Industry technical committees, technological distance, and innovation performance

In most technology-based markets, industry technical committees (TCs) that establish new technical standards and specifications have assumed importance for companies as a critical source of information on existing and emerging technologies. In this study, we investigate how the technological distance of a TC from the firm will shape the impact of TC participation on the firm's innovation performance. Specifically, we posit that participation in TCs that are central (low technological distance) to the company's existing product technologies and offerings will contribute to its competence-enhancing innovation whereas participation in TCs that are peripheral (high technological distance) to current technologies and offerings will contribute to its new-competence innovation. Given the need to interpret and apply the information internally, we also consider the moderating effects of the firm's absorptive capacity and knowledge integration mechanisms. The study hypotheses are validated by combining survey-based and archival data related to a sample of 168 US-based wireless telecommunication firms. The findings provide broad support for the study theses and imply the need for companies to carefully plan the nature of their TC participation so as to advance the desired type of innovation. Broader implications for future research on external knowledge sourcing and competence-based innovation are discussed.

[1]  A. Leiponen.  Competing through cooperation: Standard setting in wireless telecommunications , 2006 .

[2]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  Market Knowledge Dimensions and Cross-Functional Collaboration: Examining the Different Routes to Product Innovation Performance , 2007 .

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

[4]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Network Embeddedness and the Exploration of Novel Technologies: Technological Distance, Betweenness Centrality and Density , 2006 .

[5]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies , 2000 .

[6]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[7]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  International Diversification: Effects on Innovation and Firm Performance in Product-Diversified Firms , 1997 .

[8]  Eric M. Olson,et al.  Organizing for effective new product development: The moderating role of product innovativeness. , 1995 .

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

[10]  Spyros Arvanitis,et al.  The impact of firm size on innovative activity – an empirical analysis based on swiss firm data , 1997 .

[11]  Ashish Arora,et al.  Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[12]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Social Capital for Hire? Mobility of Technical Professionals and Firm Influence in Wireless Standards Committees , 2010, Organ. Sci..

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

[14]  E. Mansfield.  Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study , 1986 .

[15]  M. Trajtenberg.  A Penny for Your Quotes : Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations , 1990 .

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

[17]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Open Source Software and the "Private-Collective" Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[18]  Frank T. Rothaermel,et al.  Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[19]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  INNOVATION IN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: CONTROL AND COMMUNICATION PATTERNS IN INTERNATIONAL R&D OPERATIONS , 1998 .

[20]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[21]  V. Govindarajan,et al.  HOW LEGACY FIRMS CAN INTRODUCE RADICAL AND DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSES. , 2004 .

[22]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Catching the wave: alertness, responsiveness, and market influence in global electronic networks , 1997 .

[23]  M. Fritsch,et al.  Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation , 2004 .

[24]  Josh Lerner,et al.  Innovation and Incentives: Evidence from Corporate R&D , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

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

[26]  M. Hitt,et al.  International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. , 2000 .

[27]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Essential Patent Claims in Compatibility Standards , 2011 .

[28]  Mohan V. Tatikonda,et al.  External technology integration in product and process development , 2004 .

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

[30]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[31]  Rachelle C. Sampson.  R&D Alliances and Firm Performance: The Impact of Technological Diversity and Alliance Organization on Innovation , 2007 .

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

[33]  Nicolai J. Foss,et al.  New HRM Practices, Complementarities, and the Impact on Innovation Performance , 2000 .

[34]  Varghese P. George,et al.  From the Bottom Up? Technical Committee Activity and Alliance Formation , 2001 .

[35]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. , 1977 .

[36]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  Marco Ceccagnoli,et al.  Profiting from licensing: The role of patent protection and commercialization capabilities , 2004 .

[38]  Aija Elina Leiponen,et al.  Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[39]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting , 2000, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[40]  A. Arora,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY AND EXTERNAL LINKAGES: THE STRATEGIES OF THE LARGE FIRMS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY* , 1990 .

[41]  Martine R. Haas,et al.  Acquiring and Applying Knowledge in Transnational Teams: The Roles of Cosmopolitans and Locals , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[42]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[43]  Andrea Fosfuri,et al.  Managing External Knowledge Flows: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity , 2009 .

[44]  D. Mowery.  The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900-1940 , 1983 .

[45]  R. Verganti.  Planned Flexibility: Linking Anticipation and Reaction in Product Development Projects , 1999 .

[46]  Keld Laursen,et al.  New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance , 2003 .

[47]  Jeffrey L. Funk,et al.  Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: the case of mobile communication , 2001 .

[48]  K. Weick.  FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

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

[50]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[51]  Susanne K. Schmidt,et al.  Coordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunications , 1997 .

[52]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation , 2007, Organ. Sci..

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

[54]  Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Intellectual Property Rights, Strategic Technology Agreements and Market Structure, The Case of GSM , 2002 .

[55]  S. Iammarino,et al.  The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers , 2006 .

[56]  W. Ocasio.  TOWARDS AN ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM , 1997 .

[57]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[58]  Jaider Vega Jurado,et al.  Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry , 2009 .

[59]  P. David,et al.  The Economics Of Compatibility Standards: An Introduction To Recent Research 1 , 1990 .

[60]  Andrew C. Inkpen.  Learning Through Joint Ventures: A Framework Of Knowledge Acquisition , 2000 .

[61]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship , 1984 .

[62]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators , 2002 .

[63]  Jiann-Chyuan Wang,et al.  Inward Technology Licensing and Firm Performance: A Longitudinal Study , 2007 .

[64]  Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio,et al.  Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry , 2009 .

[65]  S. Zahra,et al.  Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization , 2002 .

[66]  Josh Lerner,et al.  The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis , 2005 .

[67]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive Distance , 2004 .

[68]  Marvin A. Sirbu,et al.  Technological Choice in Voluntary Standards Committees: An Empirical Analysis. , 1990 .