Abstract
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1257-1291 |
Number of pages | 35 |
Journal | Journal of Management Studies |
Volume | 53 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Dec 2016 |
Keywords
- competition
- entry
- innovation
- relatedness
- technological opportunities
- technology search
- RESOURCE-BASED VIEW
- RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT
- DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES
- INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE
- LOCAL SEARCH
- PROPERTY-RIGHTS
- MARKET-STRUCTURE
- FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
- DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCES
- FIRM PERFORMANCE
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53, No. 8, 12.2016, p. 1257-1291.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains
T2 - Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness
AU - Leten, B.
AU - Belderbos, R.
AU - Van Looy, B.
N1 - data source: Own database constructed from different sets of secondary data. Export Date: 8 December 2016 Correspondence Address: Leten, B.; KU Leuven, Vlerick Business SchoolBelgium; email: bart.leten@kuleuven.be References: Agarwal, R., Helfat, C., Strategic renewal of organizations (2009) Organization Science, 20, pp. 281-293; Ahuja, G., Katila, R., Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study (2001) Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 197-220; Ahuja, G., Lampert, C.M., Entrepreneurship in the large firm: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions (2001) Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 521-543; Allen, T., (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology, , Cambridge, MA, MIT Press; Allen, T., Marquis, D., Positive and negative biasing sets: the effects of prior experience on research performance (1964) IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 11, pp. 158-161; Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B., Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship: Comments on Venkatraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012) (2013) Academy of Management Review, 38, pp. 154-157; Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Licensing the market for technology (2003) Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52, pp. 277-295; Scientometrics, 97 (2013). , Arts, S., Appio, F. and Van Looy, B ‘Inventions shaping technological trajectories do existing provide a comprehensive picture?’., 397–419; Arundel, A., Kabla, I., What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates from European firms (1998) Research Policy, 27, pp. 127-141; Bain, J., (1956) Barriers to New Competition, , Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; Bandura, A., (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action, , Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall; Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage (1991) Journal of Management, 17, pp. 99-120; Barreto, I., A behavioral theory of market expansion based on the opportunity prospects rule (2012) Organization Science, 23, pp. 1008-1023; Belderbos, R., Somers, D., Do technology leaders deter inward R&D investments? (2015) Regional Studies, 49, pp. 1805-1821; Belderbos, R., Fukao, K., Iwasa, T., Domestic and foreign R&D investment (2009) Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 18, pp. 369-380; Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B., Van Looy, B., Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of firms: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms (2010) Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, pp. 869-882; Benner, M., Tripsas, M., The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras (2012) Strategic Management Journal, 33, pp. 277-302; Bercovitz, J., D Figueiredo, J., Teece, D., ‘Firm capabilities and managerial decision making: a theory of innovation biases’ (1996) Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights, pp. 233-259. , In, Garud, R., Nayyar, P., Shapira, Z., (Eds),, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press; Bierly, P., Damanpour, F., Santoro, M., The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation (2009) Journal of Management Studies, 46, pp. 481-509; Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmoch, U., Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany (2006) Research Policy, 35, pp. 655-672; Breschi, S., Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation (2000) Economic Journal, 110, pp. 388-410; Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., Malerba, F., Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification (2003) Research Policy, 32, pp. 69-87; Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., Traces of prior art: an analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents (2006) Scientometrics, 69, pp. 3-20; Callaert, J., Grouwels, J., Van Looy, B., Delineating the scientific footprint in technology: Identifying scientific publications within non-patent references (2012) Scientometrics, 91, pp. 383-398; Cameron, A., Trivedi, P., (1998) Regression Analysis of Count Data, , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; Cantwell, J., Fai, F., Firms as source of innovation and growth: the evolution of technological competence (1999) Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9, pp. 331-366; Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition (2006) Management Science, 52, pp. 68-82; Ceccagnoli, M., Appropriability, preemption, and firm performance (2009) Strategic Management Journal, 30, pp. 