Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 4 July 2014
Received in revised form 20 November 2014
Accepted 25 November 2014
Available online 17 December 2014
Keyword:
Taxonomy
Patent strategy
SMEs
Innovation management
a b s t r a c t
An empirical taxonomy of patent strategies for SMEs is proposed in this paper based on a study of
238 innovative SMEs in Taiwan. The taxonomy identifies five categories of patent strategy
comprehensive, exploitative, defensive, reactive, and marginal by using cluster analysis. This
study demonstrates effective use of taxonomies to map the differences in patent strategies among
SMEs by industry, firm size, R&D expenditure, and firm innovation. The results show that the
larger the SMEs that developed radical innovations were, and the more they spent on R&D, the
more likely they were to adopt comprehensive patent strategies. The R&D expenditure of most of
the reactive and marginal strategy adopters is lower than that of adopters of the other three
strategies. Among SMEs, firms' patent strategies are also correlated with firm size and R&D
expenditure, which supports the findings of the existing literature. The taxonomy adds
considerable value to our existing knowledge of management patents in SMEs by making our
descriptions of patent strategic groups more clear and concise.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the new economy, patents are valued assets for firms
(Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Granstrand, 1999). Protecting
promising technology with patents has become a necessary
condition for attracting venture capital and increasing firms'
value and profitability (Miele, 2001; Reitzig, 2004). Small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also need to protect innovation with patents or other intellectual property rights to
increase their chances of survival and growth (Sathirakul,
2006). SMEs typically represent 95 to 99% of a country's total
enterprises. The types of SMEs vary substantially (e.g., hightech oriented, service oriented, and manufacturing oriented).
No matter what the type of SMEs, when they achieve
technical innovation, product renewal or process innovation,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 3366 2723; fax: +886 2 2369 2178.
E-mail addresses: cchsueh@gmail.com (C.-C. Hsueh), dzchen@ntu.edu.tw
(D.-Z. Chen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.009
0040-1625/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
strategic patents, blanketing and flooding, fencing, surrounding, and portfolios. Rivette and Kline (2000a, 2000b) proposed
a three-pronged patent strategy for large research and
development (R&D) projects grow, fix, and sell which
provides examples of value that can be extracted from
management and exploitation of patents for large scale hightech firms. Although these studies focused on identifying
patent strategic configurations and taxonomies, their patent
management modes and patent strategies are derived by using
interviews in large firms, and very few attempts have been
made to examine such patent management in SMEs. Those
studies lack clarity on the actual process of building the
framework from cases, especially regarding the central inductive process and the role of the literature. Most empirical
studies indicate that SMEs do not use patents in the same way
as larger firms (Eppinger and Vladova, 2013; Himmelberg and
Petersen, 1994; Cohen et al., 2000; Audretsch, 2002; Blind et al.,
2006; Cohen, 2010).
In addition, from 111 articles focusing on intellectual
property (IP) issue studies published in the seven leading
management journals during the years 19702009, CandelinPalmqvist et al. (2012) indicated that although IP issue studies
are a fast-growing research field in innovation management,
most of the studies emphasizing patents relied on patent
data and focused on North American and European contexts.
There is a need to develop coherent constructs, conceptual
frameworks and management patterns in patent management that would strengthen the theoretical basis of the
research, and to pay more attention to firm-level analysis, as
this may provide more feasible implications for innovationmanagement practitioners working on the organizational
level (Candelin-Palmqvist et al., 2012). Though organizations such as the Japan Patent Office (JPO), European Patent
Office (EPO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
and Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) have made
efforts to promote patent management for SMEs, the knowledge field in patent management also remains little known in
the SME community.
The purpose of this research is to review the current state of
empirical research into patent management in SMEs, and to
investigate how innovative SMEs manage patents to protect
innovation, and what are the patent strategy patterns among
innovative SMEs by firm size, firm characteristics or industries.
This study focuses on patent management of innovative SMEs.
Innovative SMEs are here defined as SMEs that base their
businesses on new or improved technologies, processes and
products (Holgersson, 2013). The paper begins with a theoretical discussion of dimensions and types of patent strategy,
addressing both empirical and theoretical aspects, and develops a classification system to examine patent strategy
patterns based on innovative SMEs. The patent value chain
perspective is used to elucidate the structure of the patent
management activities of firms to better grasp their strategies.
