Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technological scope: diversified or specialized

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the topic of technological diversification has been a major source of research, only a few studies have explored the determinant variables of technological scope decisions. The present study enhances our understanding of the determinants of a firm’s technological scope strategy. After reviewing the related literatures, we proposed and empirically tested a conceptual model from the perspective of the firm’s environment, strategic orientation, and resources. The results suggest that the coherence between technological scope decisions and proposed model is significantly related to performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansoff, H. I., & Stewart, J. M. (1967). Strategies for a technology-based business. Harvard Business Review, 45(6), 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. (1996). Capabilities, technology diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., Singh, J. V. (1983). Organizational slack and political behavior among top management teams. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp. 43–47.

  • Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technology diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P. (1991). Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (1992). Managing the “S” curve of innovation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. A. (1989). Technological innovation and the multinational corporation. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2000). Accumulating technological competence: Its changing impact on corporate diversification and internationalization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castrogiovanni, G. J. (2002). Organization task environments: Have they changed fundamentally over time? Journal of Management, 28(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. H. (2002). Global production networks and information technology: The case of Taiwan. Industry and Innovation, 9(2), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. L., & Kesner, I. F. (1997). Organizational slack and response to environmental shifts: The impact of resource allocation patterns. Journal of Management, 23(1), 1–18.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimension of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1990). Industry effects and strategic management research. Journal of Management, 16(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Christensen, J. F. (2001). A market-process approach to corporate coherence. Managerial and Decision Economics, 22(4–5), 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., & Torrisi, S. (1998). Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy, 27(5), 445–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Vega, M. (2006). Does technology diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemba, K., & Kodama, F. (2001). Diversification dynamics of the Japanese industry. Research Policy, 30(8), 1165–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. (1997). Rational decision-making and firm performance: The moderating role of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 583–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (1998). Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy, 27(5), 465–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., & Oskarsson, C. (1994). Technology diversification in “MUL-TECH” corporations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(4), 355–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Vertical integration and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 397–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, F. (1986). Technology diversification of Japanese industry. Science, 233, 291–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecraw, D. J. (1984). Diversification strategy and performance. Journal of Industrial Economics, 33(2), 179–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. A. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, A., & Nystrom, P. (1991). Environmental dynamism, complexity, and munificence as moderators of strategy-performance relationships. Journal of Business Research, 23(4), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. (2006). Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 601–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishina, Y., Pollock, T. G., & Porac, J. F. (2004). Are more resources always better for growth? Resource stickiness in market and product expansion. Strategic Manage Journal, 25(12), 1179–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., Gulati, R. (1995). What is the optimum amount of organizational slack? A study of the relationship between slack and innovation in multinational firms. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp. 32–36.

  • Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1997). What is the optimum amount of organizational slack? A study of the relationship between slack and innovation in multinational firms. European Management Journal, 15(6), 603–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. (2003). Prior performance characteristics of related and unrelated acquirers. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 471–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. (1989). Technological accumulation, diversification and organisation in UK companies, 1945–1983. Management Science, 35(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pegels, C. C., & Thirumurthy, M. V. (1996). The impact of technology strategy on firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(3), 246–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive strategy: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A., & Datta, D. (1993). Strategic decision processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of Management, 19(2), 349–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheem, H. (1995). Technology: Core competence or diverse competencies? Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Canbridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S., & Olson, E. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The influence of sales force management. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 831–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. (1996). Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, J., & Kodama, F. (2004). Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: Two case studies of large Japanese firms. Research Policy, 33(3), 531–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(1), 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telser, L. G. (1986). Advertising and competition. The Journal of Political Economy, 72(6), 537–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organization in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M. R., & Gravill, J. I. (2003). Diversification and performance of Japanese IT subsidiaries: A resource-based view. Information and Management, 40(4), 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. C., & Tsai, K. H. (1998). The impact of research and development promotion schemes in the Taiwanese electronic component industry. R&D Management, 28(2), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Chung Hsing University, No. 250, Kuo Kuang Road, Taichung, Taiwan

    Yi-Chia Chiu, Yi-Ching Liaw & Tai-Yu Lee

  2. Department of Business and Management and Graduate Institute of Technology Management, National University of Tainan, No. 65, Yu-Nan Street, Tainan, 702, Taiwan

    Hsien-Che Lai

Authors
  1. Yi-Chia Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hsien-Che Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yi-Ching Liaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tai-Yu Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Chia Chiu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chiu, YC., Lai, HC., Liaw, YC. et al. Technological scope: diversified or specialized. Scientometrics 82, 37–58 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0039-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0039-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation