IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2015_041.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Managing Portfolio Risk in Strategic Technology Management: Evidence from a Panel Data Set of the World’s Largest R&D Performers

Author

Listed:
  • Neuhäusler , Peter

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe; Berlin University of Technology)

  • Schubert, Torben

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe; CIRCLE, Lund University)

  • Frietsch , Rainer

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe)

  • Blind , Knut

    (Berlin University of Technology; Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems FOKUS, Berlin; Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam School of Management)

Abstract

In this article we analyze the impact of firms’ technology bases on their financial performance. By taking a strategic perspective of technology, we argue that it is not sufficient to analyze only the size or novelty/quality of the technology base as technology bases can best be understood as portfolios of individual technologies. In such a framework, risk consideration should be taken into account. More specifically, we argue that increasing technological breadth can serve as a hedge against the inherent uncertainties of developing and commercializing technology, in particular when the technology base is very large or novel. We also propose that technology has higher impacts on financial performance for firms with broader technology portfolios. A similar argument proposes that technological breadth can offset the increased risks of addressing foreign markets. We test our hypotheses using an international panel dataset of large R&D-performing firms. Our results suggest that broad technology portfolios can indeed serve as a hedge against technological and commercialization risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Neuhäusler , Peter & Schubert, Torben & Frietsch , Rainer & Blind , Knut, 2015. "Managing Portfolio Risk in Strategic Technology Management: Evidence from a Panel Data Set of the World’s Largest R&D Performers," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/41, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2015_041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/201541_Neuhaeusler_et_al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atul Nerkar & Peter W. Roberts, 2004. "Technological and product‐market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 779-799, August.
    2. Bartov, Eli & Bodnar, Gordon M. & Kaul, Aditya, 1996. "Exchange rate variability and the riskiness of U.S. multinational firms: Evidence from the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 105-132, September.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. 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.
    5. Ernst, Holger, 2001. "Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 143-157, January.
    6. Petr Hanel, 2008. "The Use Of Intellectual Property Rights And Innovation By Manufacturing Firms In Canada," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 285-309.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    8. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "Market Value, R&D, and Patents," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 249-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    10. Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch & Stefan Thomke, 2001. "Parallel and Sequential Testing of Design Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 663-678, May.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kornelius Kraft, 2010. "On the profitability of innovative assets," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(15), pages 1941-1953.
    12. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Torben Schubert & Léopold Simar, 2011. "Innovation and export activities in the German mechanical engineering sector: an application of testing restrictions in production analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 55-69, August.
    14. Torben Schubert, 2010. "Marketing and Organisational Innovations in Entrepreneurial Innovation Processes and their Relation to Market Structure and Firm Characteristics," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(2), pages 189-212, March.
    15. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:4:p:405-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis & Woolf, Patricia, 1981. "Citation rates to technologically important patents," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 160-163, October.
    17. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    18. Varun Sharma & David W. Coit & Ahmet Oztekin & James T. Luxhøj, 2009. "A decision analytic approach for technology portfolio prioritization: aviation safety applications," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 843-864, September.
    19. Rainer Frietsch, 2006. "Micro data for macro effects," Springer Books, in: Peter Hingley & Marc Nicolas (ed.), Forecasting Innovations, chapter 0, pages 159-189, Springer.
    20. Lambrecht, Bart M. & Myers, Stewart C., 2008. "Debt and managerial rents in a real-options model of the firm," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 209-231, August.
    21. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul & Zechner, Josef, 1994. "Large Shareholder Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1097-1130, December.
    22. Lin, Chinho & Chang, Chia-Chi, 2015. "The effect of technological diversification on organizational performance: An empirical study of S&P 500 manufacturing firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 575-586.
    23. David M Reeb & Chuck C Y Kwok & H Young Baek, 1998. "Systematic Risk of the Multinational Corporation," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 29(2), pages 263-279, June.
    24. Baier, Elisabeth & Rammer, Christian & Schubert, Torben, 2015. "The Impact of Captive Innovation Offshoring on the Effectiveness of Organizational Adaptation," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 150-165.
    25. Blind, Knut & Cremers, Katrin & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 428-436, March.
    26. Torben Schubert, 2011. "Assessing the value of patent portfolios: an international country comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 787-804, September.
    27. Michael T. Pich & Christoph H. Loch & Arnoud De Meyer, 2002. "On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1008-1023, August.
    28. Rian Beise-Zee & Christian Rammer, 2006. "Local User-Producer Interaction in Innovation and Export Performance of Firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 207-222, October.
    29. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    30. Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 23-46, Spring.
    31. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    32. Arora, Ashish, 1997. "Patents, licensing, and market structure in the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 391-403, December.
    33. Ceci, Federica & Prencipe, Andrea, 2013. "Does Distance Hinder Coordination? Identifying and Bridging Boundaries of Offshored Work," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 324-332.
    34. Jean O. Lanjouw & Ariel Pakes & Jonathan Putnam, 1998. "How to Count Patents and Value Intellectual Property: The Uses of Patent Renewal and Application Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 405-432, December.
    35. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    36. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    37. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    38. Harhoff, Dietmar & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "The Value of European Patents," CEPR Discussion Papers 6848, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    39. Jaana Rahko, 2014. "Market value of R&D, patents, and organizational capital: Finnish evidence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 353-377, June.
    40. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    41. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    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. Schubert, Torben & Baier, Elisabeth & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "Technological capabilities, technological dynamism and innovation offshoring," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-044, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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. Peter Neuhäusler & Torben Schubert & Rainer Frietsch & Knut Blind, 2016. "Managing portfolio risk in strategic technology management: evidence from a panel data-set of the world's largest R&D performers," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 651-667, October.
    2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    3. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    5. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    6. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Daniele Rotolo & Vito Albino, 2014. "Determinants of Patent Citations in Biotechnology: An Analysis of Patent Influence Across the Industrial and Organizational Boundaries," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-05, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Jurriën Bakker & Dennis Verhoeven & Lin Zhang & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Patent citation indicators: One size fits all?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 187-211, January.
    8. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Kerstin J. Schaefer & Ingo Liefner, 2017. "Offshore versus domestic: Can EM MNCs reach higher R&D quality abroad?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1349-1370, December.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Bart Leten, 2020. "How Valuable are Patent Blocking Strategies?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 409-434, May.
    12. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    13. Higham, Kyle & de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2021. "Patent Quality: Towards a Systematic Framework for Analysis and Measurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    14. Elizabeth Webster & Paul H. Jensen, 2011. "Do Patents Matter for Commercialization?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 431-453.
    15. Belenzon, Sharon & Patacconi, Andrea, 2013. "Innovation and firm value: An investigation of the changing role of patents, 1985–2007," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1496-1510.
    16. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    17. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    18. Grimpe, Christoph & Hussinger, Katrin, 2008. "Building and Blocking: The Two Faces of Technology Acquisition," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-042, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    patents; financial performance; firms; technology base;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:lucirc:2015_041. 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: Torben Schubert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/circlse.html .

    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.