In Section 3, the methodological issues arising in the development of a classification system using cluster analysis are
discussed. Section 4 describes the results of the analysis,
including the taxonomy of firms' patent strategies from cluster
analysis and their relationships with the characteristics of the
respective firms. Limitations, managerial implications, and
suggestions for future research are presented at the end of the
paper.
85
86
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
87
88
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
Table 1
Variables used to develop the taxonomy of patent strategy.
Constructs and
variables
Patent energy
Patent application
Description of items
Reference source
Patent issued
Patent family
Condentiality mechanisms
Patent creation
Patent application examination
Patent renewal
Patent portfolio examination
Patent exploitation
Patent exploitation planning
Patented technology application
Patent licensing revenue
a
b
c
Sathirakul (2006)
These two variables are measured for 0, 15, 610, 1120, and N21.
The variable is measured for 0, 1, 2, 3, and N4.
The variable is measured for never, every season, every month, every week, and every day.
raising the patent awareness of employees. Based on an indepth case study of a Swiss company, Bader (2008) concluded
that success factors for managing patents include support from
upper and middle management, awareness programs, incentive systems for inventions, and sufficient budgetary allocation.
Thus, patent management institutionalization includes internal
patent management functions, allocating appropriate resources for the execution of patent management, commitment
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
89
90
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
other three factor analyses also revealed only one factor with
cumulative variances of 75.28%, 86.91% and 70.16%. Table 2
summarizes the patent strategy variables for factor analysis.
The Cronbach's alpha scores for the items range from a low of
0.78 to a high of 0.92, all greater than 0.70, indicating that the
Cronbach's alpha scores have a sufficiently high degree of interitem reliability (Flynn et al., 1990). To evaluate the items,
corrected item-total scale correlations and pairwise correlations between the items were calculated. An item was deleted if
any of the following was true: (1) its item-total scale
correlation coefficient was below 0.30 (Ferketich, 1991); and
(2) the correlation between two items within a dimension did
not exceed 0.30 (Robinson et al., 1991). The results of itemtotal scale correlations range from 0.423 to 0.808 and all
pairwise correlations between two items within a dimension
range from 0.359 to 0.776, all greater than 0.30, so 21 items
were retained from the above analysis.
The next step was to analyze the content and convergent
validity of the measurement scales used. Content validity
indicated that the items included in the survey correlated
represent the concept to be analyzed. Since the scales built on
the basis of the previous literature (Table 1) had already been
validated for measuring similar concepts and the questionnaire
was pre-examined by four SMEs' patent managers, it was
considered that each item had the necessary content validity.
Convergent validity was assessed by evaluating the factor
loadings. EFA was used to validate the convergent validity of
the research. Table 2 shows that the engine-values of all the
factors were exceeding 1.0 and that all the factor loadings
exceeded 0.57. Thus, the research construct had a valuable
convergent validity.
Table 2
Factors and corresponding items of patent strategy.
Constructs
Measurement
Factor
loadings
Communality
Eigenvalue/cumulative
variance (%)
Cronbach's
alpha
Corrected item-total
correlation
Patent energy
Patent application
Patent issued
Patent family
Patent information search
Annual budget for patent activities
Top management commitment
Training courses
Patent ownership law
Financial incentives mechanisms
Condentiality mechanisms
Research notebook mechanisms
Patent application examination
Patent prior art search
Patent family examination
Commercialization evaluation
Claim patentability examination
Patent portfolio examination
Patent maintenance examination
Patent exploitation planning
Patented technology application
Patent licensing revenue
0.935
0.921
0.888
0.570
0.800
0.848
0.880
0.820
0.781
0.767
0.774
0.825
0.905
0.880
0.835
0.891
0.932
0.932
0.821
0.634
0.875
0.875
0.849
0.788
0.325
0.639
0.718
0.774
0.672
0.609
0.588
0.598
0.680
0.818
0.774
0.696
0.795
0.869
0.869
0.822
0.688
0.595
2.836/70.91%
0.86
4.600/65.71%
0.91
3.764/75.28%
0.92
1.738/86.91%
0.85
2.105/70.16%
0.78
0.535
0.492
0.558
0.422
0.769
0.729
0.752
0.722
0.649
0.634
0.623
0.784
0.779
0.808
0.690
0.789
0.762
0.758
0.723
0.731
0.486
Patent management
institutionalization
Patent creation
Patent renewal
Patent exploitation
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
91
Table 3
Prole of clusters of rms and analysis of variance test.
