Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Technological diversification, technology portfolio properties, and R&D productivity

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to examine the differential effect of technological diversification on research and development (R&D) productivity based on the qualitative properties of technology portfolios (i.e., the direction of technological diversification). Using the U.S. patent database from 1980 to 2010, we divided overall technological diversification into related and unrelated technological diversification; furthermore, the two potential moderating factors of technology portfolio centrality and R&D consistency were tested across the different types of technological diversification. The notable findings are as follows: First, technology portfolio centrality has a positive moderating effect that is more pronounced as the degree of technological diversification increases. Second, R&D consistency has a positive and linear moderating effect. Third, the positive (negative) effect of technological diversification is more pronounced under related (unrelated) technological diversification. Consequently, firms can better utilize the R&D-productivity-enhancing effect of technological diversification by considering both the current degree of technological diversification and the properties of their technology portfolios.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in ‘https://wrds-web.wharton.upenn.edu/’.

Code availability

Available upon request.

Notes

  1. Technological diversification at the firm level is defined as the expansion in the diversity (or breadth) of firm-specific technological knowledge base and competence into a wider range of technological fields (Granstrand, 1998; Granstrand & Oskarsson, 1994).

  2. Focusing on firm-specific innovative conditions, Choi and Lee (2021) found a U-shaped relationship between technological diversification and R&D productivity with positive moderating effects of firm-specific core-technology competence and pool of knowledge spillovers.

  3. Technological relatedness (or coherence) refers to the degree to which technologies constituting a technology portfolio are technologically related, sharing a similar technological knowledge base and common scientific principles (Breschi et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2016; Leten et al., 2007; Nesta & Saviotti, 2005).

  4. The criteria are based on the indicators for the technological importance (quality) of patents; this includes the degree of the technological impact and diffusion into other technological fields (Squicciarini et al., 2013), and the additional adjustment required for reflecting the fast-changing technological environment. This study employs the patent class-level citation network and centrality (i.e., PageRank), which are widely used in social network analysis, to measure the proxy variable. See Sects. 2.2 and 4.2 for further details.

  5. Dindaroğlu (2018) found that technological diversification and R&D productivity have an S-shaped cubic relationship, however, the coefficients of the polynomial terms are consistent with that of a nearly U-shaped relationship.

  6. Among various measurements for the centrality index, we employed Google’s PageRank centrality. The detailed description and the deriving procedures are provided in Sect. 4.2.

  7. The robustness check for this conjecture proceeds in Sect. 5.2.

  8. According to Klevorick et al. (1995), technological advances occurring within a specific technological field and from technologically applicable external fields expand the pool of technological opportunities, offsetting diminishing returns to R&D.

  9. Dechezleprêtre et al. (2014) used a centrality index from a patent-level citation network as a proxy variable of the intensity of knowledge spillovers among patents.

  10. The hypothesis is likely to be valid at least in the short run. However, in the long run, consistent R&D efforts in previously active technological fields may deplete technological opportunities (Klevorick et al., 1995) and diminish marginal returns to R&D, as ideas are getting hard to find (Bloom et al., 2020). The long-run effect is not explored as this study mainly focuses on a short-run base (e.g., after two years).

  11. Using the property of entropy method, technological diversification can be divided into two parts of related and unrelated technological diversification, based on technological relatedness. See Sect. 4.3 for the detailed derivation process. For simplicity, we use technological relatedness as a term indicating the proportion of related technological diversification out of overall technological diversification.

  12. Both technological relatedness and R&D consistency are related to innovation strategies managing the balance between technological exploration and exploitation. While R&D consistency reflects the dynamic nature of technological consistency between the current technology portfolio and the accumulated technological knowledge base, technological relatedness concentrates on the technological coherence among technologies constituting the current technology portfolio (i.e., static nature).

  13. The observation year is restricted to 2010 owing to the truncation issue of forward citations that citations for recent patents after the end of the sample are not considered, thereby distorted downwardly (Hall et al., 2001).

  14. Degree centrality and closeness centrality measures cannot capture the indirect interactions among actors in a network.

  15. It considers not the total number of citations but the relative ratio, normalizing the absolute size of patent citations caused by the technology-specific citation trend.

  16. Chen et al. (2007) provided the conjecture and empirical evidence for the usage of the value 0.5 in the citation network. First, entries in the citation list, on average, are collected within two searches following the citation links. Second, the portion of the followed citation (e.g., B in an A to B, A to C, and B to C citation loop) is approximately 50%, implying the probability of following this indirect citation path (i.e., \(1-d\)) is close to 0.5, assuming that A followed the citation path of B.

