{"title":"To integrate or not? Understanding knowledge integration of target firm","authors":"Mayank Varshney","doi":"10.1108/ccsm-03-2023-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Technology acquisition is a common phenomenon of acquiring external knowledge, but we have a limited understanding of conditions in which the acquirer integrates the target or not. On one hand, the acquirer may have a policy to integrate the target to benefit from its prior knowledge. On the other hand, the target may face challenges in continuing its knowledge creation and the acquirer may want to provide it autonomy to not disrupt it. This paper aims to identify conditions in which targets tend to be less integrated after acquisitions, allowing them to maintain more autonomy and contribute more to knowledge creation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We test our arguments in the empirical setting of the global biopharmaceutical industry using a difference-in-difference approach on a longitudinal dataset of matched patents. We examine self-cites received by patents belonging to acquirers and the targets before and after the acquisitions.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>We find that, on average, the targets’ prior patents do not receive more self-cites after the acquisition. We conclude that this is because their R&D activities are disrupted, suggesting a higher level of post-acquisition integration. However, more nuanced findings reveal that it may not be the case all the time. When the target has more research experience, is international or is specialized in complementary technologies, prior patents of targets continue to receive more self-cites after the acquisition. It indicates that the targets in such conditions continue knowledge creation, suggesting a lower level of post-acquisition integration.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Our findings contribute to post-acquisition integration research. While post-acquisition integration downside is common, we present conditions in which such a downside may be less likely. We highlight that the context of an acquisition may be an important determinant of the extent of integration of the target. Moreover, we supplement the integration research (cultural, structural and human resource and leadership perspectives of integration) by adding a knowledge-based perspective to it. Such dynamics have important implications for acquirers and targets in deriving value from the acquisition.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":51820,"journal":{"name":"Cross Cultural & Strategic Management","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross Cultural & Strategic Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-03-2023-0047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Technology acquisition is a common phenomenon of acquiring external knowledge, but we have a limited understanding of conditions in which the acquirer integrates the target or not. On one hand, the acquirer may have a policy to integrate the target to benefit from its prior knowledge. On the other hand, the target may face challenges in continuing its knowledge creation and the acquirer may want to provide it autonomy to not disrupt it. This paper aims to identify conditions in which targets tend to be less integrated after acquisitions, allowing them to maintain more autonomy and contribute more to knowledge creation.
Design/methodology/approach
We test our arguments in the empirical setting of the global biopharmaceutical industry using a difference-in-difference approach on a longitudinal dataset of matched patents. We examine self-cites received by patents belonging to acquirers and the targets before and after the acquisitions.
Findings
We find that, on average, the targets’ prior patents do not receive more self-cites after the acquisition. We conclude that this is because their R&D activities are disrupted, suggesting a higher level of post-acquisition integration. However, more nuanced findings reveal that it may not be the case all the time. When the target has more research experience, is international or is specialized in complementary technologies, prior patents of targets continue to receive more self-cites after the acquisition. It indicates that the targets in such conditions continue knowledge creation, suggesting a lower level of post-acquisition integration.
Originality/value
Our findings contribute to post-acquisition integration research. While post-acquisition integration downside is common, we present conditions in which such a downside may be less likely. We highlight that the context of an acquisition may be an important determinant of the extent of integration of the target. Moreover, we supplement the integration research (cultural, structural and human resource and leadership perspectives of integration) by adding a knowledge-based perspective to it. Such dynamics have important implications for acquirers and targets in deriving value from the acquisition.
期刊介绍:
Cross Cultural & Strategic Management (CCSM), is dedicated to providing a forum for the publication of high quality cross-cultural and strategic management research in the global context. CCSM is interdisciplinary in nature and welcomes submissions from scholars from international business, management and other disciplines, such as anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. The goal of CCSM is to publish discerning, theoretically grounded, evidence-based and cutting edge research on issues relevant to all aspects of global management. CCSM is especially interested in theoretical and empirical papers that investigate new and unique ideas and/or are multilevel (micro-meso-macro) and/or are multidisciplinary in nature. Research papers submitted to CCSM are expected to include an answer to the question: What is the contribution of this paper to the literature and the field of international business and managing in the global context? CCSM accepts theoretical/conceptual and empirical papers based on quantitative and qualitative research endeavors that advance our overall knowledge of international business. This includes research that yields positive, neutral or negative findings as long as these studies are based on sound research methodology, and have a good command of the theory/literature that pertains to the phenomena under investigation. These studies should also provide a more in-depth interpretation of the reason(s) for the findings and include more detailed recommendations for future research directions.