Factors
Comprehensive (1) Exploitation (2) Defensive (3) Reactive (4) Marginal (5) F-value
(n = 45)
(n = 57)
(n = 64)
(n = 54)
(n = 18)
Scheffe's test
4.39
4.53
4.50
4.28
3.82
3.98
3.67
4.58
3.04
1N2N3N4N5
1N2N3N4N5
1N2N3N4N5
1,2 N 3 N 4 N 5
1,3 N 2,4,5
1,3 N 2,4,5
1,3 N 2,4,5
1,3 N 2,4,5
1,3 N 2,4,5
***: p b .01.
4.10
4.21
4.07
4.04
1.90
1.86
1.74
2.16
1.86
3.65
3.85
3.57
3.32
2.95
3.09
2.73
3.63
2.34
3.03
3.10
2.96
2.93
1.65
1.69
1.56
1.87
1.50
2.34
2.00
1.86
2.11
1.47
1.39
1.44
1.50
1.56
113.224***
188.372***
139.236***
111.086***
103.528***
68.001***
54.115***
67.260***
20.048***
92
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
93
Table 4
Use of patent strategy results of logistic regressions.
Determinants
Intercept
INDUSTRY
CHEMIC
ELECTRIC
MACHINE
BIOTECH
ENERGY
INTERNET
ASSET SIZE
b5
510
1030
3080
80
R&D
b3%
3%6%
6%10%
10%
INNOVATION
SHELF
INCRE
NEXT
RADICAL
Observations
Chi-square(15)
Prob N chi2
HosmerLemeshow test
Chi-square(8)
Prob N chi2
Standard errors are in brackets.
**: p b .05, ***: p b .01.
Dependent variable
Comprehensive (M1)
Exploitation (M2)
Defensive (M3)
Reactive (M4)
Marginal (M5)
6.333(1.492)***
0.275(0.687)
2.056(0.749)***
0.190(0.662)
1.683(1.264)
0.502(0.853)
1.461(0.887)
0.111(0.848)
0.542(0.771)
1.282(0.932)
Ref.
0.504(0.627)
2.508(1.137)**
0.673(0.578)
0.410(0.526)
0.849(0.741)
Ref.
0.617(0.684)
0.694(0.739)
0.481(0.661)
0.722(0.616)
0.747(0.734)
Ref.
1.051(0.698)
0.104(0.686)
0.100(0.583)
0.571(0.566)
0.674(0.758)
Ref.
1.378(1.204)
0.112(1.549)
0.515(1.220)
0.193(1.213)
1.522(1.999)
Ref.
Ref.
1.595(0.991)
2.012(0.844)***
2.365(0.905)***
2.259(0.793)***
Ref.
0.447(0.561)
0.541(0.463)
1.778(0.831)**
0.970(0.427)**
Ref.
0.347(0.610)
0.148(0.481)
0.597(0.575)
0.357(0.417)
Ref.
0.045(0.555)
0.330(0.477)
0.910(0.729)
0.664(0.450)
Ref.
0.347(0.936)
0.100(0.857)
0.152(1.244)
0.288(0.820)
Ref.
1.702(1.124)
2.637(1.119)***
2.788(1.090)***
Ref.
1.046(0.514)**
0.371(0.589)
0.552(0.530)
Ref.
0.363(0.468)
0.202(0.522)
0.279(0.474)
Ref.
0.964(0.461)**
0.532(0.497)
1.201(0.476)***
Ref.
1.139(0.640)**
1.793(0.864)**
2.004(0.864)**
Ref.
0.392(0.540)
0.156(0.643)
1.014(0.500)**
238
53.611
0.000
Ref.
0.220(0.387)
0.664(0.591)
0.563(0.498)
238
25.260
0.047
Ref.
0.113(0.385)
0.510(0.469)
0.147(0.465)
238
8.10
0.920
Ref.
0.109(0.405)
0.130(0.515)
0.163(0.543)
238
20.478
0.100
Ref.
0.353(0.629)
0.396(0.933)
0.845(1.185)
238
24.149
0.063
7.495
0.484
3.588
0.892
11.700
0.165
4.788
0.780
4.021
0.855
94
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
patent strategies of firms are correlated with firm size and R&D
expenditure.