81-98; Christensen, C., (1997) The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, , Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press; Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., Van Kranenburg, H., Mergers and acquisitions: Their effects on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries (2006) Research Policy, 35, pp. 642-654; Cockburn, I., MacGarvie, M., (2006) Entry, Exit and Patenting in the Software Industry. NBER Working Paper No. 12 563, , Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research; Coen, C., Maritan, C., Investing in capabilities: the dynamics of resource allocation (2011) Organization Science, 22, pp. 99-117; Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation (1990) Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128-152; Cohen, W., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R., Walsh, J., R&D Spillovers, patents, and incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States (2002) Research Policy, 31, pp. 1349-1367; Cooper, A., Schendel, D., Strategic responses to technological threats (1976) Business Horizons, 19, pp. 61-69; Cox, D., Regression models and life tables (1972) Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 34, pp. 187-220; Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, , Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall; Danneels, E., Sethi, R., New product exploration under environmental turbulence (2011) Organization Science, 22, pp. 1026-1039; Davidsson, P., Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization (2015) Journal of Business Venturing, 30, pp. 674-695; Davis, M.J., Contrast coding in multiple regression analysis: strengths, weaknesses, and utility of popular coding structures (2010) Journal of Data Science, 8, pp. 61-73; Dosi, G., Technological paradigms and technological trajectories (1982) Research Policy, 11, pp. 147-162; Dowell, G., Swaminathan, A., Entry timing, exploration, and firm survival in the early U.S. bicycle industry (2006) Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp. 1159-1182; Duguet, E., MacGarvie, M., How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys (2005) Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14, pp. 375-393; Eisenhardt, K., Martin, J., Dynamic capabilities: what are they? (2000) Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 1105-1121; Fleck, L., (1935) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, , Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press; Fleming, L., Recombinant uncertainty in technological search (2001) Management Science, 47, pp. 117-132; Fleming, L., Sorenson, O., Science as a map in technological search (2004) Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp. 909-928; Foss, K., Foss, N.J., Understanding opportunity discovery and sustainable advantage: the role of transaction costs and property rights (2008) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, pp. 191-207; Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., Luzzi, A., The markets for patents in Europe (2007) Research Policy, 36, pp. 1163-1183; Garud, R., Karnøe, P., (2001) Path Dependence and Creation, , (Eds) (, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; Gavetti, G., Toward a behavioral theory of strategy (2012) Organization Science, 23, pp. 267-285; Gilbert, R., ‘Looking for mister Schumpeter: where are we in the competition-innovation debate?’ (2005) Innovation Policy and the Economy, , In, Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., Stern, S., (Eds)., Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 159-217; Gilbert, R., Newbery, D., Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly (1982) American Economic Review, 72, pp. 514-526; Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Van den Oord, A., Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density (2008) Research Policy, 37, pp. 1717-1731; Granstrand, O., Towards a theory of the technology-based firm (1998) Research Policy, 27, pp. 465-489; Granstrand, O., (1999) The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property, , Cheltenham, Edward Elgar; Grant, R.A., Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm (1996) Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 109-122; Grégoire, D., Barr, P., Shepherd, D., Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: the role of structural alignment (2010) Organization Science, 21, pp. 413-431; Griliches, Z., Patents statistics as economic indicators: a survey (1990) Journal of Economic Literature, 28, pp. 1661-1707; Grimpe, C., Hussinger, K., Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: the role of intellectual property rights (2014) Strategic Management Journal, 35, pp. 1762-1780; Grindley, P., Teece, D., Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics (1997) California Management Review, 39, pp. 8-41; Gruber, M., Macmillan, I., Johnson, J., From minds to markets: How human capital endowments shape market opportunity identification of technology start-ups (2012) Journal of Management, 38, pp. 1421-1449; Gruber, M., Macmillan, I., Johnson, J., Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: What shapes the number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-ups? (2013) Organization Science, 24, pp. 280-300; Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M., Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? (2003) Research Policy, 32, pp. 1365-1379; Hagedoorn, J., Letterie, W., Palm, F., The information value of R&D alliances: the preference for local or distant ties (2011) Strategic Organization, 9, pp. 283-309; Hall, B., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Market value and patent citations (2005) Rand