Technological Accumulation, Diversification and Organisation in UK Companies, 1945–1983

Abstract

A survey of more than 4,000 significant innovations and innovating firms in the UK from 1945–1983 shows that the scope and organisation of technological activities vary greatly as functions of firms' principal activities and size. 1. Technological opportunities and threats are greatest in firms in chemicals and engineering. Opportunities in such science-based and specialist supplier firms in general emerge horizontally (in related product markets) and downstream (in user sectors). In scale-intensive (e.g. steel, vehicles) and supplier-dominated (e.g. printing, construction) firms, opportunities tend to be upstream in related production technologies. Breakthrough innovations in science-based firms also induce clusters of technological opportunities upstream for suppliers, horizontally for partners, and downstream for users. Their effective exploitation requires diversity of firms' technological activities greater than that strictly required for current output. 2. The nature of technological opportunities, and of organisation for their exploitation, also varies with firm size. Firms with fewer than 1,000 employees have major opportunities with specialised strategies in mechanical engineering and instruments. The prevalence of broad front technological strategies, and of divisionalisation, increases sharply with firm size, together with dependence on formal R and D activities. The size of innovating divisions has diminished sharply over the period. Divisionalisation improves the “goodness of fit” between the core business of innovating divisions and the innovations themselves, but 40% have remained consistently outside the core business of divisions. 3. These findings help identify the key tasks of technological strategy in firms in different industries, and of different sizes. Thus, in large firms, divisionalisation can create the small size of unit conducive to effective implementation, but it cannot absolve central management from the continuous task of matching technological opportunities with organisational forms and boundaries.

Services and services innovation

“…These are acquired through new capital investment or through suppliers (predominantly through pressure exerted by manufacturers up/down the supply chain). Though he later acknowledged computer services, telecoms, and science based services as innovators (Pavitt et al 1989), he maintained that these were notable because they are exceptions to the rule.…”

La gestión de la innovación en las empresas vascas. El papel de las herramientas de gestión de la innovación en la eficiencia de la misma y en la de los resultados de innovación.

“…Estos autores se centran en los aspectos de la empresa o su entorno (por ejemplo, el tamaño de la empresa o la estructura del mercado) que estimulan la innovación, explorando también el impacto de los avances tecnológicos en la empresa y la productividad y la rentabilidad del sector (Scherer, 1984, Acs andAudretsch, 1990) (Mansfield, 1969, Kamien andSchwartz, 1975). Además la perspectiva operativa de su enfoque de la innovación, está muy centrada en el valor de los recursos invertidos en investigación y desarrollo, o en el número de productos o procesos patentados (Acs and Audretsch, 1990, Pavitt et al, 1989, Nelson and Winter, 1982. Por último indicar, que tienden a restringir la definición de la innovación a aquellas fases relacionadas con la generación de la idea y la definición de proyectos, incidiendo poco en los problemas relacionados con la comercialización de una innovación, sus procesos de difusión, o los ajustes organizativos requeridos para la adopción de la innovación; centrándose normalmente en las innovaciones tecnológicas (producto y proceso).…”

“…Influencia de variables de tipo organizativo en la innovación (Acs and Audretsch, 1990, Scherer, 1984, Pavitt et al, 1989, Schumpeter, 1934, Mansfield, 1969, Nelson and Winter, 1977, Winter, 1984) Tecnológico-Contextual Naturaleza y dinámica del cambio tecnológico (Tushman and Anderson, 1986, Henderson and Clark, 1990, Utterback and Abernathy, 1975, Sahal, 1981, Abernathy and Clark, 1985, Suarez and Utterback, 1995, Papas, 1984, Foster, 1986b …”

Does Reverse Causality Explains the Relationship Between Economic Performance and Technological Diversity?

“…Popular specialization research areas include technological specialization and trade (Dosi, Pavitt, & Soete, 1990;Greaney & Karacaovali, 2017;Manwa & Wijeweera, 2016;Mustafa, Rizov, & Kernohan, 2017;Silberberger & Königer, 2016;Soete, 1987;Sokolov-Mladenović, Milovančević, & Mladenović, 2017) and technological specialization with economic growth (Meelen, Herrmann, & Faber, 2017;Murshed & Serino, 2011;Rehner, Baeza, & Barton, 2014;Šipilova, 2015). Moreover, technological diversification patterns are heterogenous across industries and countries, as observed in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom (Kodama, 1986;Mowery & Nelson, 1999;Pavitt, Robson, & Townsend, 1989). …”