Technological Diversification, Coherence, and Performance of Firms

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.     

Diversification strategies,business cycles and economic performance

Two major diversification strategies of firms are examined: diversification into related businesses and diversification into unrelated businesses. The first strategy attempts to exploit operating synergies. In the second, the firm attempts to gain financial benefits from its ability to increase leverage due to a greater stability of cash flows. The study utilizes a large sample affirms to assess empirically the benefits and costs of these two diversification strategies by developing a new measure of diversification across business cycles and economic sectors. This new measure is compared with Berry—Herfindahl type measures of total diversification and recent measures of diversification into related businesses. The results indicate that pure financial diversification is associated with (a) more stable cash flows, i.e. lower operating risk; (b) increased levels of leverage; and (c) lower profitability. These observations are in accord with the theory. We also reaffirm that firms which diversify into related businesses have, on the average, higher profitability than non-diversified firms, although these results are not always statistically significant.     

DIVERSIFICATION AS REAL OPTIONS AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON FIRM-SPECIFIC RISK AND PERFORMANCE

The management literature posits that firms can create value through diversification. In contrast, the established finance literature concludes that diversified firms destroy value.

This paper suggests a way to reconcile these two warring camps by articulating a new theory of the way in which diversification can add value not by increasing performance, but by reducing risk in ways mat investors cannot replicate.

Specifically, diversification, understood dynamically, provides a way for companies competing in especially turbulent industries to hedge the competitive risk attendant to “convergence” phenomena. That is, in industries where the optimal operating scope of a firm is in question because the promise of convergence cannot be exploited using market-mediating mechanisms, firms will “over diversify” as a hedge against uncertain future reconfigurations of industry boundaries.

In other words, these firms diversify as a way to create “real options” on future integration. These options create a form of “strategy insurance” that investors can not recreate with a portfolio of focused firms: investments in two separate, focused firms do not create an option on a single firm that encompasses the activities of those two companies. As uncertainty spawned of convergence begins to fade, strategically-hedged firms will re-focus their operations by exercising or abandoning their options on integration in a manner appropriate to the demands of their newly-defined marketplaces.

Option-creating diversification has potentially profound implications on operating performance and risk profile. Most significantly, options-based diversification is asserted to cause the operating performance of such firms to fall as they diversify and increase as they focus, in keeping with the observations of the finance literature. Yet the firms will have created value for shareholders by compensating for significant strategic risks that investors cannot otherwise hedge.     

Within‐business diversification in technology‐intensive industries

This study extends diversification research to a new level of analysis, examining how within‐business diversification, which occurs when firms extend existing product lines or expand into new ones, affects organizational survival. While prior research suggests that corporate‐level diversification accounts for relatively little variation in performance, within‐business diversification matters a great deal, by influencing which start‐ups survive and which firms better cope with rapid environmental change. Specifically, we find that the relationship between within‐business diversity and survival is contingent on the amount of environmental change wrought by a firm's competitors as they simultaneously diversify their own product portfolios and innovate technologically. Analysis of the population of U.S. personal computer manufacturers from the industry's founding in 1975 through 1994 supports our premise: Regardless of its effects across businesses, diversification matters a great deal within them. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are EU Leading Firms Returning to Core Business? Evidence on Refocusing and Relatedness in a Period of Market Integration

This paper tests, for 108 diversified EU manufacturing leaders faced by the EU integration shock (1987–1997), if firms responded to increased competitive pressure by readjusting their industry-mix around a core of related activities. Our results show that, in spite of limited reduction in diversification, firms pursued strategies of related constrained diversification by expanding the output of industries related to the core. We also find that complementarity amongst the firm’s operations – i.e., sharing common intermediary products or common output markets – drives the refocusing. The effect is stronger for highly diversified firms. Our findings suggest that EU leaders are moving toward a more efficient use of their resources.     

Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation

This paper provides a new approach to account for the relationship between diversification and innovation by integrating insights concerning strategic fit. We argue that the type of diversification strategy leads to greater innovation output when the appropriate technological search strategy is employed. Using a longitudinal study of the patenting activity of 258 manufacturing firms, we find that strategic fit is important for innovation output. More specifically, a related diversification strategy leads to greater innovation when firms use a narrow technological search strategy. In contrast, an unrelated diversification strategy leads to greater innovation when a broader technological search strategy is used. Implications for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Diversification and performance: evidence from East Asian firms

We examine the impact of diversification on performance for firms operating in different institutional environments during a relatively stable period and during a major economy‐wide shock. We locate our study in six Asian countries at different levels of institutional development. Results indicate that diversification negatively impacts performance in more developed institutional environments while improving performance only in the least developed environments. Even in the least developed institutional environments, diversification offers limited benefits when an economy‐wide shock strikes. Though successful diversifiers are sometimes affiliated with business groups, diversification is associated with poorer performance for both affiliated firms and independent firms. In sum, we find that the outcomes of diversification are influenced by institutional environments, economic stability and affiliation with business groups. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Equity‐based incentives and collaboration in the modern multibusiness firm