5.2. Practical implications
Most SMEs are well aware of the importance of innovation
and patent management, and how these enable them to
develop new product fields and markets and give them a
competitive edge in existing markets through differentiation or
cost advantages. However, most SMEs do not utilize patent
management and strategies. IP government organizations in
many countries, such as the JPO, EPO, and WIPO, have
promoted the importance of patent management and formulated related policies to aid SMEs in building patent value.
Taiwanese policy-makers also need to formulate related
policies to aid SMEs in patent management. Policy-makers
can utilize the reference picture of patent management of SMEs
provided by the results of this research and provide adequate
assistance to firms with diverse organizational characteristics.
The five patent strategy constructs showcase the overall patent
awareness within the SME sector.
5.3. Limitations and future research suggestions
The results are influenced by several limitations. First, this
paper provides a conceptual framework and taxonomy of patent
strategy based on 238 Taiwanese innovative SMEs cooperated
with the ITRI. In Taiwan there are a large number of SMEs,
covering a broad spectrum of industries, technical fields and
innovative level. Very few SMEs are considered innovative and
some SMEs are involved in less or no innovation but still could
generate innovation protected by design patent and instead
survive by operating in specific geographic or market niches. The
small sample size used in this study limit possibilities for
generalizations. However, the result of this study has enabled a
contrast to previous results by providing richer contexts in
understanding the implementation of patent management in
innovative SMEs. To gain a more comprehensive understanding
of the taxonomy of patent strategy in SMEs, future studies may
consider using a larger sample representative of innovative and
non-innovative firms to compare the differences in patent
strategy taxonomy among different innovative levels and across
more industry or technical field types.
Besides, we are unable to track the innovation or financial
performance of the patent strategies, and therefore this
research cannot verify the performance of each patent strategy.
Furthermore, firms may change patent strategy in unstable
business environments. All participants responded within a
particular time frame and were only given a single opportunity
to respond. As such, the results cannot reliably assert that such
data will hold true over time, especially in an unstable business
environment. Changes of strategy are not within our research
scope, but may make a good issue for future research. Based on
the Davis and Harrison (2001) patent value hierarchy system,
another interesting topic is suggested for future studies: the
prospective and defensive patent strategies are at opposite
ends of a continuum of adjustment strategies; do firms with
exploitative patent strategies create better patent management
institution mechanisms and patent exploitation audit mechanisms than those with defensive strategies focused on patent
application but not patent management? Firms employing
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
95
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under contract number NSC 983011-P-002-002-MY2.
Appendix A
Appendix Table 1
Prole of respondents.
Variables
Descriptions
Number
of rms
INDUSTRY
CHEMIC
ELECTRIC
MACHINE
BIOTECH
ENERGY
INTERNET
ASSET SIZE
b5
510
1030
3080
80
EMPLOYEE
10
1150
51100
101150
151200
R&D
b3%
3%6%
6%10%
10%
INNOVATION
SHELF
INCRE
NEXT
RADICAL
Type of industry
Chemical, rubber, and plastic industry
Electrical, ofce, and communication industry,
Machinery, motor vehicle, and transport equipment industry
Biotechnology, pharmacy, medical instrument industry
Energy and environment-friendly industry
Internet and E-business industry.
Total asset size (NT$ millions)
b5
5 to b10
10 to b30
30 to b80
80
Employment size
10 employees
1150 employees
51100 employees
101150 employees
151200 employees
Total sales on R&D expenditure
b3%
3% to b6%
6% to b10%
10%
Firm innovation category
Of-the-shelf: exploits current standard technology without extending the operating window
Incremental: extends existing technologies beyond the normal operating window
Next generation: pushes existing technologies into a completely different operating window
Radical: rst uses technology that is new to the industry
36(15.1%)
23(9.7%)
51(21.4%)
82(34.5%)
22(9.2%)
24(10.1%)
51(21.4%)
26(10.9%)
54(22.7%)
21(8.8%)
86(36.1%)
48(20.2%)
77(32.4%)
44(18.5%)
26(10.9%)
43(18.1%)
44(18.5%)
67(28.2%)
42(17.6%)
85(35.7%)
73(30.7%)
85(35.7%)
34(14.3%)
46(19.3%)
Appendix Table 2
Crosstab analysis for patent strategy and industry.
