The existing literature has documented significant levels of technological similarity among firms in the same industry. However, there is no theory of how technological similarity affects firm performance. This study builds and tests a theory of performance consequences of technological similarity of a firm to its industry (“technological footprint similarity”). It argues that invention performance and market performance may be affected in different ways and that specific firm characteristics moderate these relationships. This study also argues that technological footprint similarity is different from the established concepts of technological diversification and strategic similarity. The contribution of the article centers on developing the concept of technological footprint similarity and developing and testing theory of its performance consequences in the presence of firm-specific moderators.
AharonsonBSSchillingMA (2016) Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution. Research Policy45: 81–96.
2.
AhujaG (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly45: 425–455.
3.
AhujaGKatilaR (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal22: 197–220.
AmburgeyTLKellyDBarnettWP (1993) Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly38: 51–73.
6.
AroraAGambardellaAMagazziniL, et al. (2009) A breath of fresh air? Firm type, scale, scope, and selection effects in drug development. Management Science55: 1638–1653.
7.
BerghDD (1997) Predicting divestiture of unrelated acquisitions: An integrative model of ex ante conditions. Strategic Management Journal18: 715–731.
8.
BerghDDLawlessMW (1998) Portfolio restructuring and limits to hierarchical governance: The effects of environmental uncertainty and diversification strategy. Organization Science9: 87–102.
9.
BessenJ (2008) The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy37: 932–945.
10.
BottazziGDosiGLippiM, et al. (2001) Innovation and corporate growth in the evolution of the drug industry. International Journal of Industrial Organization19: 1161–1187.
11.
BourgeoisLJ (1981) On the Measurement of Organizational Slack. The Academy of Management Review6: 29–39.
BromileyP (1991) Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal34: 37–59.
14.
BrusoniSGeunaA (2003) An international comparison of sectoral knowledge bases: Persistence and integration in the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy32: 1897–1912.
15.
BrusoniSCriscuoloPGeunaA (2005) The knowledge bases of the world’s largest pharmaceutical groups: What do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal?Economics of Innovation and New Technology14: 395–415.
16.
BrusoniSPrencipeAPavittK (2001) Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make?Administrative Science Quarterly46: 597–621.
17.
CanerTBruyakaOPrescottJE (2018) Flow signals: Evidence from patent and alliance portfolios in the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry. Journal of Management Studies55: 232–264.
18.
ChangCHChenYSLinMJJ (2014) Determinants of absorptive capacity: Contrasting manufacturing vs services enterprises. R&D Management44: 466–483.
19.
ChenY-MYangD-HLinF-J (2013) Does technological diversification matter to firm performance? The moderating role of organizational slack. Journal of Business Research66: 1970–1975.
20.
CloodtMHagedoornJVan KranenburgH (2006) Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research Policy35: 642–654.
21.
CockburnIMHendersonRM (2001) Scale and scope in drug development: Unpacking the advantages of size in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Health Economics20: 1033–1057.
22.
CohenMDMarchJGOlsenJP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly17: 1–25.
23.
CohenWMLevinthalDA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly35: 128–152.
24.
CuiASO’ConnorG (2012) Alliance portfolio resource diversity and firm innovation. Journal of Marketing76: 24–43.
25.
CyertRMMarchJG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm:. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
DailyCMDaltonDR (1994) Corporate governance and the bankrupt firm: An empirical assessment. Strategic Management Journal15: 643–654.
27.
DanielFLohrkeFTFornaciariCJ, et al. (2004) Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research57: 565–574.
28.
De CarolisDM (2003) Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of their relationship with firm performance. Journal of Management29: 27–50.
29.
De ManAPDuystersG (2005) Collaboration and innovation: A review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation. Technovation25: 1377–1387.
30.
DeephouseDL (1996) Does isomorphism legitimate?Academy of Management Journal39: 1024–1039.
31.
DeephouseDL (1999) To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal20: 147–166.
32.
DiMaggioPPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160.
33.
DimickDEMurrayVV (1978) Correlates of substantive policy decisions in organizations: The case of human resource management. Academy of Management Journal21: 611–623.
34.
DindaroğluB (2018) Determinants of patent quality in US manufacturing: Technological diversity, appropriability, and firm size. The Journal of Technology Transfer43: 1083–1106.
35.
EscribanoAFosfuriATriboJA (2009) Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy38: 96–105.
36.
FlattenTCEngelenAZahraSA, et al. (2011) A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation. European Management Journal29: 98–116.
37.
FosfuriATriboJA (2008) Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega-international Journal of Management Science36: 173–187.
38.
GambardellaATorrisiS (1998) Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy27: 445–463.
39.
GambardellaAHarhoffDVerspagenB (2008) The value of European patents. European Management Review5: 69–84.
40.
Garcia-VegaM (2006) Does technological diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy35: 230–246.
41.
