Missed chances and unfulfilled hopes: Why do firms make errors in evaluating technological opportunities?

IF 6.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Strategic Management Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-23 DOI:10.1002/smj.3543
Amit Kumar, Elisa Operti
{"title":"Missed chances and unfulfilled hopes: Why do firms make errors in evaluating technological opportunities?","authors":"Amit Kumar, Elisa Operti","doi":"10.1002/smj.3543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines commission and omission errors in the evaluation of technological opportunities. Integrating structural and cognitive perspectives, we propose that inventors with more cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or geographically closer to the corporate headquarters exert greater influence on the dominant representations shaping opportunity evaluation within the firm. Thus, their inventions are more likely to be positively assessed, even if quality considerations suggest otherwise. Conversely, even when superior in quality, inventions from individuals with less cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or located far from the corporate headquarters are less likely to be positively evaluated, leading to omission errors. The study provides evidence based on 22 interviews and archival data from the mobile phone and personal digital assistant industry between 1990 and 2010.This study examines commission and omission errors in decision‐making about technologies. Studying patent renewal decisions of 42 firms in the mobile phone and personal digital assistant industry between 1990 and 2010, we show that inventors with more cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or located close to the corporate headquarters have their inventions positively assessed even when of lower quality, leading to commission errors. On the other hand, inventors with less cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or located far away from the corporate headquarters have their inventions disregarded even when of higher quality, causing omission errors. These findings call for managerial vigilance in technology evaluation decisions, ensuring valuable ideas are not overlooked due to an inventor's network position or location.","PeriodicalId":22023,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Management Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategic Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3543","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines commission and omission errors in the evaluation of technological opportunities. Integrating structural and cognitive perspectives, we propose that inventors with more cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or geographically closer to the corporate headquarters exert greater influence on the dominant representations shaping opportunity evaluation within the firm. Thus, their inventions are more likely to be positively assessed, even if quality considerations suggest otherwise. Conversely, even when superior in quality, inventions from individuals with less cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or located far from the corporate headquarters are less likely to be positively evaluated, leading to omission errors. The study provides evidence based on 22 interviews and archival data from the mobile phone and personal digital assistant industry between 1990 and 2010.This study examines commission and omission errors in decision‐making about technologies. Studying patent renewal decisions of 42 firms in the mobile phone and personal digital assistant industry between 1990 and 2010, we show that inventors with more cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or located close to the corporate headquarters have their inventions positively assessed even when of lower quality, leading to commission errors. On the other hand, inventors with less cohesive collaboration networks within the firm or located far away from the corporate headquarters have their inventions disregarded even when of higher quality, causing omission errors. These findings call for managerial vigilance in technology evaluation decisions, ensuring valuable ideas are not overlooked due to an inventor's network position or location.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
错失的机会和未实现的希望:为什么企业在评估技术机会时会犯错误?
本研究考察了技术机会评估中的委托和遗漏错误。综合结构和认知角度,我们提出,在公司内部或地理位置更靠近公司总部的合作网络更具凝聚力的发明人对公司内形成机会评估的主导表征施加更大的影响。因此,他们的发明更有可能得到积极的评价,即使质量考虑表明情况并非如此。相反,即使质量上乘,来自公司内部或远离公司总部的协作网络不太紧密的个人的发明也不太可能得到积极评价,从而导致遗漏错误。该研究基于1990年至2010年间手机和个人数字助理行业的22次采访和档案数据提供了证据。该研究考察了技术决策中的委托和遗漏错误。研究了1990年至2010年间手机和个人数字助理行业42家公司的专利续期决定,我们发现,在公司内部或靠近公司总部的协作网络更紧密的发明人,即使他们的发明质量较低,也会受到积极的评估,从而导致佣金错误。另一方面,在公司内部或远离公司总部的协作网络不太紧密的发明人,即使他们的发明质量更高,也会被忽视,从而导致遗漏错误。这些发现要求管理层在技术评估决策中保持警惕,确保有价值的想法不会因发明人的网络位置或位置而被忽视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
8.40%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: At the Strategic Management Journal, we are committed to publishing top-tier research that addresses key questions in the field of strategic management and captivates scholars in this area. Our publication welcomes manuscripts covering a wide range of topics, perspectives, and research methodologies. As a result, our editorial decisions truly embrace the diversity inherent in the field.
期刊最新文献
What makes activities strategic: Toward a new framework for strategy-as-practice research Gender and racial minorities on corporate boards: How board faultlines and CEO‐minority director overlap affect firm performance Do makerspaces affect entrepreneurship? If so, who, how, and when? Balancing allocative and dynamic efficiency with redundant R&D allocation: The role of organizational proximity and centralization Identifying microfoundations of dynamic managerial capabilities for business model innovation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1