Knowledge domains, technological strategies and open innovation

Journal of Technology Management and Innovation

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 50-78

  Michelino, Francesca ^a   Cammarano, Antonello ^a   Lamberti, Emilia ^a   Caputo, Mauro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALERNO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bio pharmaceutical; Decentralized r d activities; Exploitation vs. exploration; Innovation strategies; Knowledge domains; Open innovation; Organizing for innovation; Patent data analysis; Technological fields; Technology hardware equipment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84944455060     PISSN: None     EISSN: 07182724     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4067/S0718-27242015000200005     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. ABRAHAM, B.P., Moitra, S.D. (2001). Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation, 21(4), 245-252. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(00)00040-7
2. ACS, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. (1989). Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos, 42(2), 171-180. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1989.tb00186.x
3. AGRYRES, N.S., Silverman, B.S. (2004). R&D, organization structure and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25(89), 929-958. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.387
4. AHUJA, G., Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197-220. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.157
5. AHUJA, G., Lampert, C.M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 521-543. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.176
6. ALASHAAB, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A., Magyar, A. (2011). A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry-university collaboration. Production Planning & Control, 22(5-6), 554-570. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.536626
7. ALMEIDA, P., Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905-917. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.7.905
8. ANAND, B.N., Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 295-315. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:3%3C295:aid-smj91%3E3.3.co;2-f
9. ARCHIBUGI, D., Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16 (9), 451-468. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(96)00031-4
10. ARGOTE, L. (1999). Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
11. BELDERBOS, R., Faems, D., Leten, B. and Van Looy, B. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 869-882. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00757.x
12. BENNER, M.J., Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-706. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/3094913
13. BENNER, M.J., Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
14. BRUSONI, S., Prencipe, A., Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge, specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: why do firms know more than they make?. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 597-621. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094825
15. BURGELMAN, R.A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325-357. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094808
16. CHAKRABARTI, A.K. (1991). Competition in high technology: analysis of patents of US, Japan, UK, West Germany, and Canada. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 38(1), 78-4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.65763
17. CHANG, S.J. (1996). An evolutionary perspective on diversification and corporate restructuring: entry, exit, and economic performance during 1981-89. Strategic Management Journal, 17(8), 587-611. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199610)17:8%3C587:aid-smj834%3E3.0.co;2-1
18. CHESBROUGH, H. (2003). Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
19. CHESBROUGH, H.W. (2006). Open business models: how to thrive in the new innovation landscape, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
20. CHRISTENSEN, C.M., Overdof, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harward Business Review, 78(2), 66–76.
21. COHEN, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393553
22. DAVID, P.A., Steinmueller, W.E. (1995). Economics of compatibility standards and competition in telecommunication networks. Information Economics and Policy, 6(3–4), 217-242. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-6245(94)90003-5
23. DITTRICH, K., Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of open innovation. Journal of Product and Innovation Management, 24(6), 510-521. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00268.x
24. DOSI, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6
25. DUYSTERS, G., de Man, A.P. (2003). Transitory alliances: an instrument for surviving turbulent industries?. R&D Management, 33(1), 49-57. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1467-9310.00281
26. EGYEDI, T.M. (1999). Examining the relevance of paradigms to base OSI standardisation. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 20(4), 355-374. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0920-5489(98)00071-3
27. FLEMING, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117-132. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
28. GAMBARDELLA, A. (1995). Science and innovation in the US Pharmaceutical Industry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. GRAFF, G.D. (2003). Observing technological trajectories in patent data: empirical methods to study the emergence and growth of new technologies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5), 1266-1274. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00541.x
30. GRANOVETTER, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/225469
31. GRILICHES, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 18(4), 661-1707. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w3301
32. GRUPP, H. (1992). Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation, Springer, Berlin.
33. GUPTA, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
34. HAGEDOORN, J., van Kranenburg, H., Osborn, R.N. (2003). Joint patenting amongst companies-exploring the effects of inter-firm R&D partnering and experience. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24 (2-3), 71-84. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/mde.1078
35. HALL, B.H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations: a first look. NBER Working paper. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w7741
36. HAWKINS, R. (1999). The rise of consortia in the information and communication technology industries: emerging implications for policy. Telecommunications Policy, 23(2), 159-173. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0308-5961(98)00085-8
37. HE, Z.L., Wong, P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