  17. The value is set to one if there is no forward citation and added one for each additional forward citation.

  18. The derivation of the decomposition process is described in Palepu (1985).

  19. Refer to Sect. 4.2 for the detailed derivation process and notational information of the PageRank centrality (\(TECHCE{N}_{jt}\)).

  20. The usage of a fixed-effect model rather than a random-effect model is justified following the Hausman test.

  21. The sample is constructed with 19,778 observations out of the total 69,051 observations. While the mean R&D expenditures (total sales) of innovative firms in the total sample is 75.98 (1,987.76), the mean value in the matched sample is 191.16 (4,405.00).

  22. The upper bound for the positive effect of technological diversification (8.15) exceeds the largest sample level (4.65). Figure 4 illustrates the result.

  23. The negative moderating effect is related to Hypotheses 2 and 3 that firms at an early stage of exploratory technological diversification are more likely to suffer from technological competence-destroying effects. Hence, unless R&D consistency is sufficiently large to offset the negative moderating effect, firms at an early stage of technological diversification cannot effectively manage the positive moderating effects of technology portfolio centrality and are more likely to be dominated by harmful effects, such as R&D competition from the active R&D activities around technological fields with a high centrality index. The moderating effect of technology portfolio centrality in Model (6) of Table 2 is as follows: \(\frac{\partial lnRDPROD}{\partial TD\partial lnPORTCEN}=-0.182+0.224TD\).

  24. The positive moderating effect of R&D consistency on related technological diversification vanishes in Models (4) and (5) of Table 3. The results are explained as follows: First, the high correlation between two variables in that both are associated with exploitative R&D activities can boost the standard errors. Second, whereas R&D consistency attenuates harmful effects of technological diversification on R&D productivity, related technological diversification generates no significant harmful effects.

  25. The variable of technological relatedness (\(TECHREL\)), distributed over values between 0 and 1, is constructed as follows: \(TECHREL=\frac{TD\_R}{TD}\). It is not defined when the degree of overall technological diversification equals zero. The value of technological relatedness is set to one for those firms with zero degrees of technological diversification, given that concentrating on a single technological field implies the common usage of technological knowledge base across the R&D projects.

  26. All of the alternative variables are normalized by dividing them with mean values for each cohort (i.e., by patent class and year) in consideration of the class- and time-specific trend of patent applications and citation activities (Hall et al., 2001).

  27. For instance, R&D consistency of firm \(i\) at the observation year \(t\) with the 3-year moving average patent counts \((RDCON{S}_{it}^{3YMA})\) is measured by using a vector of the current technology portfolio where each column contains a 3-year average of the number of patents (i.e., the average value of \({P}_{ijt}\), \({P}_{ijt-1}\), and \({P}_{ijt-2}\)) and a vector of the knowledge stock where each column contains the accumulated stock of technological knowledge until the observation year \(t-3\).

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 774–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16, 451–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. (1996). Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 39(537–548), 395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16, 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkhin, P. (2005). A survey on PageRank computing. Internet Mathematics, 2, 73–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besanko, D., Dranove, D., Shanley, M., & Schaefer, S. (2012). Economics of strategy. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Reenen, J. V., & Webb, M. (2020). Are ideas getting harder to find? American Economic Review, 110, 1104–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruck, P., Réthy, I., Szente, J., Tobochnik, J., & Érdi, P. (2016). Recognition of emerging technology trends: Class-selective study of citations in the US patent citation network. Scientometrics, 107, 1465–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceipek, R., Hautz, J., Mayer, M. C., & Matzler, K. (2019). Technological diversification: A systematic review of antecedents, outcomes and moderating effects. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21, 466–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D.-Z., Chang, H.-W., Huang, M.-H., & Fu, F.-C. (2005). Core technologies and key industries in Taiwan from 1978 to 2002: A perspective from patent analysis. Scientometrics, 64, 31–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P., Xie, H., Maslov, S., & Redner, S. (2007). Finding scientific gems with Google’s PageRank algorithm. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, M., & Lee, C.-Y. (2021). Technological diversification and R&D productivity: the moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence. Technovation, 104, 102249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and R&D. Economic Journal, 106, 925–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: Two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechezleprêtre, A., Martin, R., & Mohnen, M. (2014). Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies. CEP Discussion Paper No. 1300. Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

