skip to main content
10.1145/3490322.3490349acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicbdtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mapping the Landscape of Technology Attributes Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of SSCI Metadata

Published:27 December 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the era of big data, technology iteration is accelerating and technology complexity is increasing. In this context, firms could not keep up with the pace of technological progress only by internal research and development. Thus, external technology acquisition has become a powerful source to enhance their technology capabilities. As the primary considerations of external technology acquisition, technology attributes are mostly investigated in the existing literature, which is scattered in the related research, lacking systematicness and not forming a complete analysis framework. Therefore this paper aims to map the landscape of technology attributes and present a systematic framework, so as to provide a theoretical reference for newcomers in this field and help them understand it comprehensively and quickly. SSCI metadata was analyzed based on the bibliometrics method. Results show that: (1) technology attributes research is in the stage of explosive growth with an average annual growth rate of 8.21%; (2) USA and China have a deep collaboration in this field; (3) the themes in this field contain determinants, performance, innovation, perceptions, information-technology, user acceptance, etc., which could be incorporated in a cognitive-temporal-spatial dimensional framework.

References

  1. Iacopo Vagliano 2018. Open innovation in the big data era with the moving platform. IEEE Multimedia 25, 3 (October 2018), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2018.2873495Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Qian Liu, Qianzhou Du, Yili Hong, Weiguo Fan, and Shuang Wu. 2020. User idea implementation in open innovation communities: Evidence from a new product development crowdsourcing community. Inf. Syst. J. 30, 5 (March 2020), 899-927. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12286Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Kuen-Hung Tsai and Jiann-Chyuan Wang. 2008. External technology acquisition and firm performance: A longitudinal study. J. Bus. Ventur. 23, 1 (January 2008), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.07.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ki H Kang, Gil S Jo, and Jina Kang. 2015. External technology acquisition: A double-edged sword. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 23, 1 (April 2015), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2015.1010265Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Farzana Parveen Tajudeen, Noor Ismawati Jaafar, and Ainin Sulaiman. 2019. External technology acquisition and external technology exploitation: The difference of open innovation effects. J. Open Innov., Technol., Market, Complex. 5, 4 (November 2019), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5040097Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonathan Linton and Steven Walsh. 2013. The effect of technology on learning during the acquisition and development of competencies in technology-intensive small firms. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 19, 2 (March 2013), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551311310365Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Y. D. Wang, Z. Zhou, L. T. Ning, and JinChen. 2015. Technology and external conditions at play: A study of learning-by-licensing practices in China. Technovation 43-44, (September-October 2015), 29-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David J Teece. 1996. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 31, 2 (November 1996), 193-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00895-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. R. M. Grant. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17, S2 (December 1996), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Stephen L Vargo, Heiko Wieland, and Melissa Archpru Akaka. 2015. Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Ind. Mark. Manage. 44, (January 2015), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.10.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. James Fleck and John Howells. 2001. Technology, the technology complex and the paradox of technological determinism. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 13, 4 (September 2010), 523-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320127285Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Edwin T Layton Jr. 1974. Technology as knowledge. Technol. Cult. 15, 1 (August 1992), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Farok J Contractor and Wonchan Ra. 2002. How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices: A theory development note. J. Int. Manag. 8, 1 (January 2002), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(01)00052-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Dali Zhao, Meiyun Zuo, and Xuefei Nancy Deng. 2015. Examining the factors influencing cross-project knowledge transfer: An empirical study of IT services firms in China. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 33, 2 (February 2015), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.05.003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ying Li, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Wilfred Schoenmakers. 2008. Exploration and exploitation in innovation: Reframing the interpretation. Creativity Innov. Manag. 17, 2 (May 2008), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00477.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ngoc Minh Nguyen, Huong Thu Dang, Minh Khac Nguyen, and Mai Lan Mai PHung. 2021. Is foreign technology acquisition to complement or substitute for internal technology development? A case of manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manage. (May 2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-01-2020-0006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Anna Krzeminska and Christine Eckert. 2016. Complementarity of internal and external R&D: Is there a difference between product versus process innovations? R D Manage. 46, S3 (January 2015), 931-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12120Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. María Saiz-Santos, Andrés Araujo-De la Mata, and Jon Hoyos-Iruarrizaga, "Entrepreneurial university: Educational innovation and technology transfer," in Entrepreneurial Universities: Springer, 2017, pp. 105-121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Hieu Hoc and Nguyen Duc Trong. 2019. University-industry linkages in promoting technology transfer: A study of Vietnamese technical and engineering universities. Sci. Technol. Soc. 24, 1 (January 2019), 73-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721818821796Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Y. D. Wang, Z. Zhou, and J. Li-Ying. 2013. The impact of licensed-knowledge attributes on the innovation performance of licensee firms: Evidence from the Chinese electronic industry. J. Technol. Transf. 38, 5 (October 2013), 699-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9260-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Byung Il Park and Pervez N Ghauri. 2011. Key factors affecting acquisition of technological capabilities from foreign acquiring firms by small and medium sized local firms. J. World Bus. 46, 1 (January 2011), 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.05.023Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Clive Lawson and Edward Lorenz. 1999. Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Reg. Stud. 33, 4 (August 2010), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/713693555Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kuen-Hung Tsai and Jiann-Chyuan Wang. 2009. External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey. Res. Policy 38, 3 (April 2009), 518-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Victor G Ortiz-Gallardo, David Probert, and Robert Phaal, "Technology Acquisition by Collaboration: A Conceptual Framework," in Strategic Planning Decisions in the High Tech Industry: Springer, 2013, pp. 143-158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. David B Audretsch, Erik E Lehmann, and Mike Wright. 2014. Technology transfer in a global economy. J. Technol. Transf. 39, 3 (December 2012), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9283-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Anoop Madhok. 