Abstract
Although technological diversification is an important strategic decision for both large and small firms alike, the conventional method of measuring such diversification may well introduce significant scale bias against small- and medium-sized firms. We examine this issue in this study using a sample of 73 Taiwanese integrated-circuit (IC) design firms covering the period from 1995 to 2007 and conclude that the conventional measure of technological diversification reflects the spread or distribution amongst technology classes of a company’s current technology portfolio, and does not capture the incremental expansion in technological scope, or the ‘dynamic act of diversification’, as reflected in our alternative scope measure. Our results suggest clear constraints on the applications made under the conventional index, particularly for firms with small patent scale.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baldini, N. (2006). The act on innovations at public research institutions: Danish Universities’ patenting activity. Scientometrics, 69(2), 387–407.
Bercovitz, J., & Mitchell, W. (2007). When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long-term business survival, while controlling for profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 61–79.
Chiu, Y.-C., Lai, H.-C., Liaw, Y.-C., & Lee, T.-Y. (2009). Technological scope: Diversified or specialized. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0039-5.
Corrocher, N., Malerba, F., & Montobbio, F. (2007). Schumpeterian patters of innovative activity in the ICT field. Research Policy, 36, 418–432.
Criscuolo, B., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37, 1892–1908.
Fai, F., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2001). Scale and scope in technology: Large firms 1930/1990. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 10(4), 255–288.
Garcia-Vega, M. (2006). Does technology diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 230–246.
Geroski, P., Reenen, J., & Walters, C. (1997). How persistently do firms innovate? Research Policy, 26, 33–48.
Guan, J., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science-technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.
Hall, B. (2000). A note on the bias in the Herfindahl based on count data. Mimeo, UC Berkeley and Nuffield College, Oxford. http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/bhhall/hhibias.pdf.
Jang, S. L., Lo, S. M., & Chang, W. H. (2009). How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies. Scientometrics, 72(3), 563–591.
Jang, S. L., Tsai, Y. T., & Chen, J. (2008). Persistent innovation: A cross-country study of output and diversity over time. Applied Economics Letters, 15(4), 323–326.
Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 567–579.
Lin, B., & Chen, J. (2005). Corporate technology portfolios and R&D performance measures: A study of technology intensive firms. R&D Management, 35(2), 157–170.
Lin, C. H., & Jang, S. L. (2010). The impact of M&A on company innovation: Evidence in U.S. medical device industry. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0096-9.
Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779–810.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26, 141–156.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37(3), 492–507.
Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2008). Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence. Research Policy, 37, 149–162.
Wen, S., & Chen, J. (2007). How does innovation impact profitability and productivity? A Joint-test of RBV and KBV, presented at 67th annual conference, Academy of Management, PA, USA.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the helpful comments provided by one anonymous referee. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from Taiwan’s National Science Council (Project No. NSC96-2415-H-002-005-MY2). The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, J.H., Jang, SL. & Wen, S.H. Measuring technological diversification: identifying the effects of patent scale and patent scope. Scientometrics 84, 265–275 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0143-6
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0143-6