IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v84y2010i1d10.1007_s11192-009-0143-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring technological diversification: identifying the effects of patent scale and patent scope

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer H. Chen

    (Nanhua University)

  • Show-Ling Jang

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Sonya H. Wen

    (Tamkang University)

Abstract

Although technological diversification is an important strategic decision for both large and small firms alike, the conventional method of measuring such diversification may well introduce significant scale bias against small- and medium-sized firms. We examine this issue in this study using a sample of 73 Taiwanese integrated-circuit (IC) design firms covering the period from 1995 to 2007 and conclude that the conventional measure of technological diversification reflects the spread or distribution amongst technology classes of a company’s current technology portfolio, and does not capture the incremental expansion in technological scope, or the ‘dynamic act of diversification’, as reflected in our alternative scope measure. Our results suggest clear constraints on the applications made under the conventional index, particularly for firms with small patent scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer H. Chen & Show-Ling Jang & Sonya H. Wen, 2010. "Measuring technological diversification: identifying the effects of patent scale and patent scope," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 265-275, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0143-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0143-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0143-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-009-0143-6?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. Janet Bercovitz & Will Mitchell, 2007. "When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long‐term business survival, while controlling for profitability," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 61-79, January.
    2. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    3. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    4. Criscuolo, Paola & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1892-1908, December.
    5. Garcia-Vega, Maria, 2006. "Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 230-246, March.
    6. Show-Ling Jang & Shihmin Lo & Wen Hao Chang, 2009. "How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 563-591, June.
    7. Felicia Fai & Nicholas Von Tunzelmann, 2001. "Scale And Scope In Technology: Large Firms 1930/1990," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 255-288.
    8. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola, 2008. "Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 149-162, February.
    9. Geroski, P. A. & Van Reenen, J. & Walters, C. F., 1997. "How persistently do firms innovate?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, March.
    10. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    11. Corrocher, Nicoletta & Malerba, Franco & Montobbio, Fabio, 2007. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovative activity in the ICT field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 418-432, April.
    12. Nicola Baldini, 2006. "The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(2), pages 387-407, November.
    13. Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    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. Lin-Yun Huang & Jian-Feng Cai & Tien-Chen Lee & Min-Hang Weng, 2020. "A Study on the Development Trends of the Energy System with Blockchain Technology Using Patent Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Wang, Yuandi & Ning, Lutao & Prevezer, Martha, 2015. "Technological diversification in China from 1986 to 2011: Evidence from patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 54-66.
    3. Yun Liu & Zhe Yan & Yijie Cheng & Xuanting Ye, 2018. "Exploring the Technological Collaboration Characteristics of the Global Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Xiaojun Hu & Ronald Rousseau, 2015. "A simple approach to describe a company’s innovative activities and their technological breadth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1401-1411, February.
    5. Lutao Ning & Martha Prevezer & Yuandi Wang, 2014. "Technological diversification in China: Based on Chinese patent analysis during 1986-2011," Working Papers 55, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    6. Chieh-Wa Tsai & Tung-Kuan Liu & Po-Wen Hsueh, 2020. "Patent Analysis of High Efficiency Tunneling Oxide Passivated Contact Solar Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon, 2014. "Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: the case of Korean national R&D," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 853-890, February.
    8. Sadowski, Bert & Nomaler, Onder & Whalley, Jason, 2016. "Technological Diversification of ICT companies into the Internet of things (IoT): A Patent -based Analysis," 27th European Regional ITS Conference, Cambridge (UK) 2016 148701, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    9. Jong-Hyun Kim & Yong-Gil Lee, 2024. "Investigating Technological Advancement Strategies for the Innovation Impact of Alternative Energy Patents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Porto Gómez, Igone & Aguirre Larracoechea, Urko, 2020. "Technological diversification: a matter of related or unrelated varieties?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(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. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    2. Dibiaggio, Ludovic & Nasiriyar, Maryam & Nesta, Lionel, 2014. "Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1582-1593.
    3. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    4. Carlo Corradini & Pelin Demirel & Giuliana Battisti, 2016. "Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 163-177, June.
    5. Burak Dindaroğlu, 2018. "Determinants of patent quality in U.S. manufacturing: technological diversity, appropriability, and firm size," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1083-1106, August.
    6. Huo, Dong & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2013. "When Category-based Indices Encounter Non-independent Categories: Solving the Taxonomy Issue in Resource-based Empirical Studies," MPRA Paper 56186, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2016. "The role of diversification profiles and dyadic characteristics in the formation of technological alliances: Differences between exploitation and exploration in a low-tech industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 517-532.
    8. Show-Ling Jang & Li-Ju Chen & Jennifer H. Chen & Yu-Chieh Chiu, 2013. "Innovation and production in the global solar photovoltaic industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1021-1036, March.
    9. Yu-Shan Chen & Ke-Chiun Chang, 2012. "Using the entropy-based patent measure to explore the influences of related and unrelated technological diversification upon technological competences and firm performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 825-841, March.
    10. Yu-Shan Chen & Chun-Yu Shih & Ching-Hsun Chang, 2012. "The effects of related and unrelated technological diversification on innovation performance and corporate growth in the Taiwan’s semiconductor industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 117-134, July.
    11. Maria Chiara Di Guardo & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Elona Marku, 2019. "M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 669-692, September.
    12. Show-Ling Jang & Jennifer H. Chen, 2011. "What determines how long an innovative spell will last?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 65-76, January.
    13. Yusuke Oh & Koji Takahashi, 2020. "R&D and Innovation: Evidence from Patent Data," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 20-E-7, Bank of Japan.
    14. Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition and Persistence of R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5-6), pages 469-489, September.
    15. Ye Jin Lee & Kwangsoo Shin & Eungdo Kim, 2019. "The Influence of a Firm’s Capability and Dyadic Relationship of the Knowledge Base on Ambidextrous Innovation in Biopharmaceutical M&As," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.
    17. Christian Le Bas & Caroline Mothe & Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi, 2011. "Technological innovation persistence : Literature survey and exploration of the role of organizational innovation," Working Papers 1132, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    18. Tavassoli, Sam & Karlsson, Charlie, 2015. "Persistence of various types of innovation analyzed and explained," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1887-1901.
    19. Antonelli, Cristiano & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2010. "Recombinant knowledge and growth: The case of ICTs," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 50-69, March.
    20. Christian Le Bas & Nicolas Poussing, 2014. "Are Complex Innovators More Persistent Than Single Innovators? An Empirical Analysis Of Innovation Persistence Drivers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 1-21.

    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:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0143-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.