The effect of co-patenting as a form of knowledge meta-integration on technological differentiation at Siemens

PurposeThe paper proposes an answer to one of the most important questions in corporate innovation management: what mechanisms of technological diversification exist within multinational companies? It is ascertained that research and development (R&D) intra-firm co-invention or co-patenting is one of those mechanisms. Co-invention implies knowledge-sharing, which should lead to unique combinations of knowledge and expertise and hence technological diversification of patent applications.Design/methodology/approachThis paper offers a novel conceptual framework exploring the relationship between patents’ technological diversification and a detailed classification of different forms of international co-invention. Based on the case of Siemens’ Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, the revealed technological advantage (RTA) index is utilized to measure the extent of the technological diversification of patent output.FindingsThe results show that patent applications generated by subsidiaries in advanced economies in cooperation with other subsidiaries feature unique technological areas that deviate from the company's overall technological specializations. These results provide a strong argument in favor of inter-subsidiary or horizontal co-patenting as a mechanism of new knowledge creation.Research limitations/implicationsOn the conceptual level, the results accentuate inter-subsidiary patenting being an important mechanism of knowledge meta-integration boosting technological diversification. The obvious limitation of this paper lies in exploring a single company case, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. Due to the dynamic nature of technological change, the author’s dataset also suffers from a lack of temporal external validity. Future research can expand the scope in both regards in applying our co-invention mode typology.Practical implicationsBased on the results, to diversify knowledge portfolio, companies should strengthen the co-patenting effort and reinforce horizontal (inter-subsidiary) R&D collaborations.Originality/valueTo the author’s knowledge, this is the first time when such a nuanced typology of co-invention modes is being utilized to understand the effect of different co-invention categories on knowledge diversification.

[1]  D. Rigby,et al.  Do Capabilities Reside in Firms or in Regions? Analysis of Related Diversification in Chinese Knowledge Production , 2021, Economic Geography.

[2]  Igone Porto Gómez,et al.  Technological diversification: a matter of related or unrelated varieties? , 2020 .

[3]  K. Huang,et al.  Adopting knowledge from reverse innovations? Transnational patents and signaling from an emerging economy , 2019, Journal of International Business Studies.

[4]  F. Nagle,et al.  Jack of All Trades and Master of Knowledge: The Role of Diversification in New Distant Knowledge Integration , 2017, Strategic Management Journal.

[5]  Jaideep Prabhu,et al.  Innovation and entrepreneurship in India: Understanding jugaad , 2015 .

[6]  Koen Frenken,et al.  Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Technological Breakthroughs: An analysis of US State-Level Patenting , 2015 .

[7]  J. Cantwell,et al.  New Competence Creation in Multinational Company Subunits: The Role of International Knowledge , 2015 .

[8]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Relatedness and Technological Change in Cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in U.S. metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010 , 2015 .

[9]  Naotoshi Tsukada.  Determinants of International Research Collaboration: Evidence from International Co‐Inventions in Asia and Major OECD Countries , 2015 .

[10]  D. Griffith,et al.  The performance effects of vertical and horizontal subsidiary knowledge outflows in multinational corporations , 2014 .

[11]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Subsidiary managers’ knowledge mobilizations: Unpacking emergent knowledge flows , 2014 .

[12]  Heather Berry.  Global integration and innovation: Multicountry knowledge generation within MNCs , 2014 .

[13]  R. Narula.  Exploring the paradox of competence‐creating subsidiaries : balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs , 2014 .

[14]  Snejina Michailova,et al.  Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: Research accomplishments, gaps, and opportunities , 2012 .

[15]  G. George,et al.  Not With my Own: Long-term Effects of Cross-country Collaboration on Subsidiary Innovation in Emerging Economies , 2012 .

[16]  J. Cantwell,et al.  International Integration and Mandates of Innovative Subsidiaries in Spain , 2011 .

[17]  Alain Verbeke,et al.  Fifty Years of International Business Theory and Beyond , 2011 .

[18]  J. Anand.  Permeability to inter‐ and intrafirm knowledge flows: the role of coordination and hierarchy in MNEs , 2011 .

[19]  Florian A. A. Becker-Ritterspach,et al.  Enriching Absorptive Capacity Through Social Interaction , 2011 .

[20]  R. Narula,et al.  Multinational Enterprises and Local Contexts: The Opportunities and Challenges of Multiple Embeddedness , 2011 .

[21]  Stephen Tallman,et al.  Knowledge Accumulation and Dissemination in MNEs: A Practice-Based Framework , 2011 .

[22]  Katarina Blomkvist,et al.  Quo vadis? The entry into new technologies in advanced foreign subsidiaries of the multinational enterprise , 2010 .

[23]  Keun Lee,et al.  Samsung's catch-up with Sony: an analysis using US patent data , 2010 .

[24]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Vital Signs for Virtual Teams: An Empirically Developed Trigger Model for Technology Adaptation Interventions , 2010, MIS Q..

[25]  Devi R. Gnyawali,et al.  Knowledge ties among subsidiaries in MNCs: A multi-level conceptual model , 2009 .

[26]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Building Trust and Cooperation through Technology Adaptation in Virtual Teams: Empirical Field Evidence , 2008, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[27]  Niels G. Noorderhaven,et al.  Knowledge flows in MNCs: An empirical test and extension of Gupta and Govindarajan's typology of subsidiary roles , 2006, International Business Review.

[28]  J. Cantwell,et al.  Why is R&D Internationalization in Japanese Firms so Low? A Path-Dependent Explanation , 2006 .

[29]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[30]  Li Li,et al.  Managing Knowledge Transfer in Mncs: The Impact of Headquarters Control Mechanisms , 2004 .

[31]  P. Almeida,et al.  Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: the influence of the MNC and host country on innovation , 2004 .

[32]  K. Lagerström,et al.  Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team—the development of a global business system , 2003 .

[33]  Mats Forsgren,et al.  Subsidiary Embeddedness and Competence Development in MNCs A Multi-Level Analysis , 2001 .

[34]  Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie,et al.  The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data , 2001 .

[35]  S. Iammarino,et al.  The Technological Relationships between Indigenous Firms and Foreign-Owned MNCs in the European Regions , 2001 .

[36]  John H. Dunning,et al.  The Eclectic (OLI) Paradigm of International Production: Past, Present and Future , 2001 .

[37]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[38]  Antonello Zanfei.  Transnational Firms and the Changing Organisation of Innovative Activities , 2000 .

[39]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Knowledge flows within multinational corporations , 2000 .

[40]  S. Finkelstein,et al.  The Influence of Organizational Acquisition Experience on Acquisition Performance: A Behavioral Learning Perspective , 1999 .

[41]  A. Gambardella,et al.  Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry , 1998 .

[42]  I. Zander.  Technological diversification in the multinational corporation—historical evolution and future prospects , 1997 .

[43]  W Kuemmerle,et al.  Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[44]  Paul Almeida,et al.  Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry , 1996 .

[45]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Knowledge Flows and the Structure of Control Within Multinational Corporations , 1991 .

[46]  C. Hill,et al.  A longitudinal study of the cause and consequences of changes in diversification in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry 1977–1986 , 1991 .

[47]  B. Balassa.  Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage , 1965 .

[48]  J. Ferreira,et al.  The impact of knowledge creation and acquisition on innovation, coopetition and international opportunity development , 2021, European J. of International Management.

[49]  Yannis A. Hajidimitriou,et al.  Successful knowledge transfer in IJVs: the role of trust, partner compatibility and expected benefits , 2019, European J. of International Management.

[50]  J. Cantwell,et al.  Exploration and exploitation: The different impacts of two types of Japanese business group network on firm innovation and global learning , 2011 .

[51]  M. Yamin,et al.  Patterns of knowledge flows and MNE innovative performance , 2004 .

[52]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation , 1993 .