R&D intensity and commercialization orientation effects on financial performance

This paper investigates how technology-based firms deploy their R&D and marketing resources for commercializing their technology assets. Specifically, we examine the main effects of R&D intensity, knowledge stocks, and commercialization orientation on firm performance as well as the interaction effects among the above variables. The US patent and financial data of 258 US-based technology public firms were collected and integrated as the empirical base for testing the hypotheses. Our results suggest that firms in different technology categories should have different technology commercialization strategies. Commercialization orientation and R&D intensity complement each other. A firm's commercialization orientation can play a more important role than R&D in the process of exploiting the value of technology assets. The commercialization of a firm's technology assets, including knowledge flows and knowledge stocks, is a complex task and there is no single best strategy available for all firms.

[1]  T. Chang.  Cultivating global experience curve advantage on technology and marketing capabilities , 1996 .

[2]  Lionel A. Mitchell,et al.  An Examination of Methods of Setting Advertising Budgets: Practice and the Literature , 1993 .

[3]  M. Hirschey,et al.  Advertising, R&D Expenditures and the Market Value of the Firm , 1993 .

[4]  S. Dutta,et al.  Portfolios of Interfirm Agreements in Technology-Intensive Markets: Consequences for Innovation and Profitability , 2004 .

[5]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .

[6]  G. Erickson,et al.  Gaining comparative advantage through discretionary expenditures: the returns to R&D and advertising , 1992 .

[7]  Tiger Li,et al.  The Impact of the Marketing–R&D Interface on New Product Export Performance: A Contingency Analysis , 1999 .

[8]  M. Kelly.  The Incredibly Unproductive Shareholder , 2002 .

[9]  M. Schulz.  THE UNCERTAIN RELEVANCE OF NEWNESS: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS , 2001 .

[10]  G. Day.  The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations , 1994 .

[11]  E. V. van Raaij,et al.  On Explaining Performance Differentials: Marketing and the Managerial Theory of the Firm , 2004 .

[12]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[13]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  Market Orientation and Innovation , 1996 .

[14]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms , 2001 .

[15]  Ajay K. Kohli,et al.  Market Intelligence Dissemination across Functional Boundaries , 1996 .

[16]  Christine Moorman,et al.  The Contingency Value of Complementary Capabilities in Product Development , 1999 .

[17]  The financial implications of advertising as an investment , 1996 .

[18]  Aron O'Cass,et al.  Exploring the characteristics of the market-driven firms and antecedents to sustained competitive advantage , 2004 .

[19]  Jonathan O'Brien,et al.  The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy of innovation , 2003 .

[20]  Jan-Willem Stoelhorst,et al.  On explaining performance differentials , 2004 .

[21]  Andrei Shleifer,et al.  Characteristics of Targets of Hostile and Friendly Takeovers , 1988 .

[22]  John D. C. Little,et al.  The Advisor Project: A Study of Industrial Marketing Budgets , 1979 .

[23]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[24]  David L. Deeds,et al.  The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry , 1999 .

[25]  C. Freeman.  Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[26]  Michael H. Morris,et al.  Triggering Events, Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Marketing Function , 2000 .

[27]  E. Maltz,et al.  Influencing R&D/marketing integration and the use of market information by R&D managers: intended and unintended effects of managerial actions , 2001 .

[28]  Ove Granstrand,et al.  Technology diversification in "MUL-TECH" corporations , 1994 .

[29]  John W. Kensinger,et al.  Corporate research and development expenditures and share value , 1990 .

[30]  J. Tobin.  A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory , 1969 .

[31]  Stephen W. Pruitt,et al.  A Simple Approximation of Tobin's Q , 1994 .

[32]  Mike Wright,et al.  Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies , 2005 .

[33]  Hrishikesh D. Vinod,et al.  R&D and Promotion in Pharmaceuticals: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Exploration , 2000 .

[34]  D. Teece.  Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets , 1998 .

[35]  Yoram Wind.  Marketing as an engine of business growth: a cross-functional perspective ☆ , 2005 .

[36]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Technology Leadership Can Pay Off , 1999 .

[37]  Roger Calantone,et al.  The Role of Knowledge in Resource Allocation to Exploration versus Exploitation in Technologically Oriented Organizations , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[38]  George S. Day,et al.  Charting New Directions for Marketing , 1999 .

[39]  A. Auerbach,et al.  Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences , 1988 .

[40]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  New Products : The Factors that Drive Success , 1994 .

[41]  R. Brodie,et al.  How Firms Relate to Their Markets: An Empirical Examination of Contemporary Marketing Practices , 2002 .

[42]  Karel Cool,et al.  Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage , 1989 .

[43]  J. Hauser,et al.  Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature , 1996 .

[44]  Explaining Variations in the Advertising & Promotional Costs/Sales Ratio: A Response, Research Criteria, and Guidelines , 1997 .

[45]  H. Goldstein.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2006 .