Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions

Cefis, Elena; Marsili, Orietta

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.010

Cited by 62 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With regards to innovation performance of post mergers and acquisitions, several measures including number of patent applications, quantity and novelty of inventions, count of new products, innovation level, patents and R&D spending are explored in the prior literature (Ahuja and Katila, 2001;Cefis and Marsili, 2015;Haucap and Stiebale, 2016;Makri et al, 2010;McCarthy and Leendert, 2016;Prabhu et al, 2005). Only technological acquisitions result in higher performance of innovation measures according to (Ahuja and Katila, 2001).…”

Section: Post-merger or Post-acquisition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only technological acquisitions result in higher performance of innovation measures according to (Ahuja and Katila, 2001). Size could be a primary determinant in post-performance such that larger firms benefit most from mergers and acquisitions (Cefis and Marsili, 2015). On the other hand, type of firm's knowledge could explain the variability of post-performance as it is shown in Prabhu et al (2005) such that firms with greater deep internal knowledge could achieve higher post-acquisition performance in innovation.…”

Section: Post-merger or Post-acquisition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The new merged company is not the only one harmed in this situation, innovation activities of the non-merging rivals do also decrease. While this is oneindustry case specific to pharmaceuticals, there are many other studies questioning the goodness of mergers and acquisitions in terms of various performance metrics such as innovation (Ahuja and Katila, 2001;Cefis and Marsili, 2015;Haucap and Stiebale, 2016;McCarthy and Leendert, 2016;Prabhu et al, 2005), financial performance (Agrawal, 2000;Andre et al, 2004;Datta et al, 1992;King et al, 2004), and managerial perspectives (Bauer and Matzler, 2014) across various industry and country context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The field is also scarce in terms of existing theories in explaining the merging process in business (Christensen et al, 2011;King et al, 2004). While agency theory (Ahuja and Katila, 2001;Haleblian et al, 2009) and resource-based view (Ahuja and Katila, 2001;Bauer and Matzler, 2014;Cefis and Marsili, 2015;Chatterjee, 1986) are utilized to understand the variability in post-acquisition or post-merger performance, they are not sufficient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A conceptual view of exergy destruction in mergers and acquisitions

Olcay

Öner

Olcay

2019

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Post-merger or Post-acquisition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Post-merger or Post-acquisition Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A conceptual view of exergy destruction in mergers and acquisitions

Olcay

Öner

Olcay

2019

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A growth platform must be understood as a new technology-development trajectory, with the ambition of creating new products. The latter can be achieved by combining complementary knowledge or by overcoming R&D threshold levels (Cefis and Marsili 2015).…”

Section: Manda Innovation Synergiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting post-M&A integration mechanisms tuned in to technological relatedness and innovation synergy realisation

Wubben

Batterink²,

Omta

2016

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) typically relate innovation synergies to either context characteristics or post-M&A integration. There is little research on how to tune the relevant practices to the benefit of realising specific innovation synergies. It is the purpose of this paper to develop a conceptual framework on innovation synergy realisation in large M&As, that relates the following components: (1) strategic M&A characteristics; and (2) post-M&A integration mechanisms; to (3) innovation synergy realisation. The research explored how different innovation synergies were achieved in nine large medium-tech and high-tech M&As in the life sciences. From this case studies research, it turns out that higher degrees of technological relatedness allow for the realisation of more types of innovation synergy, brought about by the more demanding integration mechanisms structural linking and process re-design. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

The complexity of post‐mergers and acquisitions reorganization: Integration and differentiation

Oorschot

Nujen

Solli‐Sæther

et al. 2022

Global Strategy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research SummaryThis article applies a mixed‐method approach to explore the complexities of post‐mergers and acquisitions (M&A) integration processes. Extant literature provides significant insights regarding the impact of task and human integration and their influence on post‐integration processes. However, the literature often fails to differentiate between subelements of these two dimensions. This article investigates task and human integration in a cross‐border M&A aimed at efficiency and innovativeness. We highlight the importance of a clear distinction between two subelements of task integration (product harmonization and structural integration) and show that different interorganizational contexts matter. Consequently, we propose a conceptual framework based on two contextual characteristics—source of synergy and choice of location—suggesting that different integration approaches should be applied simultaneously in different contexts of the same post‐M&A organization.Managerial SummaryDue to the complexity of the post‐M&A integration process, organizing and managing such a process is a challenge to most practitioners. Understanding how to manage different integration dimensions increases the need for prioritization in order to bypass a one‐size‐fits‐all initiative. We suggest that managers should apply a differentiated postintegration approach, depending on specific organizational contexts. A product‐focused approach seems to fit best in a context where target and acquirer remain working in separate locations, but on similar products. A structure‐focused approach is recommended when target and acquirer remain separated, but work on complementary products. Finally, a people‐focused approach is proposed when target and acquirer are colocated.

show abstract

Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions

Cited by 62 publications

References 45 publications

A conceptual view of exergy destruction in mergers and acquisitions

A conceptual view of exergy destruction in mergers and acquisitions

Getting post-M&A integration mechanisms tuned in to technological relatedness and innovation synergy realisation

The complexity of post‐mergers and acquisitions reorganization: Integration and differentiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About