Research summary : This paper examines the role of equity‐based incentives in fostering cross‐business‐unit collaboration in multibusiness firms. We develop a formal agency model in which headquarters offers equity and profit incentives to business‐unit managers with the objective of maximizing total expected firm returns. The resulting compensation contract provides a rich mechanism for aggregating value from collaborative interactions across business units, aligning managers' efforts with the firm's growth prospects and organization structure and managing the dual risks in profits and firm market value. The inclusion of equity incentives elicits higher levels of own‐unit and collaborative efforts over the profits‐only contract. Our results suggest that equity‐based incentives are most beneficial when profitability is uncertain relative to long‐term growth prospects, in firms pursuing related diversification strategies, and in periods of rising equity markets. Managerial summary : Equity‐based compensation such as restricted stock grants and options are increasingly common, not only for CEOs and other top executives, but also for business unit managers and other non‐C‐suite employees. The paper studies the role of such “global” incentives in enabling multibusiness firms to benefit from cross‐unit collaboration. Results from our model show that managerial contracts that include appropriate levels of equity incentives, in addition to profit‐based incentives, generate higher own‐unit and collaborative efforts. We also find that equity incentives are likely to be most beneficial for large firms in high‐growth sectors, for firms pursuing a related diversification strategy, and in periods of rising stock markets. The model can also provide useful guidance on designing return‐maximizing compensation contracts for business unit managers in different firm, organizational, and industry contexts. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Customer collaboration,service firms' diversification and innovation performance

To sustain competitive advantage, service firms must adapt to the market environment, often by means of diversification and innovation. While extensive research has focussed on the role of customer collaboration in service firm innovation performance, fewer studies have examined the role of firm diversification in this relationship. This study draws on the resource-based view and dynamic capability literature to explore relationships between customer collaboration, diversification and innovation performance of service firms. A conceptual framework was developed and tested using a survey of 156 mining equipment, technology and services (METS) firms in South Australia, and case studies. The findings indicate that service and market diversification mediate the relationship between customer collaboration and innovation performance. Importantly, our findings demonstrate that customer collaboration has no direct effect on the innovation performance of service firms. The research helps practitioners and policymakers to understand the importance of enhancing collaboration across supply chains to build diversified and resilient to downturns in traditional sectors service economies.     

Corporate diversification and the value of individual firms: A Bayesian approach

Research summary: Prior theory suggests that the performance effects of a firm's diversification strategy depend on a firm's individual resources and capabilities and the setting within which it is operating. However, prior tests of this theory have examined the average diversification‐performance relationship across all firms, instead of estimating the diversification‐performance relationship at the individual firm level. Efforts to estimate this average relationship are inconsistent with a central assumption of much of strategic management theory—that firms maximize value by choosing strategies that exploit their heterogeneous resources and individual situation. By adopting an approach that allows an evaluation of the diversification‐performance relationship for individual firms, this article shows that firms, both focused and diversified, tend to choose that diversification strategy—focus, related diversification, or unrelated diversification—that maximizes value. Managerial summary: Instead of a universal diversification discount or premium, this article shows that the effect of diversification on performance is heterogeneously distributed across firms and that firms tend to be rational in their diversification decisions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Vertical equilibrium in a competitive input market

Imperfect competition, imperfect information, disequilibrium, and rationing all induce vertical integration in relatively straightforward ways. But can vertical integration arise when firms are competitive and markets clear rapidly? This paper demonstrates that a vertical equilibrium can be generated when the intermediate market is subject to external fluctuations and when there are economies of coordination for firms which avoid the market via integration. The vertical equilibrium is one in which some firms will be integrated while some will not, despite the fact that all firms are identical. Thus, one need not conclude that differential degrees of integration within industries are the result of differing circumstances among firms.     

Technological diversity,related diversification,and firm performance

Previous findings that related diversification creates value have been called into question over concerns about methodology and measures. Reviewing existing theory to consider how a firm's knowledge base interacts with its product market activity, I address several of these concerns by creating a measure of technological diversity based on citation‐weighted patents. The measure indicates a firm's opportunity for corporate diversification based on economies of scope in valuable knowledge assets, is defined for both single‐ and multibusiness firms, and is not correlated with more fundamental aspects of diversification, such as the number of businesses in the corporate portfolio. Evidence from a large sample of firms shows the positive relationship between diversification based on technological diversity and market‐based measures of performance, controlling for R&D intensity and capital intensity as further indicators of the type of assets underlying diversification. Results hold when controlling for the endogeneity of diversification and performance in a cross‐sectional sample or when controlling for unobserved factors using panel data. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms

