A method based on patent analysis for the investigation of technological innovation strategies: The European medical prostheses industry

Abstract In this article, a methodology based on the analysis of granted patents useful to investigate strategies of technological innovation implemented by innovative firms is presented. This methodology adopts a conceptualization which considers technological innovation as an outcome of a change of either the technological components or a diverse combination of the components themselves. The methodology is applied to analyze the characters of the strategies of technological innovation pursued by 12 European firms in the human prosthesis industry. Undoubtly, the complexity of this industry offers interesting hints to study the implementation of technology strategies adopting the search concept. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical studies that considered this industry. Even though the methodology and the study presented have still an explorative nature, the results of the empirical analysis suggest several reasons to carry on a further investigation for a deeper comprehension of the innovation process in high-tech industries.

[1]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment , 1995 .

[2]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[3]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[4]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Measuring competence?: exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research , 1994 .

[5]  J. Porac,et al.  Cognition Within and Between Organizations , 1996 .

[6]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[7]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Evolutionary diffusion: internal and external methods used to acquire encompassing, complementary, and incremental technological changes in the lithotripsy industry , 1998 .

[8]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Drug Discovery , 1994 .

[9]  A. Lewin,et al.  The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances , 1998 .

[10]  M. Shubik,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. , 1964 .

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

[12]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[13]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test , 1995 .

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

[15]  B. Kogut,et al.  Technological Platforms and Diversification , 1996 .

[16]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research , 1991 .

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

[18]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Search and selection in the money market fund industry , 2007 .

[19]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[20]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[21]  Margaret A. Peteraf.  The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view , 1993 .

[22]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

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

[24]  L. Argote.  Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge , 1999 .

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

[26]  Thomas M. Smith,et al.  A History of Mechanical Inventions , 1961, Nature.

[27]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[28]  H. Simon.  Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning , 1991 .

[29]  R. Katila,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION , 2002 .

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

[31]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[32]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry , 1998 .

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

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

[35]  L J Marks,et al.  Science, medicine, and the future: Artificial limbs. , 2001, BMJ.

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

[37]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Are More Good Things Better, or Will Technical and Market Capabilities Conflict When a Firm Expands? , 1992 .

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

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