The review of Network-based research in Entrepreneurship A critical review

Teece, D. J., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2002). Organizing for Innovation: When Is Virtual Virtuous. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 127-135.

Advances in information technology have made it easier for companies to exchange data and coordinate activities. That has given rise to a radical new vision of corporate organization—one in which individual companies outsource many of their activities to an array of partners. Such virtual enterprises may be more efficient, but what are the broader strategic implications of rampant subcontracting?

Henry Chesbrough and David Teece sound a note of caution. When it comes to innovation, they argue, virtuality often does more harm than good. Loose partnerships of companies inevitably produce more conflicts of interest than do centrally managed corporations, and those conflicts can hamper the kind of complex, systematic innovation that creates valuable business breakthroughs. Innovation is a destabilizing force and will therefore be resisted by companies wary of upsetting a comfortable status quo.

Chesbrough and Teece acknowledge that some degree of outsourcing can further corporate creativity and that virtuality makes sense under certain conditions. But every company, they contend, needs to tailor its organization to its own operations and its unique sources of innovation. Blindly following fads is a recipe for disaster.

點播PDF全文 Click

The review of Network-based research in Entrepreneurship A critical review

Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of business venturing, 18(2), 165-187.

Abstract:Network-based research in entrepreneurship is reviewed and critically examined in three areas: content of network relationships, governance, and structure. Research on the impact of network structure on venture performance has yielded a number of important findings. In contrast, fewer process-oriented studies have been conducted and only partial empirical confirmation exists for a theory of network development. In order to address unanswered questions on how network content, governance, and structure emerge over time, more longitudinal and qualitative work is needed. Theory building in this field would benefit also from a greater integration between process- and outcome-oriented research.

點播PDF全文 Click

The review of Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and firm value

Lin, B. W., Chen, C. J., & Wu, H. L. (2006). Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and firm value. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 17-26.

Abstract: This paper investigates how the composition and diversity of a firm's patent portfolio can create synergy and, thus, contribute to firm performance. To resolve two conflicting views on whether technology diversity or strategic focus can improve firm performance, we develop a scheme to measure the diversity of a patent portfolio at the two levels of broad technology diversity and core field diversity. In our framework, both views can be valid. The former argument is effective when the focal firm has very high technology stocks and profitability is used as a performance measure. The latter is true for a focal firm with above average technology stocks and where shareholder value is considered as a performance indicator. This paper highlights technology stocks as a moderator between the relationship of technology diversity and firm performance. Generally, a firm without very high-technology stocks should concentrate its R&D resources on a specific technology field, and even within the core technology field the firm should stay focus on a small number of core technologies. Results support the competence-based view of the firm. Technology-based firms should develop a portfolio with a clear technology focus. This study lays the groundwork for future study on the interrelationships of technology strategy, patent portfolio, and long-term performance.

點播PDF全文 Click