Journal of Economics, 36, pp. 16-38; Hall, B.H., Thoma, G., Torrisi, S., (2007) The Market Value of Patents and R&D: Evidence from European Firms. NBER Working Paper 13426, , Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research; Hargadon, A., Sutton, R., Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm (1997) Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 716-749; Harhoff, D., Scherer, F., Vopel, K., Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights (2003) Research Policy, 32, pp. 1343-1363; Helfat, C., Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D (1994) Management Science, 40, pp. 1720-1747; Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., Winter, S., (2007) Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, , Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing; Henderson, R., Cockburn, I., Scale, scope and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery (1996) Rand Journal of Economics, 27, pp. 32-59; Henderson, R., Mitchell, W., The interactions of organizational and competitive influences on strategy and performance (1997) Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 5-14; Huber, G., Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures (1991) Organization Science, 2, pp. 88-115; Jaffe, A., Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value (1986) American Economic Review, 76, pp. 984-1001; Jansen, J., van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H., Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators (2006) Management Science, 52, pp. 1661-1674; Katila, R., Ahuja, G., Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction (2002) Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 1183-1194; Katila, R., Chen, E., Effects of search timing on product innovation: the value of not being in sync (2008) Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, pp. 593-625; Katila, R., Mang, P.Y., Exploiting technological opportunities: the timing of collaborations (2003) Research Policy, 32, pp. 317-332; Katila, R., Rosenberger, J.D., Eisenhardt, K., Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships (2008) Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, pp. 295-332; Kim, D., Kogut, B., Technological platforms and diversification (1996) Organization Science, 7, pp. 283-301; Kirzner, I.M., (1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship, , Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press; Klein, P.G., Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization (2008) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, pp. 175-190; Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R., Winter, S., On the sources and significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities (1995) Research Policy, 24, pp. 185-205; Kuhn, T.S., (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, , Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press; Lave, J., (1988) Cognition in Practice, , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; Leten, B., Belderbos, R., Van Looy, B., Technological diversification, coherence and performance of firms (2007) Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, pp. 567-579; Leten, B., Landoni, P., Van Looy, B., Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities? (2014) Research Policy, 43, pp. 1398-1412; Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S., Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development (1987) Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, pp. 783-831; Levin, R.C., Reiss, P.C., ‘Tests of a Schumpeterian model of R&D and market structure’ (1984) R&D, Patents and Productivity, pp. 175-204. , In, Griliches, Z., (Ed.)., Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press; Levin, R.C., Cohen, W.M., Mowery, D., R and D appropriability, opportunities and market structure: New evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses (1985) American Economic Review, 75, pp. 20-24; Levinthal, D., March, J., The myopia of learning (1993) Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 95-112; Lipczynski, J., Wilson, J., Goddard, J., (2001) Industrial Organization: Competition, Strategy and Policy, , Harlow, Pearson Education Limited; March, J., Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning (1991) Organization Science, 2, pp. 71-87; Markides, C., Williamson, P., Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance (1994) Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 149-165; Martin, X., Mitchell, W., The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market (1998) Research Policy, 26, pp. 753-771; McGahan, A.M., Silverman, B.S., Profiting from technological innovation by others: the effect of competitor patenting on firm value (2006) Research Policy, 35, pp. 1222-1242; McGrath, R., Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight (2001) Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 118-131; Mitchell, D., Singh, K., Death of the lethargic: Effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firm's base business (1993) Organization Science, 4, pp. 152-180; Mitchell, W., Singh, K., Incumbents’ use of pre-entry alliances before expansion into new technological subfields of an industry (1992) Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18, pp. 347-372; Narin, F., Noma, E., Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength (1987) Research Policy, 16, pp. 143-155; Nelson, R., Winter, S., In search of useful theory of innovation (1977) Research Policy, 6, pp. 36-76; Nelson, R., Winter, S., (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, , Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; Nesta, L., Saviotti, P., Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm's innovative performance: Evidence from the U.S (2005) Pharmaceutical Industry’. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53, pp. 123-142; Ocasio, W., Towards an attention-based view of the firm (1997) Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 187-206; O'Reilly, C., Tushman, M., Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator's dilemma (2008) Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 185-206; Patel, P., Pavitt, K., The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety (1997) Research Policy, 26, pp. 141-156; Penrose, E., (1959) The Theory of the Firm, , Oxford, Basil Blackwell; Peteraf, M.A., The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view (1993) Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 179-191; Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., Marsh, L., Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin (2006) Strategic Management Journal, 27, pp. 369-388; Piscitello, L., Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance (2004) Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, pp. 757-787; Prahalad, C.K., Bettis, R.A., The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance (1986) Strategic Management Journal, 7, pp. 485-501; Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., The core competence of the firm (1990) Harvard Business Review, 68, pp. 79-91; Reinganum, J., Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly (1983) American Economic Review, 73, pp. 741-748; Reitzig, M., The private values of ‘thickets’ and ‘fences’: towards an updated picture of the use of patents across industries (2004) Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13, pp. 457-476; Rosenberg, N., Science, invention and economic growth (1974) Economic Journal, 84, pp. 90-108. , March; Rosenberg, N., Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? (1990) Research Policy, 19, pp. 165-174; Rosenkopf, L., Nerkar, A., Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry (2001) Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 287-306; Sampson, R.C., R&D alliances and firm performance: the impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation (2007) Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 364-366; Scherer, F.M., Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions (1965) American Economic Review, 55, pp. 1097-1125; Schmoch, U., Double-boom cyclus and the comeback of science-push and market-pull (2007) Research Policy, 36, pp. 1000-1015; Schneider, C., Fences and competition in patent races (2008) International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, pp. 1348-1364; Schumpeter, J., (1934) Business Cycles, , New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc; Scotchmer, S., Standing of the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law (1991) Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, pp. 29-42; Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., The promise of entrepreneurship as a field (2000) of research’. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 217-226; Shane, S., Technological opportunities and new firm creation (2001) Management Science, 47, pp. 205-220; Shapiro, C., ‘Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting’ (2000) Innovation Policy and the Economy, pp. 119-150. , In, Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., Stern, S., (Eds)., Cambridge, MA, MIT Press; Simon, H., A behavioral model of rational choice (1955) Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, pp. 99-118; Simon, H., Rational decision making behavior in business organizations (1979) American Economic Review, 69, pp. 493-513; Simsek, Z., Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding (2009) Journal of Management Studies, 46, pp. 597-624; Spender, J.C., Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm (1996) Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 45-62; Stuart, T., Podolny, J., Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities (1996) Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 21-38; Sutton, J., (1998) Technology and Market Structure, , Cambridge, MA, MIT Press; Teece, D., (2000) Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions, , Oxford, Oxford University Press; Teece, D., Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance (2007) Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 1319-1350; Teece, D., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management (1997) Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 509-533; Teece, D.J., Economics of scope and the scope of the enterprise (1980) Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, pp. 223-247; Trajtenberg, M., A penny for your quotes: Patent citation and the value of innovations (1990) Rand Journal of Economics, 21, pp. 172-187; Tripsas, M., Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry (1997) Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp. 119-142; Tripsas, M., Technology, identity and inertia through the lens of the “digital photography company (2009) Organization Science, 2, pp. 441-460; Tripsas, M., Gavetti, G., Capabilities, cognition and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging (2000) Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 1147-1161; Tushman, M., Anderson, P., Technological discontinuities and organizational environments (1986) Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, pp. 439-465; Tushman, M., O'reilly, C., Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change (1996) California Management Review, 38, pp. 