Search Efforts, Selective Appropriation, and the Usefulness of New Knowledge: Evidence from a Comparison Across U.S. and Non-U.S. Patent Applicants

Prior research calls for more attention to organizational contexts’ moderating effects on a relationship between diversity in antecedent knowledge and resultant new knowledge generation. The authors examined 11,939 firms granted 103,952 U.S. patents between 1975 and 1999, and found a stronger positive association between the diversity and resultant new knowledge’s degree of usefulness under the context more strongly characterized with extensive search efforts (i.e., U.S. applicants). Under the context more strongly characterized with selective appropriation (i.e., non-U.S. applicants), the study found a weaker inverted U-shape association between the diversity and resultant new knowledge’s variability in usefulness. Author’s findings show that it is important needed to properly control for the effect of such organizational contexts for a more conclusive explanation on the role of antecedent knowledge diversity in new knowledge generation.

[1]  Atul Nerkar,et al.  Old Is Gold? The Value of Temporal Exploration in the Creation of New Knowledge , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Scale, Scope and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Ethical Drug Discovery , 2015 .

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

[4]  Barbara S. Lawrence,et al.  Perspective---The Black Box of Organizational Demography , 1997 .

[5]  L. G. Soete,et al.  The use of foreign patenting as an internationally comparable science and technology output indicator , 2005, Scientometrics.

[6]  D. Harrison,et al.  What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. , 2007 .

[7]  F. Narin,et al.  Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength , 1987 .

[8]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities , 2007 .

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

[10]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. , 2001 .

[11]  J. March Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[12]  B. Nooteboom A Cognitive Theory of the Firm , 2005 .

[13]  A. Lewin,et al.  Prolegomena on Coevolution: a Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms , 1999 .

[14]  S. Jackson,et al.  Recent Research on Team and Organizational Diversity: SWOT Analysis and Implications , 2003 .

[15]  J. Davidson Frame,et al.  Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data , 1994 .

[16]  F. Narin,et al.  Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents , 1991 .

[17]  P. Drnevich,et al.  Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance , 2011 .

[18]  Daniel A. Levinthal Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection-Interrelated Processes of Change , 1991 .

[19]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams , 2001 .

[20]  Laura B. Cardinal,et al.  The Use of Knowledge for Technological Innovation Within Diversified Firms , 2007 .

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

[22]  G. Ahuja Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study , 1998 .

[23]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Individual Centrality and Performance in Virtual R&D Groups: An Empirical Study , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[24]  D. Krackhardt,et al.  Activating Cross-Boundary Knowledge: The Role of Simmelian Ties in the Generation of Innovations , 2010 .

[25]  S. Webber,et al.  Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis , 2001 .

[26]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[27]  Rachelle C. Sampson Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances , 2005 .

[28]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and problems , 2005, Scientometrics.

[29]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Applicant and Examiner Citations in US Patents: An Overview and Analysis , 2008 .

[30]  F. Scherer,et al.  Patent Statistics as a Measure of Technical Change , 1969, Journal of Political Economy.

[31]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance , 1992 .

[32]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[33]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Determinants of Opposition against EPO Patent Grants – The Case of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals ∗ , 2002 .

[34]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy , 2005 .

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

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

[37]  Andrew D. Henderson,et al.  Selection-Based Learning: The Coevolution of Internal and External Selection in High-Velocity Environments , 2004 .

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

[39]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look , 2000 .

[40]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[41]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

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

[43]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Large Firms in the Production of the World's Technology: An Important Case of “Non-Globalisation” , 1991 .

[44]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  INNOVATION OBJECTIVES, KNOWLEDGE SOURCES, AND THE BENEFITS OF BREADTH , 2010 .

[45]  Sadao Nagaoka,et al.  Assessing the R&D Management of a Firm in Terms of Speed and Science Linkage: Evidence from the U.S. Patents , 2007 .

[46]  D. Harrison,et al.  Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion , 1998 .

[47]  Rita Gunther McGrath,et al.  Real options reasoning and a new look at the R&D investment strategies of pharmaceutical firms , 2004 .

[48]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Study of the Photography and Paint Industries , 2002 .

[49]  Bjørn L. Basberg,et al.  Foreign Patenting in the U.S. as a Technology Indicator : The Case of Norway : Research Policy , 1983 .

[50]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[51]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? , 2003 .

[52]  C. Phelps A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of Alliance Network Structure and Composition on Firm Exploratory Innovation , 2009 .

[53]  Frank T. Rothaermel,et al.  Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance , 2010 .

[54]  B. Lawrence The Black Box of Organizational Demography , 1997 .

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

[56]  Patricia Pitcher,et al.  Top Management Team Heterogeneity: Personality, Power, and Proxies , 2001 .

[57]  Gábor Péli,et al.  Fit By Founding, Fit By Adaptation: Reconciling Conflicting Organization Theories With Logical Formalization , 2009 .

[58]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[59]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Myopia of Selection: Does Organizational Adaptation Limit the Efficacy of Population Selection? , 2007 .