GeorgeG (2005) Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal48: 661–676.
42.
GranstrandOPatelPPavittK (1997) Multi-technology corporations: Why they have “distributed” rather than “distinctive core” competencies. California Management Review39: 8–25.
43.
HaansRFPietersCHeZL (2016) Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal37: 1177–1195.
44.
HallBHJaffeATrajtenbergM (2005) Market value and patent citations. The RAND Journal of Economics36: 16–38.
45.
HamiltonBHNickersonJA (2003) Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization1: 51–78.
46.
HannanMTFreemanJ (1977) The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology82: 929–964.
47.
HannanMTFreemanJ (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review49: 149–164.
KennedyRE (2002) Strategy fads and competitive convergence: An empirical test for herd behavior in prime-time television programming. The Journal of Industrial Economics50: 57–84.
50.
KimHKimHLeePM (2008) Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: Evidence from Korean firms. Organization Science19: 404–418.
51.
KletteTJ (1996) R&D, scope economies, and plant performance. The RAND Journal of Economics27: 502–522.
52.
KostopoulosKPapalexandrisAPapachroniM, et al. (2011) Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research64: 1335–1343.
53.
LanceCE (1988) Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. Applied Psychological Measurement12: 163–175.
54.
Leonard-BartonD (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal13: 111–125.
55.
LetenBBelderbosRVan LooyB (2007) Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management24: 567–579.
56.
LinCChangC-C (2015) The effect of technological diversification on organizational performance: An empirical study of S&P 500 manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change90: 575–586.
57.
LinCWuY-JChangC, et al. (2012) The alliance innovation performance of R&D alliances—The absorptive capacity perspective. Technovation32: 282–292.
58.
LittleTDBovairdJAWidamanKF (2006) On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling13: 497–519.
59.
McKnightBZietsmaC (2018) Finding the threshold: A configurational approach to optimal distinctiveness. Journal of Business Venturing33: 493–512.
60.
MartynovA (2017) Alliance portfolios and firm performance: The moderating role of firms’ strategic positioning. Journal of Strategy and Management10: 206–226.
61.
MillerDBreton-MillerILLesterRH (2013) Family firm governance, strategic conformity, and performance: Institutional vs. strategic perspectives. Organization Science24: 189–209.
62.
MillerDJ (2006) Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal27: 601–619.
NestaLSaviottiPP (2005) Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm’s innovative performance: Evidence from the US pharmaceutical industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics53: 123–142.
65.
NestaLSaviottiPP (2006) Firm knowledge and market value in biotechnology. Industrial and Corporate Change15: 625–652.
NormanPMArtzKWMartinezRJ (2007) Does it pay to be different? Competitive non-conformity under different regulatory regimes. Journal of Business Research60: 1135–1143.
68.
O’BrienRM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity41: 673–690.
69.
OhW-YBarkerVLIII (2018) Not all ties are equal: CEO outside directorships and strategic imitation in R&D investment. Journal of Management44: 1312–1337.
70.
OrsenigoLPammolliFRiccaboniM (2001) Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy30: 485–508.
71.
PalepuK (1985) Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal6: 239–255.
72.
PalichLECardinalLBMillerCC (2000) Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal21: 155–174.
73.
PalmerTBWisemanRM (1999) Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: A holistic model of risk. Strategic Management Journal20: 1037–1062.
74.
PangarkarN (2003) Determinants of alliance duration in uncertain environments: The case of the biotechnology sector. Long Range Planning36: 269–284.
75.
PatelPPavittK (1997) The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy26: 141–156.
76.
PatelPPavittK (2000) How technological competencies help define the core (not the boundaries) of the firm. In: DosiGNelsonRRWinterS (eds) The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 313–333.
77.
PavittK (1998) Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: What Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn’t. Industrial and Corporate Change7: 433–452.
78.
Quintana-GarcíaCBenavides-VelascoCA (2008) Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy37: 492–507.
79.
SampsonRC (2007) R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal50: 364–386.
80.
StockGNGreisNPFischerWA (2001) Absorptive capacity and new product development. The Journal of High Technology Management Research12: 77–91.
81.
StuartTE (1998) Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly43: 668–698.
82.
SwaminathanA (1995) The proliferation of specialist organizations in the American wine industry, 1941-1990. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 653–680.
83.
TaftiAMithasSKrishnanMS (2013) The effect of information technology-enabled flexibility on formation and market value of alliances. Management Science59: 207–225.
84.
TeeceDJRumeltRDosiG, et al. (1994) Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization23: 1–30.
85.
TrajtenbergM (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics21: 172–187.
86.
TsaiW (2001) Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal44: 996–1004.
87.
WangNHagedoornJ (2014) The lag structure of the relationship between patenting and internal R&D revisited. Research Policy43: 1275–1285.
88.
WooldridgeJM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
89.
ZahraSAGeorgeG (2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review27: 185–203.