  • Dindaroğlu, B. (2018). Determinants of patent quality in U.S. manufacturing: Technological diversity, appropriability, and firm size. Journal of Technological Transfer, 43, 1083–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14, 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, J. P., & Kaul, A. (2018). Motivation and ability? a behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30, 1019–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangulli, P. (2004). Patents and patent information in 1979 and 2004: A perspective from India. World Patent Information, 26, 61–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D. A., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: The power of analogy. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 691–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Reenen, J. V. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H., Lacasa, D., & Schmoch, U. (2003). Tracing technological change over long periods in Germany in chemicals using patent statistics. Scientometrics, 57, 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper No. 8498. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham, R. M., Linden, G., & Appleyard, M. M. (1998). The evolving role of semiconductor consortia in the United States and Japan. California Management Review, 41, 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y. J., & Park, Y. (2006). Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: The case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Information, 28, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32, 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 27, 32–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohberger, J., Almeida, P., & Parada, P. (2015). The direction of firm innovation: The contrasting roles of strategic alliances and individual scientific collaborations. Research Policy, 44, 1473–1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. G., & Jaffe, A. B. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: The cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 849–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. F., & Chen, C. J. (2010). The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation, 30, 420–428.

    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, 984–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. Research Policy, 18, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Lee, C.-Y., & Cho, Y. (2016). Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth. Research Policy, 45, 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Simons, K. L. (2000). Dominance by birthright: Entry or prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 997–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klette, T. J. (1996). R&D, scope economies, and plant performance. RAND Journal of Economics, 27, 502–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klette, T. J., & Kortum, S. (2004). Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 986–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, F. (1992). Technology fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, 70, 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Seru, A., & Stoffman, N. (2017). Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132, 665–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114, 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., Kim, C., Cho, H., & Park, Y. (2009). An ANP-based technology network for identification of core technologies: A case of telecommunication technologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 894–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Looy, B. V. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., Zhang, X., Xu, H., Fang, S., Garces, E., & Daim, T. (2020). Measuring strategic technological strength: patent portfolio model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, Article 120119.

  • Lin, B., & Chen, J. (2005). Corporate technology portfolios and R&D performance measure: A study of technology intensive firms. R&D Management, 35, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukach, R., & Lukach, M. (2007). Ranking USPTO patent documents by importance using random surfer method (pagerank). Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.996595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., & Lafond, F. (2019). Early identification of important patents: Design and validation of citation network metrics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 644–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., & Zhang, Y. C. (2016). Identification of milestone papers through time-balanced network centrality. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 1207–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matusik, S. F., & Fitza, M. A. (2012). Diversification in the venture capital industry: Leveraging knowledge under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16, 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. (2004). R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation, 24, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesta, L., & Saviotti, P. P. (2005). Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm’s innovative performance: Evidence from the US pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53, 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1982). R&D, patenting and innovative activities: A statistical exploration. Research Policy, 11, 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piscitello, L. (2000). Relatedness and coherence in technological and product diversification of the world’s largest firms. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piscitello, L. (2004). Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 757–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37, 492–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seru, A. (2014). Firm boundaries matter: Evidence from conglomerates and R&D activity. Journal of Financial Economics, 111, 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A., Triulzi, G., & Magee, C. L. (2021). Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: use of patent data and an extended domain description. Research Policy, 50, Article 104294.

  • Squicciarini, M., Dernis, H., & Criscuolo, C. (2013). Measuring patent quality: Indicators of technological and economic value. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2013/03, OECD Publishing.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triulzi, G., Alstott, J., & Magee, C. L. (2020). Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, Article 120100.

  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, S., Akhtar, P., & Zaefarian, G. (2018). Dealing with endogeneity bias: The generalized method of moments (GMM) for panel data. Industrial Marketing Management, 71, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valvano, S., & Vannoni, D. (2003). Diversification strategies and corporate coherence evidence from Italian leading firms. Review of Industrial Organization, 23, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, D., Xie, H., Yan, K. K., & Maslov, S. (2007). Ranking scientific publications using a model of network traffic. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007, 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 581–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2004). A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool for high-technology trend. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15, 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), 85 Hoegi-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 02455, Republic of Korea

    Seh-Hyun Yoo & Chang-Yang Lee

Authors
  1. Seh-Hyun Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chang-Yang Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seh-Hyun Yoo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoo, SH., Lee, CY. Technological diversification, technology portfolio properties, and R&D productivity. J Technol Transf 48, 2074–2105 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09953-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09953-x

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation