![]() Penasse, Julien ![]() in Management Science (2021) Detailed reference viewed: 28 (2 UL)![]() ; Balsmeier, Benjamin ![]() in Management Science (2021), 67(2), 1109-1137 Because of the intangible and highly uncertain nature of innovation, investors may have difficulty processing information associated with a firm’s innovation search strategy. Due to cognitive and strategic ... [more ▼] Because of the intangible and highly uncertain nature of innovation, investors may have difficulty processing information associated with a firm’s innovation search strategy. Due to cognitive and strategic biases, investors are likely to pay more attention to unfamiliar explorative patents rather than incremental exploitative patents. We find that innovative firms focusing on exploitation rather than exploration tend to generate superior subsequent short-term operating performance. Analysts do not seem to detect this, as firms currently focused on exploitation tend to outperform the market’s near-term earnings expectations. The stock market also seems unable to accurately incorporate information about a firm’s innovation search strategy. We find that firms with exploitation strategies are undervalued relative to firms with exploration strategies and that this return differ-ential is incremental to standard risk and innovation-based pricing factors examined in the prior literature. This result suggests a more nuanced view on whether stock market pressure hampers innovation, and may have implications for optimal firm financing choices and corporate disclosure policy. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 277 (19 UL)![]() Neugebauer, Tibor ![]() in Management Science (2021) Detailed reference viewed: 136 (14 UL)![]() Kocyigit, Cagil ![]() in Management Science (2020), 66(1), 159--189 Detailed reference viewed: 93 (10 UL)![]() ; Balsmeier, Benjamin ![]() in Management Science (2020) Much work on innovation strategy assumes or theorizes that competition in innovation elicits duplication of research and that disclosure decreases such duplication. We validate this empirically using the ... [more ▼] Much work on innovation strategy assumes or theorizes that competition in innovation elicits duplication of research and that disclosure decreases such duplication. We validate this empirically using the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), three complementary identification strategies, and a new measure of blocked future patent applications. We show that AIPA—intended to reduce duplication, through default disclosure of patent applications 18 months after filing—reduced duplication in the U.S. and European patent systems. The blocking measure provides a clear and micro measure of technological competition that can be aggregated to facilitate the empirical investigation of innovation, firm strategy, and the positive and negative externalities of patenting. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 138 (7 UL)![]() Kräussl, Roman ![]() in Management Science (2020) Detailed reference viewed: 50 (3 UL)![]() Suominen, Matti ![]() in Management Science (2015) Detailed reference viewed: 194 (7 UL)![]() ; ; Jonard, Nicolas ![]() in Management Science (2010), 56 Detailed reference viewed: 222 (6 UL)![]() Wolff, Christian ![]() ![]() in Management Science (2009), 55(5), 853-862 Detailed reference viewed: 119 (5 UL)![]() ![]() Jonard, Nicolas ![]() in Management Science (2007), 53(7), 1051-1067 In this paper, we model the formation of innovation networks as they emerge from bilateral decisions. In contrast to much of the literature, here firms only consider knowledge production, and not network ... [more ▼] In this paper, we model the formation of innovation networks as they emerge from bilateral decisions. In contrast to much of the literature, here firms only consider knowledge production, and not network issues, when deciding on partners. Thus, we focus attention on the effects of the knowledge and information regime on network formation. The effectiveness of a bilateral collaboration is determined by cognitive, relational, and structural embeddedness. Innovation results from the recombination of knowledge held by the partners to the collaboration, and its success is determined in part by the extent to which firms’ knowledge complement each other. Previous collaborations (relational embeddedness) increase the probability of a successful collaboration, as does information gained from common third parties (structural embeddedness). Repeated alliance formation creates a network. Two features are central to the innovation process: how firms pool their knowledge resources, and how firms derive information about potential partners. When innovation is decomposable into separate subtasks, networks tend to be dense; when structural embeddedness is important, networks become cliquish. For some regions in this parameter space, small worlds emerge. Key Words: networks; innovation; knowledge; collaborative R&D; embeddedness [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 278 (8 UL) |
||