IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i9p1713-1728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bridging distant technological domains: A longitudinal study of the determinants of breadth of innovation diffusion

Author

Listed:
  • Papazoglou, Michalis E.
  • Spanos, Yiannis E.

Abstract

The diffusion of innovations is identified as an important aspect of technological and social change. Innovations diffuse through segmented networks of knowledge that limit the flow of knowledge from any one technological domain to any other. Despite this segmentation, some organizations are capable of developing pieces of knowledge that overcome these limitations. Within this context, we develop four hypotheses regarding specific R&D strategies that affect a firm’s ability to develop inventions that diffuse beyond the firm’s technological boundaries. Specifically, we examine how a firm's scientific intensity, technological collaborations, technological diversity, and internal focus impact breadth of innovation diffusion. We use two of the main determinants of innovation diffusion, namely, the relative advantage and the observability, as theoretical mechanisms to build our arguments. We empirically test our hypotheses on longitudinal data from the industries of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and chemicals. Our findings show that the extent to which the knowledge embedded in a firm’s inventions diffuses in distant technological areas is positively related to the firm’s scientific intensity and to its extent of collaboration, but it is negatively related to its technological diversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Papazoglou, Michalis E. & Spanos, Yiannis E., 2018. "Bridging distant technological domains: A longitudinal study of the determinants of breadth of innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1713-1728.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:9:p:1713-1728
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318301513
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.006?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. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Prencipe, Andrea, 2000. "Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 895-911, August.
    3. Gerard George & Reddi Kotha & Yanfeng Zheng, 2008. "Entry into Insular Domains: A Longitudinal Study of Knowledge Structuration and Innovation in Biotechnology Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1448-1474, December.
    4. Franzoni, Chiara & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2010. "The grace period in international patent law and its effect on the timing of disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 200-213, March.
    5. Dushnitsky, Gary & Lenox, Michael J., 2005. "When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures?: Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 615-639, June.
    6. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    7. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne Zucker & Marilynn Brewer, 1996. "Social networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 428-443, August.
    8. Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Eleftherios Sapsalis & Ran Navon, 2006. "Academic vs. industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/6197, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Stefan, 2005. "Modelling the duration of patent examination at the European Patent Office," CEPR Discussion Papers 5283, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Atul Nerkar & Scott Shane, 2007. "Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination of academically sourced inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(11), pages 1155-1166, November.
    11. Maria Isabella Leone & Toke Reichstein, 2012. "Licensing‐in fosters rapid invention! the effect of the grant‐back clause and technological unfamiliarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 965-985, August.
    12. Nemet, Gregory F. & Johnson, Evan, 2012. "Do important inventions benefit from knowledge originating in other technological domains?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 190-200.
    13. Sorenson, Olav & Fleming, Lee, 2004. "Science and the diffusion of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1615-1634, December.
    14. Paul Attewell, 1992. "Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    16. Eric Abrahamson & Lori Rosenkopf, 1997. "Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 289-309, June.
    17. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    18. Bercovitz, Janet E.L. & Feldman, Maryann P., 2007. "Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 930-948, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Khoury, Theodore A. & Pleggenkuhle-Miles, Erin G., 2011. "Shared inventions and the evolution of capabilities: Examining the biotechnology industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 943-956, September.
    21. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    22. Filippetti, Andrea & Archibugi, Daniele, 2011. "Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 179-192, March.
    23. Frank T. Rothaermel & Warren Boeker, 2008. "Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 47-77, January.
    24. Jaideep Anand & Raffaele Oriani & Roberto S. Vassolo, 2010. "Alliance Activity as a Dynamic Capability in the Face of a Discontinuous Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1213-1232, December.
    25. Toby E. Stuart, 2000. "Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high‐technology industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(8), pages 791-811, August.
    26. Guimarães, Paulo, 2008. "The fixed effects negative binomial model revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 63-66, April.
    27. Gino Cattani, 2005. "Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance: A Study on the Evolution of Fiber Optics, 1970–1995," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 563-580, December.
    28. Olav Sorenson & Jan W. Rivkin & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flows," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    29. Kim, Jungho & Lee, Chang-Yang & Cho, Yunok, 2016. "Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 113-124.
    30. Nelson, Andrew & Earle, Andrew & Howard-Grenville, Jennifer & Haack, Julie & Young, Doug, 2014. "Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 927-940.
    31. Benner, Mary & Waldfogel, Joel, 2008. "Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1556-1567, October.
    32. Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin & Reichl, Bettina & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2009. "Patent validation at the country level--The role of fees and translation costs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1423-1437, November.
    33. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Pietro & Ciupagea, Constantin & Smith, Keith & Tübke, Alexander & Tubbs, Mike, 2010. "Does Europe perform too little corporate R&D? A comparison of EU and non-EU corporate R&D performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 523-536, May.
    34. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    35. Jasjit Singh, 2005. "Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 756-770, May.
    36. Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants--the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 443-480, April.
    37. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    38. Nicholas S. Argyres & Brian S. Silverman, 2004. "R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 929-958, August.
