. 2002, 45:1183-1194.
64. Zahra S.A., George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2002, 27:185-203.
65. Mowery D.C., Oxley J.E. Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the role of national innovation systems. Cambr. J. Econ. 1995, 19:67-93.
66. Keller W. Absorptive capacity: on the creation and acquisition of technology in development. J. Dev. Econ. 1996, 49:199-210.
67. Buckley P.J., Clegg J., Wang C. Is the relationship between inward FDI and spillover effects linear? An empirical examination of the case of China. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2007, 38:447-459.
68. Brown J. Research that reinvents the corporation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1991, 69:102-111.
69. Simerly R., Li M. Environmental dynamism, capital structure and performance: a theoretical integration and an empirical test. Strateg. Manage. J. 2000, 21:141-154.
70. Keats B.W., Hitt M.A. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Acad. Manage. J. 1988, 31:570-598.
71. Dean J.W., Snell S.A. The strategic use of integrated manufacturing: an empirical examination. Strateg. Manage. J. 1996, 17:459-471.
72. Bebchuk L., Cohen A. The costs of entrenched boards. J. Financ. Econ. 2005, 78:409-433.
73. Brown L.D., Caylor M.L. Corporate governance and firm valuation. J. Account. Public Policy 2006, 25:409-434.
74. Hall B.H., Oriani R. Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2006, 24:971-993.
75. Lane P.J., Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interoragnizational learning. Strateg. Manage. J. 1998, 19:461-477.
76. Uotila J., Maula M., Keil T., Zahra S. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strateg. Manage. J. 2009, 30:221-231.
77. Levitas E., Mcfadyen M.A. Managing liquidity in research-intensive firms: signaling and cash flow effects of patents and alliance activities. Strateg. Manage. J. 2009, 30:659-678.
78. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand J. Econ. 1990, 21:172-187.
79. Hall B.H., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. Rand J. Econ. 2005, 36:16-38.
80. Ernst H. Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Res. Policy 2001, 30:143-157.
81. Friday H.S., Howton S.D., Howton S.W. Anomalous evidence on operating performance following seasoned equity offerings: the case of REITs. Financ. Manage. 2000, 29:76-87.
82. Rouziès D., Coughlan A.T., Anderson E., Iacobucci D. Determinants of pay levels and structures in sales organizations. J. Mark. 2009, 73:92-104.
83. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.C., Black W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis 1998, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
84. Cohen J., Cohen P., West S.G., Aiken L.S. Applied multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey. 3rd ed.
85. Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
86. Stock G.N., Greis N.P., Fischer W.A. Firm size and dynamic technological innovation. Technovation 2002, 22:537-549.
87. Larrañeta B., Zahra S.A., González J.L.G. Enriching strategic variety in new ventures through external knowledge. J. Bus. Ventur 2012, 27:401-413.
88. Geiger S.W., Makri M. Exploration and exploitation innovation processes: the role of organizational slack in R&D intensive firms. J. High Technol. Manage. Res. 2006, 17:97-108.
89. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J.P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage. Sci. 2002, 48:1-23.