8-30; Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., Zahra, S., Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations (2009) Strategic Management Journal, 30, pp. 221-231; Uzzi, B., The social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness (1997) Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 35-67; Van de Ven, A., Angle, H., Poole, M.S., (1989) Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies, , New York, Harper & Row Publishers; Vanhaverbeke, W., Belderbos, R., Duysters, G., Beerkens, B., Technological performance and alliances over the industry life cycle: Evidence from the ASIC industry (2015) Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32, pp. 556-573; Van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Mello, J., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? An exploratory investigation of 10 science-intensive technology domains (2003) Scientometrics, 57, pp. 355-367; Van Looy, B., Martens, T., Debackere, K., Organizing for continuous innovation: on the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations (2005) Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, pp. 208-221; Van Looy, B., D Plessis, M., Magerman, T., Data production methods for harmonized patent indicators: Assignee sector allocation (2006) EUROSTAT Working Paper and Studies, , Luxembourg; Van Vianen, B., Moed, H., Van Raan, A., 'An exploration of the science base of recent technology (1990) Research Policy, 19, pp. 61-81; Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., François, D., (2009) The Cost Factor in Patent Systems. EPO Working Papers CEB 06-002; Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S.D., ‘Strategy and entrepreneurship: Outlines of an untold story’ (2001) Handbook of Strategic Management, pp. 650-668. , In, Hitt, M., Freeman, E., Harrison, J., (Eds)., Oxford, Blackwell Publishers; Vygotsky, L., (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, , Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; Webb, T., (2009) Shell dumps wind, soar and hydrogen power in favour of biofuels, , https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy, The Guardian, 17 March (accessed 15 August 2012); Wernerfelt, B., A resource-based view of the firm (1984) Strategic Management Journal, 5, pp. 171-181; Winter, S., Purpose and progress in the theory of strategy: Comments on Gavetti (2012) Organization Science, 23, pp. 288-297; Zahra, S., The virtuous circle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities (2008) Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, pp. 243-257; Ziedonis, R.H., Don't fence me in: fragmented Markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms (2004) Management Science, 50, pp. 804-820
PY - 2016/12
Y1 - 2016/12
N2 - Entry and success in new technology domains (NTDs) is essential for firms' long-term performance. We argue that firms' choices to enter NTDs and their subsequent performance in these domains are not only governed by firm-level factors but also by environmental characteristics. Entry is encouraged by the richness of opportunities for technology development, while technology competition by incumbent firms discourages entry and render entries that do take place less successful. Firms are expected to be positioned heterogeneously to recognize and capitalize on technological opportunities, depending on the presence of a related technology base. We find qualified support for these conjectures in a longitudinal analysis of entry and technological performance in NTDs by 176 R&D intensive firms. While opportunity rich technology environments attract entries by firms even if these NTDs are distal from firms' existing technologies, firms require related technological expertise in order to exploit technological opportunities post-entry. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies
AB - Entry and success in new technology domains (NTDs) is essential for firms' long-term performance. We argue that firms' choices to enter NTDs and their subsequent performance in these domains are not only governed by firm-level factors but also by environmental characteristics. Entry is encouraged by the richness of opportunities for technology development, while technology competition by incumbent firms discourages entry and render entries that do take place less successful. Firms are expected to be positioned heterogeneously to recognize and capitalize on technological opportunities, depending on the presence of a related technology base. We find qualified support for these conjectures in a longitudinal analysis of entry and technological performance in NTDs by 176 R&D intensive firms. While opportunity rich technology environments attract entries by firms even if these NTDs are distal from firms' existing technologies, firms require related technological expertise in order to exploit technological opportunities post-entry. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies
KW - competition
KW - entry
KW - innovation
KW - relatedness
KW - technological opportunities
KW - technology search
KW - RESOURCE-BASED VIEW
KW - RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT
KW - DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES
KW - INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE
KW - LOCAL SEARCH
KW - PROPERTY-RIGHTS
KW - MARKET-STRUCTURE
KW - FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
KW - DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCES
KW - FIRM PERFORMANCE
U2 - 10.1111/joms.12215
DO - 10.1111/joms.12215
M3 - Article
SN - 0022-2380
VL - 53
SP - 1257
EP - 1291
JO - Journal of Management Studies
JF - Journal of Management Studies
IS - 8
ER -