Effect of Small Firm Patents on Industry Growth
-
Upload
david-voss -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Effect of Small Firm Patents on Industry Growth
-
The Effect of Small Firm Patents on Industry Growth
David VossECON 400, Senior Seminar
Mon. 4:00-6:45Professor Walker
April 13, 20124
-
The Effect of Small Firm Patents on Industry Growth
I. Introduction
One of the most common perceptions of innovation is that small, entrepreneurial firms
are the entities that are pushing technology and advancing their industries as a whole. This
enhances the perception that the large, incumbent firms are only developing minor, incremental
changes with the purpose of slowly and steadily reinforcing their control on the market. The
majority of the expenditures on R&D that is carried out today are not by the small, AlO0entrepreneurial firms, but by a tiny number of very large companies. However, these
revolutionary breakthroughs are continuing to come from predominantly entrepreneurial
enterprises with large firms providing incremental improvements that add to major contributions
in their respective industries.
The number of major technical innovations that have been introduced by small and newly
created firms over the past 150 years is staggering, many of which play a direct role in our daily
lives. To list just a few: the incandescent lamp, alternating electric current, radio telegraph and
telephony, the dial telephone, the synchronous orbit communications satellite, the turbojet
engine, the sound motion picture, self-developing photography, and the electric calculator. One
can even offer the plausible conjecture that most revolutionary new ideas have been, and are
likely to continue to be, provided preponderantly by independent innovators (Baumol, 2004).
These entrepreneurial innovations have driven industries for years. The data I have
collected for this paper is in response to the previous statement on independent inventors worth
to an industry, and I will attempt to find the positive correlation between industry growth and
1There is also a good deal of R&D activity in universities and government laboratories. Clearly. this is not
research conducted by business, but much of it is different from the work of the independent innovator underdiscussion. For example, much of the activity of the independent innovator is conducted in pursuit of wealth, and itconsists primarily of applied rather than basic research. (Baumol, 2002)
1
-
whether or not it is indeed driven by entrepreneurial innovation across the 31 industries and sub-
industries where data was collected.
The notion that entrepreneurship drives growth is not a new idea. There is even a term
known as the incumbents curse which implies that if large, incumbent firms stick to the adage
of slow, minimal growth in order to keep from cannibalizing their own product, they will
eventually fall and give way to the newer, smaller, and more innovative firms (Chandy and
Tellis, 2000). Eastman Kodak is a perfect example of how a company can fall victim to this
curse.
When was the last time you heard the phrase a Kodak moment? Up until about 1995,
Kodak had been the commercial giant in photography. Since 1887, they were the industry
standard and the driving force behind film and camera technology with one incredible innovation
after another. However, failing to keep pace with the digital revolution which has taken place
over the past 20 years that has captured nearly full control of the photography market, Kodak
hardly stood a chance against current day industry giants like Canon, Nikon, and Sony (these
three firms collectively controlled about 50% of the market in 2010, while Kodak held on with
7.4%, respectively). By failing to adapt to a changing environment, Kodak has fallen victim to
the aforementioned incumbents curse. On January 19, 2012, Kodak filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.
II. Literature Review
Previous studies have shown that the amount of innovation in a given industry that is
created by small firms and entrepreneurs is just as likely to cause economic growth as innovation
provided by large firms. This could somewhat lopsided information could be due to skewed
statistics because of inter-firm cooperation occurring with the smaller firms simply selling their
2
-
ideas or collaborating with larger firms. By large and small firms combining their ideas, larger
firms will generally be able to further the technological development, thus receiving the credit
for industry growth due to their innovations.
Rothaermel (2001) examines how inter-firm cooperation between incumbents and
entrepreneurs allows the incumbent firms to adapt to technological change at a faster rate by
exploiting their own existing assets instead of focusing strictly on R&D. He finds that
incumbents who have a greater focus on networking with small firms and entrepreneurs rather
than exploring new technology are more successful and able to adapt faster. This collaboration
has the ability to enhance a large firms success with innovative change while still keeping small
firms an integral part of their industry.
Rothaermel isnt alone in his analysis. While large and small firms may not always work
in conjunction with each other, large firms still have much to benefit from their smaller
counterparts. In a paper by William Baumol (2002), he refers to entrepreneurs as Davids and
the industry incumbents as Goliaths. Baumol finds there is a rather predictable tendency
towards specialization: the entrepreneurs providing the mere heterodox, breakthrough
innovations, and the R&D establishments of the larger firms creating the enhancements to those
breakthroughs that contribute considerably to their usefulness. So, as opposed to Rothaermels
conclusion that the collaboration taking place between large and small firms helps large firms
succeed, Baumoi has deduced that by large firms simply watching how small firms innovate and
then tweaking the technology to their advantage, the Goliaths, through their wealth of resources
will be able to prosper and further the innovation spearheaded by the entrepreneurs which leads
to economic growth in their industry.
