Does Spatial Ambidexterity Pay Off? On the Benefits of Geographic Proximity Between Technology Exploitation and Exploration

While most scholars tend to agree that it is worthwhile for firms to strive for ambidexterity, less consensus exists on how to organize simultaneously for exploration and exploitation. Although firms increasingly conduct R&D activities in multiple locations and countries, prior ambidexterity research has ignored a geographical dimension in explaining the ambidexterity-performance relationship. In this paper, we develop and validate the concept of spatial ambidexterity, which we define as the degree to which firms pursue technology exploration and exploitation in proximate locations. We argue that both activities benefit from proximity as firms will increase their ability to enact cross-fertilization opportunities and synergies between explorative and exploitative technological activities. Relying on a panel dataset (1995-2003) of the technological activities of 156 large R&D intensive European, U.S. and Japanese firms, we examine the degree to which technology exploration and exploitation activities are pursued simultaneously in similar or different geographical regions. Patent data are used to construct indicators of technology exploration and exploitation activities. Spatial ambidexterity is measured as the degree to which global technology exploration and exploitation activities are pursued in proximity. Our analysis confirms that firms exhibiting greater geographic proximity between technology exploration and exploitation activities display an elevated level of technological performance. Both technology activities of an explorative and exploitative nature appear to benefit from spatial proximity

Reaching for the stars: When does basic research collaboration between firms and academic star scientists benefit firm invention performance?

While their expertise and scientific excellence make academic star scientists attractive collaboration partners for firms, this study indicates that firms face difficulties in capturing value from collaborations with academic stars. Stars are time constrained, may be less committed to commercialization, and can be a source of undesired knowledge spillovers to other firms. The purpose of this study is to recognize the contingencies under which collaboration with star scientists is positively associated with a firm's ability to produce valuable patents (invention performance). We analyze a panel data set on the collaborations in basic research (publication data) and invention performance (patent output) of 60 prominent pharmaceutical firms. We find that basic research collaboration with academic stars is on average not associated with a performance premium above the overall positive influence of collaborating with academia. We only observe this premium if the star scientist abstains from simultaneous collaboration with other firms (‘dedication’) and extend her collaboration with the firm to involve not only basic but also applied research (‘translation’). Extending prior work that has focused on corporate star scientists, we find that if the collaboration involves an internal firm star scientist, a translational contribution of the academic star is no longer a prerequisite, and may even be detrimental to inventive performance. Our findings inform the literatures on industry-science links and firms’ (scientific) absorptive capacity by revealing the crucial contingencies for firms to benefit from partnering with the best and brightest among academic scientists

Mapping Patent Classifications: Portfolio and Statistical Analysis, and the Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses

The Cooperative Patent Classifications (CPC) jointly developed by the European and US Patent Offices provide a new basis for mapping and portfolio analysis. This update provides an occasion for rethinking the parameter choices. The new maps are significantly different from previous ones, although this may not always be obvious on visual inspection. Since these maps are statistical constructs based on index terms, their quality--as different from utility--can only be controlled discursively. We provide nested maps online and a routine for portfolio overlays and further statistical analysis. We add a new tool for "difference maps" which is illustrated by comparing the portfolios of patents granted to Novartis and MSD in 2016.Comment: Scientometrics 112(3) (2017) 1573-1591; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2449-

Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators

This paper investigates the determinants of technological diversification among UK’s small serial innovators (SSIs). Using a longitudinal study of 339 UK-based small businesses accounting for almost 7000 patents between 1990 and 2006, this study constitutes the first empirical examination of technological diversification among SMEs in the literature. Results demonstrate that technological diversification is not solely a large firm activity, challenging the dominant view that innovative SMEs are extremely focused and specialised players with little technological diversification. Our findings suggest a nonlinear (i.e. inverse-U-shaped) relationship between the level of technological opportunities in the environment and the SSIs’ degree of technological diversification. This points to a trade-off between processes of exploration and exploitation across increasingly volatile technology regimes. The paper also demonstrates that small firms with impactful innovations focus their innovative activity around similar technological capabilities while firms that have introduced platform technologies in the past are more likely to engage in technological diversification

Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness

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.status: publishe