The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technological Diversification, Coherence, and Performance of Firms
Open accessAbstract
Technological diversification at the firm level (i.e., the expansion of a firm's technology base into a wide range of technology fields) is found to be a prevailing phenomenon in all three major industrialized regions,—the United States, Europe, and Japan—prompting the term multitechnology corporation. Whereas previous studies have provided insights into the composition of technology portfolios of multitechnology firms, little is known about the relationship between technological diversification and firms' technological performance. Against a backdrop of the technology and innovation management literature, the present article investigates the relationship between technological diversification and technological performance, taking into account the moderating role of technological coherence in firms' technology portfolios. Hereby, technological coherence is defined as the degree to which technologies in a technology portfolio are technologically related. To measure the technological coherence of portfolios, a measure of technological relatedness of technology fields is constructed based on patent citation patterns found in 450,000 European Patent Office (EPO) patent grants. Two hypotheses are presented here: (1) Technological diversification has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with technological performance; and (2) technological coherence moderates the relationship between technological diversification and technological performance positively. These hypotheses are tested empirically using a panel data set (1995–2003) on patent portfolios pertaining to 184 U.S., European, and Japanese firms. The firms selected are the largest research and development (R&D) actors in five industries: pharmaceuticals and biotechnology; chemicals; engineering and general machinery; information technology (IT) hardware (i.e., computers and communication equipment); and electronics and electrical machinery. Empirical results, obtained by fixed‐effects negative binomial regressions, support both hypotheses in the present article. Technological diversification has an inverted U‐shaped relationship with technological performance. Technological diversification offers opportunities for cross‐fertilization and technology fusion, but high levels of diversification may yield few marginal benefits as firms risk lacking sufficient levels of scale to benefit from wide‐ranging technological diversification, and firms may encounter high levels of coordination and integration costs. Further, the results show that the net benefits of technological diversification are higher in technologically coherent technology portfolios. If firms build up a technologically coherent diversified portfolio, the presence of sufficient levels of scale is ensured and coordination costs are limited. At the same time, technologically coherent diversification puts firms in a better position to benefit form cross‐fertilization between technologies. The present article clearly identifies the important role of technological coherence in technology diversification strategies of firms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393553 · Cited by 35,728
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Technological paradigms and technological trajectories
Dosi, G. (1982) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6 · Cited by 6,685
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477
Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey
Griliches, Z. (1990) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w3301 · Cited by 5,828
Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/30040711 · Cited by 4,371
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393807 · Cited by 4,282
Patterns of Industrial Innovation
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978) · Technology Review · Cited by 3,331
Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393655 · Cited by 2,888
Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process
Zingler, E. K., & Schumpeter, J. A. (1940) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1053493 · Cited by 2,377
Cited by
Visnjic, I., Wiengarten, F., & Neely, A. (2016) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12254 · Cited by 488
Boschma, R., Balland, P.-A., & Kogler, D. F. (2015) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtu012 · Cited by 477
The Impact of Family Ownership, Management, and Governance on Innovation
Matzler, K., Veider, V., Hautz, J., & Stadler, C. (2015) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12202 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 567-579
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W3122120597
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 18.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technological Diversification, Coherence, and Performance of Firms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00272.x
- The paper
- Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological Diversification, Coherence, and Performance of Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00272.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.