3
-
At the end of Section I, I implied that the incumbents curse was a natural phenomenon
that a firm could do its best to avoid, but may well wind up falling victim to in the end. Consider
the paper by Chandy and Tellis (2000). Their explanation of the curse plainly suggests that
incumbents are much less likely than non-incumbents to introduce radical innovations2.They
define incumbency as a firm that manufactured and sold products belonging to the product
generation that preceded the radical product innovation. From this definition, they find that of the
64 innovations in their sample size, 53% are from non-incumbents, whereas the remaining 47%
come from incumbents. With the differences between the proportions being so insignificant,
through their analysis Chandy and Tellis imply that incumbents may be as likely to radically
innovate as non-incumbents, debunking the incumbents curse.
I mentioned in the opening of this section that the industry growth statistics may be
skewed in favor of large firm innovation, due to their ability to take advantage of smaller firms
ideas and make them their own, either through a buyout or by enhancing newly developed
technology through established R&D. However, when an incumbent firm takes the initiative to
innovate without outsider influence, we can see the innovative efficiency shift back to small
firms. Russel Knight (1989) compared 236 Canadian entrepreneurs, 124 being independent and
the remaining 112 coming from corporations (from now on referred to as intrapreneurs), all
involved in high-tech industries. Knight discovered that while intrapreneurs have more resources
at their disposal, they also have more than just development of a product to deal with. Some of
these hindrances may involve trying to convince management within the corporation to believe
in the product currently on the drawing board, obtaining finding to farther their project, or
2 A radical product innovation is a new product that incorporates a substantially different core technologyand provides substantially higher customer benefits (Chandy and Tellis 1998). A radical product innovator is thefirm that first commercializes a radical product innovation.
4
-
providing incentives and rewards for team members. These are all problems that can plague
development in large firms. Small firms still have to jump over several hurdles throughout their
innovation process, but their problems generally arise after their product is developed, not prior
to. Knight found that while entrepreneurs may not have to deal with all of the red tape that is
involved with corporate structure, they often struggle with post-development problems such as
marketing and management. While the majority of the entrepreneurs where technically trained,
the lack of general management training and experience caused them to list marketing as the
most difficult problem when it came to launching their new product.
Granted, the innovations provided by the entrepreneurs were all new product designs, in
comparison to the new products designed by the intrapreneurs which were generally a new take
on old systems or processes. Since the intrapreneurs werent necessarily inventing a product, but
more so tweaking and enhancing an existing product, they are able to take advantage of the
market for the product already being established and marketing costs are less than if they had
developed a new product. But even with this marketing advantage, Knight found these large
firms tend to suffer from a lack of entrepreneurial talent within the company. The obstacles in
the paths of both the entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs studied lead to a high recommendation
between the large and small firms to form cooperative agreements of partnerships with each
other to solve these difficulties.
III. Methodology
Data
From the Bureau of Economic Analysis, I collected data from 31 industries, some being
complete industries, such as electrical or health, and some very specific sub-industries, ranging
from resins and polymers to cranes and hoisting equipment. The BEA, specifically bea.gov, is a
S
-
great and very likely the most in-depth source available where I would be able to compare
numerous industries and their growth patterns over several years. I have only collected data from
the 10 year span of 1998-2007, largely due to the 1997 change over in industry codes from the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). For fear of contaminating my results with incorrect cross-referencing of
industries from SIC to NAJCS, I decided to use the NAICS codes only, thus I restricted myself to
a 10 year window. These codes are used for the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis
of statistical data describing the U.S. economy. The NAICS was developed in conjunction with
Mexicos Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geographia and Statistics Canada in order to create a
high level of comparability in business statistics among North American companies. For my
paper, I will only be focusing on American industries. NAICS codes range from two to six digits;
the more digits in the code, the more specialized the industry. For example, agriculture,
forestry, fishing and hunting has the 2 digit code 11. Venture deeper into this industry and
youll find the food and crops grown under cover industry with the 5 digit code 11141.
Continue down one level further and you find mushroom production with the 6 digit code
J 111411 Through the NAICS, you are able find industries and their very specific sub-industries
with relative ease.
