1. Technological Resources
Reconfiguration and Organizational
Scope: a Longitudinal Analysis
Jean-Michel VIOLA
Jean-Philippe TIMSIT
Desislava YANKOVA
ESC Rennes School of Business
SMS – Lake Geneva Special Conference
March 22 2013

2. Theoretical Context
• RBV conceives the firm as a collection of resources
(Penrose, 1959 ; Wernerfelt, 1984) and distinctive
capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) that make it
unique
• The firm deploys and recombines its resources to
produce goods & services (Barney, 1986)
• These resources reconfigurations are based on the
skills and abilities possessed by the firm, to conquer a
market position which is unique, valuable and
sustainable (Teece et al., 1997)
2

3. Theoretical Context
• Resources are indivisible and semi-permanently
present in the firm (Dierickx et al., 1989; Penrose,
1959)
• This has a strong effect on the organizational inertia
(Hannan & Freeman, 1977, 1984) and on the ability of
the firm to adjust its technological profile
• The firm’s strategic intent is supported by its ability to
leverage its core competences in new area, outlining
the new technological scope (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990)
3

4. Research Question
• Even if technological resources’ reconfiguration is a
strong topic, we still miss a more holistic perspective
(Kaul, 2012)
• Empirical evidence are mostly centered on correlations
on cross sectional data, and on the impacts of M&As
and technological innovation (Capron, Dussauge &
Mitchell, 1998)
How technological resources combination
affects the scope of the firm ?
4

5. Methods and Data
• Following Tidd (2006), we argue that the patent
portfolio is an adequate proxy of the technological
boundaries of the firms
• Co-citation analysis provides a robust view of a
firm’s technological base (Small, 1985; Narin,
1994)
• Technicolor had issued 9 413 USPTO patents over
the period 1980-2010
• Based on their 66 360 citations, using Pajek and
Gephi, we build a 18 000 nodes co-citation
dynamic network
5

6. Main Results
6

7. 7
∑ fi
30,21 %
45,04 %
59,49 %
68,9 %
75,51 %
81,62 %
85,91 %
88,77 %
91,43 %
93,48 %
95,16 %
96,56 %
97,84 %
98,99 %

8. 8
∑ fi
30,21 %
45,04 %
59,49 %
68,9 %
75,51 %
81,62 %
85,91 %
88,77 %
91,43 %
93,48 %
95,16 %
96,56 %
97,84 %
98,99 %

9. 9
1980-2010

10. 10
1980-1985

11. 11
1986-1990

12. 12
1991-1995

13. 13
1996-2000

14. 14
2001-2005

15. 15
2006-2010

16. 16
1980-2010

17. Three Key Findings
17

18. Technological portfolio evolution
The evolution of the technological portfolio is
not additive or hierarchical, but combinatorial
through the implementation of technological
resources;
18

19. 19
1990-1995

20. 20
1995-2000

21. Three phases
The firms evolves its technological resources
profile according to its technological strategy
following three phases: emergence-
dissemination-reconfiguration;
21

22. 22
Emergence Dissemination

23. 23
Reconfiguration
Dissemination

24. Pivot-Based Evolution
The evolution of the technological portfolio is
founded on specific technological resources
which are the pivots of the evolution of the firm
24

25. 25
Emergence Dissemination

26. Conclusion
• presentation
26

27. Conclusion
• The co-citation approach sheds new light on
the analysis of the technological boundaries of
the firm
• Despite well-known limits about patents data
• It opens a promising perspective in connection
with corporate financial data
• Allowing to identify and compare
technological DNA or backbone/path analysis
of firms
27