38. HUNG, S.W., Tang, R.H. (2008). Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition mode: an empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Technovation, 28(9), 551-563. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2007.10.005
39. JOHNSTONE, N., Haščič, I., Poirier, J., Hemar, M., Michel, C. (2012). Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from survey data and patent counts. Applied Economics, 44(17), 2157-2170. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.560110
40. JRC (2012). The 2012 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard. Joint Research Centre, Directorate General Research and Innovation, European Commission. http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard12.html [Accessed January 05, 2015].
41. KIM, C., Song, J. (2007). Creating new technology through alliances: an empirical investigation of joint patents. Technovation, 27(8), 461-470. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2007.02.007
42. KOGUT, B. (1988). Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319-332. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090403
43. KOZA, M.P., Lewin, A.Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255-264. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.255
44. KRACKHARDT, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action: 216-239. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
45. LAHIRI, N. (2010). Geographic distribution of R&D activity: how does it affect innovation quality?. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1194-1209. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533233
46. LEONARD-BARTON, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111-125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009
47. LETEN, B., Belderbos, R., Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 567-579. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00272.x
48. LEVINTHAL, D.A., March, J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
49. LO STORTO, C. (2006). A method based on patent analysis for the investigation of technological innovation strategies: The European medical prostheses industry. Technovation, 26(8), 932-942. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. technovation.2005.10.005
50. MARCH, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
51. MARCH, J. (1996). Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Organization Science, 41(2), 278-287. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393720
52. MARCH, J. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 201-214. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.515
53. MAZZUCATO, M., Tancioni, M. (2012). R&D, patents and stock return volatility. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 22(4), 811-832. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00191-012-0289-x
54. MICHELINO, F., Caputo, M., Cammarano, A., Lamberti, E. (2014a). Inbound and outbound open innovation: organization and performances. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 9(3), 65-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242014000300005
55. MICHELINO, F., Cammarano, A., Lamberti, E., Caputo, M. (2014b). Measurement of open innovation through intellectual capital flows: framework and application. International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, 2(2-3), 213-235. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijie.2014.066679
56. MILLER, D.J. (2004). Firms’ technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1097-1119. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.411
57. MILLER, D.J., Fern, M.J., Cardinal L.B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 308-326. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634437
58. MINER, A.S., Bassoff, P., Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: a field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304-337. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667089
59. NAKAMURA, M., Shaver, J.M., Yeung, B. (1996). An empirical investigation of joint venture dynamics: evidence from U.S.-Japan joint ventures. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 14(4), 521-541. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0167-7187(95)00508-0
60. NAYYAR, P.R., Kazanjian, R.K. (1993). Organizing to attain potential benefits from information asymmetries and economies of scope in related diversified firms. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 735-759. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.5465/amr.1993.9402210156
61. NELSON, R., Winter, S.J. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
62. NERKAR, A., Roberts, P.W. (2004). Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(89), 779-799. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/smj.417
63. O'REILLY, C.A., Tushman, M.L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74-82.
64. PAVITT, K. (1984). Sectorial patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0
65. PAVITT, K., Robson, M., Townsend, J. (1989). Technological accumulation, diversification and organization in UK companies, 1945-1983. Management Science, 35(1), 81-99. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.1.81
66. POWELL, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/2393988
67. RAUSSER, G. (1999). Private/public research: knowledge assets and future scenarios. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1011-1027. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1244079
68. SAKATA, J., Suzuki, K., Hosoya, J. (2009). The analysis of research and development efficiency in Japanese companies in the field of fuel cells using patent data. R&D Management, 39(3), 291-304. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00555.x
69. SCHMIDT, S.K., Werle, R. (1998). Coordinating Technology: Studies in the international standardization of telecommunications. Oxford University Press, New York.
70. SCHULZ, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069409
71. SIMON, H.A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125-134. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125
72. SUZUKI, J., Kodama, F. (2004). Technology diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: two case studies of large Japanese firms. Research Policy, 33(3), 531-549. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.10.005
73. TEECE, D.J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications from integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
74. TSANG, E.W.K. (1997). Choice of international technology transfer mode: a resource-based view. Management International Review, 37(2), 151-168.
75. TUSHMAN, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165852
76. VENAIK, S., Midgley, D. E., Devinney, T. M. (2005). Dual paths to performance: the impact of global pressures on MCN subsidiary conduct and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 655-675. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.646401