Jam using four variables to determine different aspects of growth across 31 industries for
the 10 year period between 1998 and 2007. By collecting data for Value Added Growth
(ValAdGr98toO7), Gross Output Growth (GrossOutGr98toO7), Full-Time Equivalent Employee
Growth (FTEEmpGr98toO7), and the percent of patents owned by small firms (PctSmall), I am
testing to see whether or not the specified areas of growth in these 31 industries are positively
tied to the percentage of patents produced by small firms in the 10 year period observed./
6
-
I have defined a small firm as a firm with less than 500 employees. I will run three 9different ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, all using the percent of patents produced by
small firms as the independent variable. The regressions are as follows: -
Value Adjusted Growth ,8o 1- fii(% ofsmallJIrms with patents,) + c (1)
Gross Output Growth ,Bo + fli(% ofsmalljirms with patents) + et (2)
Full- Time Equiva/en! Employee Growth = fib + ,Bi (% of smallfirms with patents) + e (3)
The data for Value Adjusted Growth, Gross Output Growth, and Full-Time Equivalent
Growth all came from the BEA website (bea.gov) by searching for GDP-by-industry data. I
calculated the percent of small firms that produced patents by taking the total amount of patents
produced by large firms ( 500 employees) and small firms in each industry and dividing thatnumber by the amount patents produced by small firms in each industry. By listing a percentage
rather than raw number, I am avoiding skewed results that may arise from comparing very large
industries such as healthcare to very small sub-industries like teaching aides, where the number
of patents in the former industry will naturally be much higher than the latter.
Table 1.1 - Descriptive Statistics
Variable Mean Median Minimum Maximum Std. Dev.
Va/A dGr98toO73 26.220 21.709 -29.703 123,52 34.507
GrossOutGr98toO7 19.011 11.263 -19.139 120.66 28.587
FTEEmpGr98toOY -2.1739 -6.7669 -29.874 38.158 21.058
Pc/Small 5.8220 4.2889 0.41459 16.495 4.0028
ValAdGr98toO7 and GrossOutGr98toO7 are measured in millions of dollars
FTEEmpGr9StoO7 is measured in thousands of employees
7
-
IV. Results and Discussion
The regression results appear in Tables 21-2.3. Overall, the percent of patents produced
by small firms was insignificant on Value Added Growth (ValAdGr98toO7) and Gross Output
Growth (GrossOutGr98too7) across the 31 industries sampled. The Full-Time Employee Growth
(FTEEmpGr9StoO7) rate was positively correlated and statistically significant with a p-value of
5/b, giving the PctSmall two stars with a 95% confidence level.
Table 2.1 Regression Results
Dependent Variable: ValAdGr98to07Method: Least Squares
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant* 21.3155 0.0661PctSmall 0.84244 0.6010
R-squared 0.00955vt ) Adjusted R-squared -0.024604
.%J& ,.jit * Significant at the .1 Type I error level
Table 2.2 Regression Results
Dependent Variable: GrossOutGr98too7Method: Least Squares
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant 15.5299 0.1053PctSmall 0.59798 0.6543
R-squared 0.0070 1Adjusted R-squared -0.02723
8
-
Table 2.3 Regression Results
Dependent Variable: FTEEmpGr9StoO7Method: Least SQuares
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant**-137037 0.0397
PctSmall** 1.98040 0.0369
R-squared 0.141714Adjusted R-squared 0.112118* Significant at the .1 Type I error level** Significant at the .05 Type I enor level
The results suggest in tables 2.1 and 2.2, Value Added Growth (ValAdGr98toO7) and
Gross Output Growth (GrossOutGr98too7) do not seem to be affected by any increase in the
amount of patents produced by small firms across the 31 industries sampled. The results suggest
in table 2.3 that a one percent increase in patents produced by small firms (PctSmall) across all
31 industries will lead to an increase of 1.98 percent in fiJi-time equivalent employment
(FTEEmpGrQ8toO7).
V. Conclusion
This paper found that of the three variables I tested for different types of industry growth,
the only variable of significance was full-time employee growth. It is very possible that a 10 year
period was not long enough to see any sort of major or significant growth in the other two areas
tested, Value Added Growth and Gross Output Growth, and that employee growth is one of the
first indicators of a growing industry. I am under the presumption that by expanding the time
frame beyond a 10 year period to 25 or even 50 years by cross referencing NAICS codes to the
former industry standard SIC codes would give results that hold a higher significance level and9
nV
-
more insight to industry growth rates over the booms and busts of different sectors of the
American economy.
Filing and producing patents doesnt necessarily mean the product will be developed any
time in the near future, or even at all. Large corporations will often file patents with the intent of
never actually pursuing the development of the product, but more as a way to block other
companies, large or small, from using their technology. Patents are not cheap; obtaining one can (4d ,J iW1
cost anywhere from $5000 to S 15,000. Large firms are able to absorb this cost while receiving no
benefit from the patented product while their smaller counterparts may only find it necessary to
patent with the intent of actually developing the product. I would imagine this behavior has a
significant effect in skewing my data and would involve much deeper research to see the number
of patents filed by a company compared to the number of patents actually developed into final
products.
