Decomposability in Knowledge Structures and Its Impact on the Usefulness of Inventions and Knowledge-base Malleability

We use patent data from the worldwide semiconductor industry from 1984 to 1994 to study the effect of the structure of organizational knowledge bases, or the patterns of coupling between their elements of technical knowledge, on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. We argue that organizational variations in coupling patterns between knowledge elements can be reflected in a spectrum of knowledge-base structures—varying from fully decomposable (the knowledge base is composed of distinct clusters of knowledge elements coupled together with no significant ties between clusters) through nearly decomposable (knowledge clusters are discernable but are connected through cross-cluster couplings) to non-decomposable (no knowledge clusters emerge, as the couplings are pervasively distributed)—and that organizations may differ in the way they use their knowledge because of variations in their knowledge-base structure, rather than because of differences in the knowledge elements themselves. Results show that a nearly decomposable knowledge base increases the usefulness of the inventions generated from it, as measured by patent citations, and also the knowledge base's malleability or capacity for change.

[1]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  WHEN EXPLORATION BACKFIRES: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF MULTILEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL SEARCH , 2006 .

[2]  M. Gordon,et al.  PUBLICATION RECORDS AND TENURE DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1996 .

[3]  R. Katila,et al.  Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study , 2001 .

[4]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[5]  Kressel,et al.  Competing for the Future , 2007 .

[6]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  A Role-Based Ecology of Technological Change , 1995, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technology Integration: Making Critical Choices in a Dynamic World , 1997 .

[8]  Robert B. Glassman,et al.  Persistence and loose coupling in living systems , 1973 .

[9]  R. Nelson,et al.  Cause Maps and Social Network Analysis in Organizational Diagnosis , 1991 .

[10]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[11]  Jesper B. Sørensen,et al.  Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation , 2000 .

[12]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

[13]  Brian Everitt,et al.  Cluster analysis , 1974 .

[14]  Chi-Nien Chung,et al.  When and How Does Business Group Affiliation Promote Firm Innovation? A Tale of Two Emerging Economies , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[15]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  Economic Analysis of Product Innovation: The Case of CT Scanners , 1990 .

[16]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[17]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[18]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds , 1999 .

[19]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data , 2001 .

[20]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers☆ , 1989 .

[21]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[22]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[23]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[24]  D. Mowery,et al.  Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer , 1996 .

[25]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Scale, scope, and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. , 1996, The Rand journal of economics.

[26]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[27]  Itzhak Gilboa,et al.  Fact-Free Learning , 2004 .

[28]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[29]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Coevolutionary Lock-in , 2002 .

[30]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  Optimal search on a technology landscape , 2000 .

[31]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  TOP MANAGEMENT, STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES , 1992 .

[32]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration , 1967 .

[33]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modular Architectures in the Marketing Process , 1999 .

[34]  R. Blundell,et al.  Dynamic Count Data Models of Technological Innovation , 1994 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search , 2000 .

[36]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[37]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Linked: The New Science of Networks , 2002 .

[38]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[39]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[40]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[41]  K. Palepu.  Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure , 1985 .

[42]  K. Weick.  Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[43]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[44]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  Optimal Organization Size in a Stochastic Environment with Externalities , 1999 .

[45]  M. Hitt,et al.  Strategic Control Systems And Relative R&D Investment , 1988 .

[46]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[47]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[48]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[49]  R. Katila,et al.  Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction , 2002 .

[50]  Daniel A. Levinthal.  Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .

[51]  Arantxa Etxeverria.  The Origins of Order , 1993 .

[52]  Sea Jin Chang,et al.  AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ON DIVERSIFICATION AND CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING: ENTRY, EXIT, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE DURING 1981–89 , 1996 .

[53]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  Organizational Memory , 1998, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[54]  Jacob Goldenberg,et al.  Toward Identifying the Inventive Templates of New Products: A Channeled Ideation Approach , 1999 .

[55]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  The Impact of Organizational Memory on New Product Performance and Creativity , 1997 .

[56]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[57]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[58]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[59]  G. Huber.  Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[60]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[61]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Innovation , 1997 .

[62]  Estelle Brodman,et al.  Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization (Book Review) , 1978 .