Industry
Comprehensive
Exploitation
Defensive
Reactive
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
CHEMIC
ELECTRIC
MACHINE
BIOTECH
ENERGY
INTERNET
Total
6(13.3%)
6.8
.3
8(14.0%)
8.6
.2
10(15.6%)
9.7
.1
5(9.3%)
8.2
1.1
7(15.6%)
4.3
1.3
1(1.8%)
5.5
1.9
7(10.9%)
6.2
.3
7(13.0%)
5.2
.8
6(13.3%)
9.6
1.2
12(21.1%)
12.2
.1
12(18.8%)
13.7
.5
16(29.6%)
11.6
1.3
16(35.6%)
15.5
.1
23(40.4%)
19.6
.8
24(37.5%)
22.1
.4
15(27.8%)
18.6
.8
7(15.6%)
4.2
1.4
4(7.0%)
5.3
.6
7(10.9%)
5.9
.4
4(7.4%)
5.0
.4
3(6.7%)
4.5
.7
9(15.8%)
5.7
1.4
4(6.3%)
6.5
1.0
7(13.0%)
5.4
.7
45
45.0
57
57.0
64
64.0
54
54.0
96
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
Count
7(38.9%)
Expected count
2.7
Standard residual
2.6
Total
36
2
= 28.716; DF = 20, p = .094
ELECTRIC
MACHINE
BIOTECH
ENERGY
INTERNET
Total
1(5.6%)
1.7
.6
23
5(27.8%)
3.9
.6
51
4(22.2%)
6.2
.9
82
0(.0%)
1.7
1.3
22
1(5.6%)
1.8
.6
24
18
18.0
238
Appendix Table 3
Crosstab analysis for patent strategy and rm size.
Total assets (NT$ millions)
b5
Comprehensive
Exploitation
Defensive
Reactive
Marginal
Count
2(4.4%)
Expected count
9.6
Standard residual
2.5
Count
19(33.3%)
Expected count
12.2
Standard residual
1.9
Count
12(18.8%)
Expected count
13.7
Standard residual
.5
Count
15(27.8%)
Expected count
11.6
Standard residual
1.0
Count
3(16.7%)
Expected count
3.9
Standard residual
.4
Total
51
2 = 26.899; DF = 16, p = .043
Total
510
1030
3080
80
3(6.7%)
4.9
.9
7(12.3%)
6.2
.3
5(7.8%)
7.0
.8
8(14.8%)
5.9
.9
3(16.7%)
2.0
.7
26
10(22.2%)
10.2
.1
13(22.8%)
12.9
.0
12(18.8%)
14.5
.7
14(25.9%)
12.3
.5
5(27.8%)
4.1
.5
54
7(15.6%)
4.0
1.5
2(3.5%)
5.0
1.4
8(12.5%)
5.6
1.0
3(5.6%)
4.8
.8
1(5.6%)
1.6
.5
21
23(51.1%)
16.3
1.7
16(28.1%)
20.6
1.0
27(42.2%)
23.1
.8
14(25.9%)
19.5
1.2
6(33.3%)
6.5
.2
86
1150
51100
101150
151200
15(33.3%)
14.6
.1
18(31.6%)
18.4
.1
15(23.4%)
20.7
1.3
21(38.9%)
17.5
.8
8(44.4%)
5.8
.9
77
6(13.3%)
8.3
.8
10(17.5%)
10.5
.2
15(23.4%)
11.8
.9
10(18.5%)
10.0
.0
3(16.7%)
3.3
.2
44
7(15.6%)
4.9
.9
5(8.8%)
6.2
.5
9(14.1%)
7.0
.8
2(3.7%)
5.9
1.6
3(16.7%)
2.0
.7
26
13(28.9%)
8.1
1.7
7(12.3%)
10.3
1.0
16(25.0%)
11.6
1.3
6(11.1%)
9.8
1.2
1(5.6%)
3.3
1.2
43
Number of employees
10
Comprehensive
Exploitation
Defensive
Reactive
Marginal
Count
4(8.9%)
Expected count
9.1
Standard residual
1.7
Count
17(29.8%)
Expected count
11.5
Standard residual
1.6
Count
9(14.1%)
Expected count
12.9
Standard residual
1.1
Count
15(27.8%)
Expected count
10.9
Standard residual
1.2
Count
3(16.7%)
Expected count
3.6
Standard residual
.3
Total
48
2 = 26.899; DF = 16, p = .047
45
45.0
57
57.0
64
64.0
54
54.0
18
18.0
238
Total
45
45.0
57
57.0
64
64.0
54
54.0
18
18.0
238
Appendix Table 4
Crosstab analysis for patent strategy and total sales on R&D expenditure.