    39. Wang, Q. & von Tunzelmann, N., 2000. "Complexity and the functions of the firm: breadth and depth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 805-818, August.
    40. 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.
    41. Giovanni Valentini, 2012. "Measuring the effect of M&A on patenting quantity and quality," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 336-346, March.
    42. 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.
    43. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    44. Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2007. "Combining Patent Law Expertise with R&D for Patenting Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 922-937, December.
    45. Frambach, Ruud T. & Schillewaert, Niels, 2002. "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 163-176, February.
    46. Wiesenthal, Tobias & Leduc, Guillaume & Haegeman, Karel & Schwarz, Hans-Günther, 2012. "Bottom-up estimation of industrial and public R&D investment by technology in support of policy-making: The case of selected low-carbon energy technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 116-131.
    47. Manuel Trajtenberg & Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty, 2000. "Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: Evidence from a Survey of Inventors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 215-218, May.
    48. Joan Penner‐Hahn & J. Myles Shaver, 2005. "Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 121-140, February.
    49. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    50. Kevin Zheng Zhou & Caroline Bingxin Li, 2012. "How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9), pages 1090-1102, September.
    51. Boh, Wai Fong & Evaristo, Roberto & Ouderkirk, Andrew, 2014. "Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for innovation: A 3M story," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 349-366.
    52. Kondo, Masayuki, 1999. "R&D dynamics of creating patents in the Japanese industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 587-600, August.
    53. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    54. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    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. Qin Ye, 2021. "The impact of knowledge depth and breadth on the geography of analytical industry technological networks: Evidence from China’s biotechnology industry," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 2238-2255, December.
    2. Michalis E. Papazoglou, 2023. "Favorable strategies for the success of entry into new technological areas: an entrepreneurial perspective," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 403-426, March.
    3. Michalis E. Papazoglou & Jen Nelles, 2023. "Keeping Pace with Technological Change: Insights into the Recency of Internal Knowledge Inputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 3724-3740, December.
    4. Skare, Marinko & Soriano, Domingo Riberio, 2021. "Technological and knowledge diffusion link: An international perspective 1870–2019," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Ning, Lutao & Guo, Rui, 2022. "Technological Diversification to Green Domains: Technological Relatedness, Invention Impact and Knowledge Integration Capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    6. Mao, Jie & Tang, Shiping & Xiao, Zhiguo & Zhi, Qiang, 2021. "Industrial policy intensity, technological change, and productivity growth: Evidence from China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    7. Shafique, Muhammad & Hagedoorn, John, 2022. "Look at U: Technological scope of the acquirer, technological complementarity with the target, and post-acquisition R&D output," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. Ning, Lutao & Guo, Rui & Chen, Kaihua, 2023. "Does FDI bring knowledge externalities for host country firms to develop complex technologies? The catalytic role of overseas returnee clustering structures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Irena Pawłyszyn & Marek Fertsch & Agnieszka Stachowiak & Grzegorz Pawłowski & Joanna Oleśków-Szłapka, 2020. "The Model of Diffusion of Knowledge on Industry 4.0 in Marshallian Clusters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-23, May.
    10. Papazoglou, Michalis E. & Spanos, Yiannis E., 2021. "“Influential knowledge and financial performance: The role of time and rivals’ absorptive capacity”," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(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. Michalis E. Papazoglou, 2023. "Favorable strategies for the success of entry into new technological areas: an entrepreneurial perspective," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 403-426, March.
    2. Michalis E. Papazoglou & Jen Nelles, 2023. "Keeping Pace with Technological Change: Insights into the Recency of Internal Knowledge Inputs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 3724-3740, December.
    3. Papazoglou, Michalis E. & Spanos, Yiannis E., 2021. "“Influential knowledge and financial performance: The role of time and rivals’ absorptive capacity”," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    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. Shafique, Muhammad & Hagedoorn, John, 2022. "Look at U: Technological scope of the acquirer, technological complementarity with the target, and post-acquisition R&D output," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    8. Turanay Caner & Susan K. Cohen & Frits Pil, 2017. "Firm heterogeneity in complex problem solving: A knowledge-based look at invention," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(9), pages 1791-1811, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Slavova, Kremena & Jong, Simcha, 2021. "University alliances and firm exploratory innovation: Evidence from therapeutic product development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Hohberger, Jan & Almeida, Paul & Parada, Pedro, 2015. "The direction of firm innovation: The contrasting roles of strategic alliances and individual scientific collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1473-1487.
    12. Nemet, Gregory F., 2012. "Inter-technology knowledge spillovers for energy technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1259-1270.
    13. Zhang, Ningning & You, Dingyi & Tang, Le & Wen, Ke, 2023. "Knowledge path dependence, external connection, and radical inventions: Evidence from Chinese Academy of Sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    14. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    15. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    16. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    17. Clayton, Paige & Lanahan, Lauren & Nelson, Andrew, 2022. "Dissecting diffusion: Tracing the plurality of factors that shape knowledge diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    18. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    19. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2019. "Geographically Dispersed Technological Capability Building and MNC Innovative Performance: The Role of Intra-firm Flows of Newly Absorbed Knowledge," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 1-1.
    20. 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).

    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:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:9:p:1713-1728. 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.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.