Decomposing technological change at the twilight of the twentieth century: evidence and lessons from the world's largest innovating firms.

The first part of our analysis allowed us to demonstrate that the industries of computers, photography & photocopying and electrical/electronics were among the fastest growing at the edge of the 21st century. This appeared to leave the other industries behind revealing them as laggards, taken unawares of the technological fate that was to befall them. However, the second part of our analysis demonstrated how the technological groups themselves were distributed across industrial sectors. This showed that even in the early 1980's, as the new technologies were in their infancy, some of their influence was already being felt in industries beyond the ones of their birth. Non-specialist industries were taking advantage of the potential enhancing effects of ICT, Materials and Pharmaceutical & Biotech technologies for their development enabling the creation of more complex products.

In this industry level study we found indications that something revolutionary challenged the cognitive inertia of firms across many industries rather than just a few rapidly changing ones and the locally-bound nature of technological search. Our findings suggest that large firms from all industries started to patent in the new promising areas of the technological revolution and in doing so, extended the lifecycle and scope of application of their own previously established technological profiles. Technological revolutions can be embraced as a means to extend the life of more mature corporations and industries rather than rejected as a threat to the status quo. To be aware of major new, potentially revolutionary technological developments, and to find a way to bring them into organisational practices can sometimes be of benefit to all. APPENDIX 1: SPRU DATABASE PATENT CLASSES 1 Inorganic Chemicals 2 Organic Chemicals 3 Agricultural Chemicals 4 Chemical Processes 5 Hydrocarbons, mineral oils, fuels and igniting

devices 6 Bleaching Dyeing and Disinfecting 7 Drugs and Bioengineering 8 Plastic and rubber products 9 Materials (inc. glass and ceramics) 10 Food and Tobacco (processes and products) 11 Metallurgical and Metal Treatment processes 12 Apparatus for chemicals, food, glass, etc. 13 General Non-electrical Industrial Equipment 14 General Electrical Industrial Apparatus 15 Non-electrical specialized industrial equipment 16 Metallurgical and metal working equipment 17 Assembling and material handling apparatus 18 Induced Nuclear Reactions: systems and elements 19 Power Plants 20 Road vehicles and engines 21 Other transport equipment (exc. aircraft) 22 Aircraft 23 Mining and wells machinery and processes 24 Telecommunications 25 Semiconductors 26 Electrical devices and systems 27 Calculators, computers, and other office

equipment 28 Image and sound equipment 29 Photography and photocopy 30 Instruments and controls 31 Miscellaneous metal products 32 Textile, clothing, leather, wood products 33 Dentistry and Surgery 34 Other--Ammunitions and weapons, etc. APPENDIX 2: SPRU DATABASE INDUSTRIES

Number Principal product group of firms Examples of firms in the database Aerospace 16 Boeing, Lockheed, BAE, Societe

Nationale Industrielle

Aerospatiale Chemicals 69 BASF, Hoescht, Dow Chemical, ICI,

Sumitomo Chemical Computers 15 Apple, Bull, Fujitsu, HP, IBM,

Olivetti, Toshiba Electrical/Electronics 74 Fuji Electric, GE, Hitachi,

Phillips, Raytheon, Sharp,

Westinghouse Food, Drink & Tobacco 18 Ajinomoto, Borden, General Mills,

Nestle, Quaker Oats, Pepsico Machinery 72 Ahlstrom, Black & Decker, Deere,

Dragerwerk, Schindler, Komatsu Materials 15 Asahi Glass, Corning, Lafarge,

Saint-Gobain, Toray, Ube,

Unitika Metals 39 Alcan Aluminum, Bethlehem Steel,

Kobe Steel, Metallgesellschaft Mining & Petroleum 25 Amoco, ENI, Exxon, Petrofina,

Shell, Total Motor Vehicles & Parts 47 Dana, Ford, Honda, Mazda,

Navistar, Pegeut, Toyota Paper 16 Kimberly-Clark, Svenska Cellulosa

Aktiebolaget, Weyerhauser Pharmaceuticals 34 Abbot, Merck, Novo Nordisk,

Pfizer, Roche, Tanabe Seiyaku Photography & Photocopy 14 Canon, Carl Zeiss Stiftung,

Essilor, Konica, Ricoh, Olympus Rubber & Plastics 9 Bridgestone, Continental,

Goodyear, Michelin, Pirelli

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Keld Laursen and an anonymous referee for their comments on our method and results. Limitations of the analysis are responsibility of authors.

Received 14 March 2007 Accepted 9 October 2007

References

Acs ZJ and Audretsch DB (1988) Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis, The American Economic Review, 78/4: 678-690.

Andersen HB and Walsh V (2000) Co-evolution within chemical technology systems: A competence bloc approach. Industry and Innovation, 7/1: 77-115.

Castells M (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, Vol. 1, 2nd edn. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Cantwell J, Gambardella A and Granstrand O (Eds) (2004) The Economics and Management of Technological Diversification. London: Routledge.

Cantwell JA and Fai, FM (1999) Firms as the source of innovation and growth: The evolution of technological competence. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9: 331-66.

Cohen WM, Nelson RR and Walsh JP (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not), National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7552. www.nber.org/papers/w7552.

Fai FM (2003) Corporate Technological Competence and the Evolution of Technological Diversification. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Fai FM and von Tunzelmann GN (2001a) Industry-specific competencies and converging technological systems: Evidence from patents. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12: 141-70.

Fai FM and von Tunzelmann GN (2001b) Scale and scope in technology: Large firms 1930/1990. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 10/4: 255-88.

Fagerberg J and Sollie G (1987) The method of constant market shares analysis reconsidered. Applied Economics, 19: 1571-83.

Freeman C (1987) Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

Freeman C (2007) The ICT paradigm. In Mansell R, Avgerou C, Quah D and Silverstone R (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies, pp 34-54. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Freeman C and Louca F (2001) As Time Goes By: The Information Revolution and the Industrial Revolutions in Historical Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gambardella A and Torrisi S (1998) Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy, 27: 445-64.

Granstrand O (1998) Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy, 27/5: 465-89.

Granstrand O, Patel P and Pavitt K (1997) Multi-technology corporations: why they have 'distributed' rather 'distinctive core' competencies, California Management Review, 39: 8-25.

Granstrand O and Sjolander S (1990) Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Research Policy, 19: 35-60.

Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 27:1667-707.

Laursen K (1999) The impact of technological opportunity on the dynamics of trade performance. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 10: 341-57.

Louca F and Mendonca S (2002) Steady change: the 200 largest US manufacturing firms throughout the twentieth century. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11: 817-45.

Lundvall B-A (Ed) (1992) National Systems of Innovation--Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.

Mansfield E (1986) Patents and innovation: an empirical study, Management Science, 32/2, 173-81.

Mendonca S (2003) New out of the old: The evolving technological incoherence of the world's largest companies. In Christensen JF and Maskell P (Eds) The Industrial Dynamics of the New Digital Economy, pp 121-50. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Mendonca S (2004) Large companies from all sectors patenting in ICT: Is there a link between corporate technological diversification and the Information Revolution? In Cantwell J, Gambardella A and Grandstrand O (Eds) The Economics and Management of Technological Diversification, pp 203-33. London: Routledge.

Mendonca S (2005) Large innovating firms and patent management: Challenges for SMEs' managers and IP officials in catching-up economies. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 10: 281-86.

Mendonca S (2006) The revolution within: ICT and the shifting knowledge base of the world's largest companies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15/8: 777-99.