1998. Cost, value and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 18, 1 (December 1998), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199701)18:1<39::AID-SMJ841>3.0.CO;2-JGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Indumathi Anandarajan and KB Akhilesh, "Effective Utilization of Tacit Knowledge in Technology Management," in Driving the Economy through Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Springer, 2013, pp. 461-471.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. YoungJun Kim and Nicholas S Vonortas. 2006. Technology licensing partners. 58, 4 273-289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Julian Lowe and Peter Taylor. 1998. R&D and technology purchase through licence agreements: Complementary strategies and complementary assets. R D Manage. 28, 4 (December 2002), 263-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00103Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. André Spithoven and Peter Teirlinck. 2015. Internal capabilities, network resources and appropriation mechanisms as determinants of R&D outsourcing. Res. Policy 44, 3 (April 2015), 711-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. KT Yeo. 1995. Strategy for risk management through problem framing in technology acquisition. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 13, 4 (August 1995), 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(94)00011-ZGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Dae-Hyun Cho and Pyung-Il Yu. 2000. Influential factors in the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of small and medium size firms in the Korean telecommunication industry. Technovation 20, 12 (December 2000), 691-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00182-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Gary Hamel. 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 12, 4 (June 1991), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120908Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Manuel Becerra, Randi Lunnan, and Lars Huemer. 2008. Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between alliance partners. J. Manage. Stud. 45, 4 (May 2008), 691-713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00766.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Sanda Renko and Mirna Druzijanic. 2014. Perceived usefulness of innovative technology in retailing: Consumers' and retailers' point of view. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21, 5 (September 2014), 836-843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.02.015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. James G March, Lee S Sproull, and Michal Tamuz. 1991. Learning from samples of one or fewer. 2, 1 1-13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Feng-Jyh Lin and ChihuFeng Lai. 2020. Key factors affecting technological capabilities in small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan. Int. Entrepreneurship Manag. J. (January 2020), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00632-2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mariano Nieto, Francisco Lopéz, and Fernando Cruz. 1998. Performance analysis of technology using the S curve model: The case of digital signal processing (DSP) technologies. Technovation 18, 6 (January 1998), 439-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(98)00021-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Anita M McGahan, Nicholas Argyres, and Joel AC Baum. 2004. Context, technology and strategy: Forging new perspectives on the industry life cycle. Adv. Strateg. Manag. 21, (December 2004), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(04)21015-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Johann Peter Murmann and Koen Frenken. 2006. Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Res. Policy 35, 7 (September 2006), 925-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Richard N Foster, Innovation: The attacker's advantage. Summit Books, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Dilek Çetindamar, Dilek Cetindamar, Robert Phaal, and David Probert, Technology management: Activities and tools. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Gary K Jones, Aldor Lanctot Jr, and Hildy J Teegen. 2001. Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. J. Bus. Ventur. 16, 3 (May 2001), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00048-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jeffrey L Cummings and Bing-Sheng Teng. 2003. Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 20, 1 (June 2003), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(03)00004-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Nancy M Dixon, Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard Business Press, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Scott W Cunningham and Claudia Werker. 2012. Proximity and collaboration in European nanotechnology. Pap. Reg. Sci. 91, 4 (February 2012), 723-742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00416.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Vareska Van de Vrande. 2013. Balancing your technology‐sourcing portfolio: How sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 34, 5 (November 2012), 610-621. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2031Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Yifei Sun and Debin Du. 2010. Determinants of industrial innovation in China: Evidence from its recent economic census. Technovation 30, 9 (September 2010), 540-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Roderik Ponds, Frank Van Oort, and Koen Frenken. 2007. The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Pap. Reg. Sci. 86, 3 (June 2007), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00126.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Andrea Monika Herrmann, Janne Louise Taks, and Ellen Moors. 2012. Beyond regional clusters: On the importance of geographical proximity for R&D collaborations in a global economy—the case of the Flemish biotech sector. Ind. Innov. 19, 6 (September 2012), 499-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2012.718876Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Susan K McEvily, Kathleen M Eisenhardt, and John E Prescott. 2004. The global acquisition, leverage, and protection of technological competencies. Strateg. Manage. J. 25, 8‐9 (July 2004), 713-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.425Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Masaaki Kotabe, Michael J Mol, and JY Murray, Global sourcing strategy (The SAGE Handbook of International Marketing). 2009, pp. 288-302.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Hyun‐Dae Cho and Jae‐Keun Lee. 2003. The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in Korea's semiconductor industry. R D Manage. 33, 4 (August 2003), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00307Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. David J Teece. 1977. Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Econ. J. 87, 346 (June 1977), 242-261. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232084Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Sanjaya Lall. 2000. The Technological structure and performance of developing country manufactured exports, 1985‐98. Oxford Dev. Stud. 28, 3 (August 2010), 337-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/713688318Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. B. Kogut and U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3, 3 (August 1992), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Andrea Morrison, Carlo Pietrobelli, and Roberta Rabellotti. 2008. Global value chains and technological capabilities: A framework to study learning and innovation in developing countries. Oxford Dev. Stud. 36, 1 (February 2008), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810701848144Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Valentina De Marchi, Elisa Giuliani, and Roberta Rabellotti. 2018. Do global value chains offer developing countries learning and innovation opportunities? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 30, 3 (December 2017), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0126-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICBDT '21: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Big Data Technologies
    September 2021
    189 pages
    ISBN:9781450385091
    DOI:10.1145/3490322

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 December 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format