Total sales on R&D expenditure
Comprehensive
Exploitation
Defensive
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Total
b3%
3%6%
6%9%
10%
1(2.2%)
8.3
2.5
7(12.3%)
10.5
1.1
10(15.6%)
11.8
.5
7(15.6%)
12.7
1.6
22(38.6%)
16.0
1.5
20(31.3%)
18.0
.5
9(20.0%)
7.9
.4
9(15.8%)
10.1
.3
11(17.2%)
11.3
.1
28(62.2%)
16.1
3.0
19(33.3%)
20.4
.3
23(35.9%)
22.9
.0
45
45.0
57
57.0
64
64.0
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498
97
Marginal
Count
17(31.5%)
Expected count
10.0
Standard residual
2.2
Count
9(50.0%)
Expected count
3.3
Standard residual
3.1
Total
44
2 = 42.762; DF = 12, p = .000
Total
3%6%
6%9%
10%
13(24.1%)
15.2
.6
5(27.8%)
5.1
.0
67
11(20.4%)
9.5
.5
2(11.1%)
3.2
.7
42
13(24.1%)
19.3
1.4
2(11.1%)
6.4
1.7
85
54
54.0
18
18.0
238
Appendix Table 5
Crosstab analysis for patent strategy and rm innovation categories.
Firm innovation category
Comprehensive
Exploitation
Defensive
Reactive
Marginal
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Count
Expected count
Standard residual
Total
2 = 23.137; DF = 12, p =
Total
Of-the-shelf
Incremental
Next generation
Radical
13(28.9%)
13.8
.2
20(35.1%)
17.5
.6
19(29.7%)
19.6
.1
16(29.6%)
16.6
.1
5(27.8%)
5.5
.2
73
.027
8(17.8%)
16.1
2.0
23(40.4%)
20.4
.6
22(34.4%)
22.9
.2
22(40.7%)
19.3
.6
10(55.6%)
6.4
1.4
85
6(13.3%)
6.4
.2
5(8.8%)
8.1
1.1
12(18.8%)
9.1
.9
9(16.7%)
7.7
.5
2(11.1%)
2.6
.4
34
18(40.0%)
8.7
3.2
9(15.8%)
11.0
.6
11(17.2%)
12.4
.4
7(13.0%)
10.4
1.1
1(5.6%)
3.5
1.3
46
References
Andrews, K.R., 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow Jones-Irwin,
Homewood.
Ansoff, H.I., 1965. Corporate Strategy. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail
surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14 (3), 396402.
Audretsch, D.B., 2002. The dynamic role of small firms: evidence from the U.S.
Small Bus. Econ. 18, 1340.
Bader, M.A., 2008. Managing intellectual property in the financial services
industry sector: learning from Swiss Re. Technovation 28 (4), 196207.
Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., Schmocha, U., 2006. Motives to patent: empirical
evidence from Germany. Res. Policy 35, 655672.
Blind, K., Cremers, K., Mueller, E., 2009. The influence of strategic patenting on
companies' patent portfolios. Res. Policy 38 (2), 428436.
Candelin-Palmqvist, H., Sandberg, B., Mylly, U.-M., 2012. Intellectual property
rights in innovation management research: a review. Technovation 32
(910), 502512.
Cohen, W.M., 2010. Chapter 4 fifty years of empirical studies of innovative
activity and performance. In: Hall, H., Rosenberg, N. (Eds.), Handbook of the
Economics of Innovation. North-Holland, pp. 129213.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R., Walsh, J., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets:
appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or
not). Working Paper 7552. National Bureau of Economic Research
Cambridge, MA., USA.
Cohen, W.M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2002. R&D spillovers,
patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Res.
Policy 31, 13491367.
Davis, J.L., Harrison, S.S., 2001. Edison in the Boardroom: How Leading
Companies Realize Value From Their Intellectual Assets. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Eppinger, E., Vladova, G., 2013. Intellectual property management practices
at small and medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 61 (1),
6481.
45
45.0
57
57.0
64
64.0
54
54.0
18
18.0
238
98
C.-C. Hsueh, D.-Z. Chen / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 92 (2015) 8498