This paper examines the relationship of performance with product and international diversification on Japanese multinational firms from 1977 to 1993. We show the relationships between diversification and performance change over time through the use of multiple time periods and accounting for keiretsu membership. Results show that while diversity strategies vary between keiretsu and non‐keiretsu firms, performance is not much different. Across time periods, performance varies considerably, but strategies are less variable. Product diversity has weak effects on firm performance only in one time period, while international diversification has negative profitability and positive growth consequences in in some periods. These results suggest first that diversification strategies and their effects on performance vary across time periods and generally produce some unexpected findings. We do not find strong interactive diversity effects. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Curvilinearity in the diversification–performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research

While an extensive literature examines the diversification‐performance relationship, little agreement exists concerning the nature of this relationship. Both theoretical and empirical disagreements abound. This study synthesizes findings from three decades of research to address major theoretical issues that remain open to debate. We derive three competing models from the literature and empirically assess these using meta‐analytic data drawn from 55 previously published studies. The results of our tests indicate that moderate levels of diversification yield higher levels of performance than either limited or extensive diversification. Thus, we provide support for the curvilinear model; that is, performance increases as firms shift from single‐business strategies to related diversification, but performance decreases as firms change from related diversification to unrelated diversification. The results also indicate major effects from variation in diversification and performance operationalizations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firms' technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: a longitudinal study

While agency theory claims managerial self‐interest creates a diversification discount, strategic theory explains that firms with certain kinds of resources should diversify. Longitudinal data on 227 firms that diversify between 1980 and 1992 reveal that the sample firms invest less in R&D and have greater breadth of technology (based on patent citations) than their industry peers prior to the diversification event. Also, acquiring firms may appear to have lower performance because of accounting conventions and because firms that use internal growth rather than acquisition pursue less extensive diversification. These findings help explain how diversification and financial performance are endogenous. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The relationship between product and international diversification: The role of experience

We establish prior diversification experience as a key determinant of the relationship between growth of product and international diversification. Prior diversification experience allows firms to overcome short‐run constraints on simultaneous diversification growth imposed by the difficulty to transfer tacit knowledge, ambiguous competencies, and limited absorptive capacity. Studying U.S. and European firms, we find a positive relationship between growth in product and international scope for firms with high and a negative one for those with little prior diversification experience. Further, we find that product diversification experience has greater impact than international diversification experience. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic control systems and relative r&d investment in large multiproduct firms

This paper hypothesizes that tight financial controls associated with large diversified M-form firms lead to a short-term, low-risk orientation and thereby lower relative investment in R&D. Further, it is hypothesized that increasing levels of diversification require different control systems which have significant implications for investing in R&D. Results of the study of 124 major U.S. firms suggest that less diversified U-form firms invest more heavily in R&D than more diversified M-form firms after controlling for size and industry effects. Additionally, dominant business firms invested more in R&D than either related or unrelated business firms. Finally, the relationship between R&D intensity and market performance was negative for related and unrelated firms. The findings suggest that the market evaluates R&D investment more positively for firms that are organized to seek synergy than for those that are organized to pursue a hedging (or diversification) strategy.     

The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance

Does diversification affect firm response to stakeholder demands and social issues? Despite extensive interest in corporate diversification in the strategy literature, the relationship between diversification and corporate social performance (CSP) remains largely unexplored. In this study, I propose that the level of diversification will be positively related to the CSP of firms. However, when diversified firms have a strong focus on short‐term profit, it may discourage firm response to stakeholder demands and investment in social issues, thereby negatively moderating the positive relationship between the level of diversification and CSP. Empirical testing on a sample of U.S. firms generally supports my predictions. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Corporate diversification: the impact of foreign competition,industry globalization,and product diversification

The globalization of markets and industries has fundamentally changed the competitive conditions facing firms. Yet, how globalization has influenced the international diversification strategies of firms is an issue largely overlooked in both the strategic management and international business literatures. This paper develops a theoretical framework to understand how industry globalization, foreign competition, and firm product diversification may influence a firm's choice of its degree and scope of international diversification. Utilizing a panel dataset of U.S. manufacturing firms for the period 1987–99, we provide the first empirical evidence that industry globalization and foreign-based competition are statistically significant factors explaining the degree and scope of international diversification by U.S. firms. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Innovations,Prices and Employment: A Theoretical Model and an Empirical Application for West German Manufacturing Firms

In this paper a theoretical model of the impact of product and process innovations on output, capacity utilization, employment and prices is developed. The model is estimated with a unique set of micro-data from West German manufacturing firms. The empirical results reveal that innovative firms are more successful. They show a higher utilization and more output and employment growth than non-innovative firms. Innovations also change market behaviour. In sectors with a large share of product innovators, firms more often change employment and less often change prices, i.e. product innovations reduce price competition.