IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v196y2023ics0040162523005644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Qu, Guannan
  • Chen, Jin
  • Zhang, Ruhao
  • Wang, Luyao
  • Yang, Yayu

Abstract

The significance of breakthrough innovations is not only reflected in their technological novelty but also in their impacts on the evolution of industrial technology paths. In the context of accelerating digitalization and industrial upgrading, it is particularly important to investigate how can firms manage their technological search strategies to generate breakthrough outputs. We develop a main-path-based approach to complement the existing method of breakthrough innovations in terms of their impact on industrial technology evolution. Besides, based on a sample of 29,620 USPTO patents of the electric communication industry, for the period 1976–2021, we further link firms' technological search strategies of local and distant modes to their breakthrough innovation and find that the two search modes have respective and joint effects on firms' breakthrough performance concerning both technological novelty and industrial impact. This paper not only provides a more integrated approach to identifying breakthrough innovations but also explores the impact of a firm's technological search strategy on them.

Suggested Citation

  • Qu, Guannan & Chen, Jin & Zhang, Ruhao & Wang, Luyao & Yang, Yayu, 2023. "Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:196:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005644
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523005644
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pilar Bernal & Juan P. Maicas & Pilar Vargas, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation and innovation performance: disentangling the evolution of industry," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 295-320, March.
    2. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    3. Calero-Medina, Clara & Noyons, Ed C.M., 2008. "Combining mapping and citation network analysis for a better understanding of the scientific development: The case of the absorptive capacity field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 272-279.
    4. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    5. Pankaj Ghemawat & Joan E. I Ricart Costa, 1993. "The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 59-73, December.
    6. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    7. John S. Liu & Louis Y.Y. Lu, 2012. "An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 528-542, March.
    8. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    9. Carolina Castaldi & Koen Frenken & Bart Los, 2015. "Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 767-781, May.
    10. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    11. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    12. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    13. Aharonson, Barak S. & Schilling, Melissa A., 2016. "Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 81-96.
    14. John E. Ettlie & William P. Bridges & Robert D. O'Keefe, 1984. "Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 682-695, June.
    15. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    16. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    17. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    18. Levinthal, Daniel & March, James G., 1981. "A model of adaptive organizational search," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 307-333, December.
    19. Madeline K. Kneeland & Melissa A. Schilling & Barak S. Aharonson, 2020. "Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 535-557, May.
    20. Mladenka Popadić & Matej Černe, 2016. "Exploratory and exploitative innovation: the moderating role of partner geographic diversity," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 1165-1181, January.
    21. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    22. John S. Liu & Louis Y.Y. Lu, 2012. "An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 528-542, March.
    23. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    24. Cho, Sam Yul & Kim, Sang Kyun, 2017. "Horizon problem and firm innovation: The influence of CEO career horizon, exploitation and exploration on breakthrough innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1801-1809.
    25. Ghemawat, Pankaj & Ricart, Joan E., 1993. "Organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency, The," IESE Research Papers D/255, IESE Business School.
    26. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Harry R. Commandeur & Henk W. Volberda, 2007. "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 20-38, February.
    27. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    28. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    29. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    30. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    31. Bart Verspagen, 2007. "Mapping Technological Trajectories As Patent Citation Networks: A Study On The History Of Fuel Cell Research," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 93-115.
    32. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    33. Dang, Jianwei & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2015. "Patent statistics: A good indicator for innovation in China? Patent subsidy program impacts on patent quality," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 137-155.
    34. Yu-Ting Cheng & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 1996. "Learning the Innovation Journey: Order out of Chaos?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(6), pages 593-614, December.
    35. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    36. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    37. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    38. Baba, Yasunori & Walsh, John P., 2010. "Embeddedness, social epistemology and breakthrough innovation: The case of the development of statins," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 511-522, May.
    39. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Kraus, Sascha, 2013. "Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2060-2070.
    40. Seong K. Byun & Jong-Min & Han Xia, 2021. "Incremental vs. Breakthrough Innovation: The Role of Technology Spillovers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1779-1802, March.
    41. Hipp, Ann & Binz, Christian, 2020. "Firm survival in complex value chains and global innovation systems: Evidence from solar photovoltaics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    42. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    43. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2004. "Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 887-907, August.
    44. Jan W. Rivkin, 2000. "Imitation of Complex Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(6), pages 824-844, June.
    45. Capponi, Giovanna & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2022. "Breakthrough innovations and where to find them," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    46. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    47. Vivek Tandon & Puay Khoon Toh, 2022. "Who deviates? Technological opportunities, career concern, and inventor's distant search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 724-757, April.
    48. Yi-Ning Tu & Shu-Lan Hsu, 2016. "Constructing conceptual trajectory maps to trace the development of research fields," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 2016-2031, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xu, Mo & Tao, Changqi, 2024. "How to reach new technological specialisation: The role of related technological capabilities and complementary technological linkages," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William Arant & Dirk Fornahl & Nils Grashof & Kolja Hesse & Cathrin Söllner, 2019. "University-industry collaborations—The key to radical innovations? [Universität-Industrie-Kooperationen – Der Schlüssel zu radikalen Innovationen?]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 119-141, October.
    2. Plantec, Quentin & Le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoît, 2021. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: A study in the oil & gas industry through dynamic patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Madeline K. Kneeland & Melissa A. Schilling & Barak S. Aharonson, 2020. "Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 535-557, May.
    4. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    6. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    7. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    8. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry," Post-Print hal-02613665, HAL.
    9. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    10. Plantec, Quentin & Deval, Marie-Alix & Hooge, Sophie & Weil, Benoit, 2023. "Big data as an exploration trigger or problem-solving patch: Design and integration of AI-embedded systems in the automotive industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Doblinger, Claudia & Surana, Kavita & Li, Deyu & Hultman, Nathan & Anadón, Laura Díaz, 2022. "How do global manufacturing shifts affect long-term clean energy innovation? A study of wind energy suppliers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    13. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    14. Rajat Khanna & Isin Guler, 2022. "Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1402-1430, July.
    15. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.
    16. Xiao, Fenglong & Shen, Yinjie, 2024. "Wolves at the door to the unknown: Innovation search and hedge fund activism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    17. Sandro Montresor & Gianluca Orsatti & Francesco Quatraro, 2023. "Technological novelty and key enabling technologies: evidence from European regions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 851-872, August.
    18. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    19. Schön, Benjamin & Pyka, Andreas, 2013. "The success factors of technology-sourcing through mergers & acquisitions: An intuitive meta-analysis," FZID Discussion Papers 78-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    20. Jeongsik “Jay” Lee & Hyun Ju Jung & Hyunwoo Park, 2023. "Rare is beautiful? Rareness, technology value, and the moderating role of search domain and knowledge maturity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(4), pages 1019-1040, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:196:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.