Perhaps these results are skewed, and are in line with both Rothaermels (2001) and
Baumols (2002) findings that small firms and large firms are often in communication and
collaborate with each other because both stand to benefit from one anothers unique skills and
assets. My findings are also in line with Chandy and Tellis (2000) paper as there seems to be no
display of the incumbents curse in my regression analysis.
There are obviously many more factors other than the amount of patents that small firms
produce that can be used to measure industry growth. I was motivated to write this paper based
on the debacle that has taken place at Kodak over the last 20 years. Since they failed to be an
innovative company when it mattered most, in the transfer from film to digital and with smaller
companies stepping up and taking Kodaks place, I was under the initial impression that small
firms were the engine behind innovation and growth. Perhaps if the data was collected over the
10
-
smaller compaies stepping up and taking Kodaks place, I was under the initial impression that
small firms were the engine behind innovation and growth. Perhaps if the data was collected over
the earlier proposed 50 year period, growth could be seen and attributed to small firm innovation.
The longer time span could potentially offer valuable insight into the effectiveness of tax breaks
and subsidies that are given to small businesses and industries and whether or not they are
beneficial to industry growth.
1A.
/ 4
11
-
Bibliography
Baumol, William J. 2001 Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Growth: The David-GoliathSymbiosis. Journal ofEntrepreneurial Finance and Business 1-19
Baumol, William J. 2004. Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs vs.Corporate Incremental Improvements. NBER Working Paper Series.http:I/www. nber. org!papers/wl 0578
Breitzman, Anthony and Diana Hicks. November 2008. An Analysis of Small Business Patentsby Industry and Firm Size. Small Business Research Summary. No. 335http://www.sba.gov/aclvo
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2010. GDP-by-lndustry Data.http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyinddata.htm
Chandy, Rajesh K, and Gerard J. TeLlis. July 2000. The Incumbents Curse? Incumbency, Size,and Radical Product Innovation. The Journal ofMarketing. Vol. 64, No. 3
Hill, Charles W.L. and Frank T. Rothaermel. 2003. The Performance of Incumbent Firms in theFace of Radical Innovation. Academy ofManagement Review. Vol. 28, No. 2. 257-274
Knight, Russel M, July 1989. Technological Innovation in Canada: A Comparison ofIndependent Entrepreneurs and Corporate Innovators. Journal ofBusiness Venturing.Vol. 4, Issue 4. 28 1-288
Rothaermel. Frank T. June/July 2001. Incumbents Advantage Through ExploitingComplementary Assets via Inter-firm Cooperation. Strategic Management JournaLVol. 22, Issue 6-7, 287-299
1
12
-
Indu
stry
Val
AdG
r9St
oO7
Gro
ssO
utG
r98t
oO7
FTEF
mpG
r98t
oO7
LgF
irmPa
tSm
Firm
Pat
PctS
mal
IA
nim
alH
usba
ndry
/Hun
ting/
Trap
ping
/Fis
hing
43.7
4-0.
823.
4240
580
16.4
9E
duca
tion
Syst
ems/
Teac
hing
Aid
s10
.47
14.3
632
.74
229
4516
.42
Hea
lth29
5834
.5125
.83
4871
779
3414
.01
Spor
ts/G
aine
s/Am
usem
ents
23.1
325
.83
26.6
83,
169
407
1138
Rail
Tran
spor
t8.
39I 7
.19
-9.4
332
941
11.08
Com
mun
icat
ions
/Mos
tlyTe
leco
m92
.70
62.3
5-4.
2454
,040
4,31
674
0Te
xtile
san
dA
ppar
el21
.71
26.9
411
.74
3,05
222
56.
87Fu
rnitu
re/H
ouse
Fixt
ures
1.27
-0.
45-19
.03
4177
304
6.78
Elec
trica
l18
.99
-7.
52-28
.28
3361
923
386.
50In
form
atio
nSt
orag
e12
3.52
120.
66-22
.06
20,5
441,
326
606
Woo
dan
dPa
per M
fg.
1092
2.31
-14
.77
1513
935.7
9Cr
anes
/Win
ches
/hoi
sting
26,3
820
.04
6.52
269
165.6
1H
and
Tool
s/Mac
hine
Tool
s4.
275.7
5-20
.97
9708
501
4.91
Sem
icon
duct
ors/S
olid
-Sta
teD
ev./E
lect
roni
cs89
.96
80.7
232
.79
34,5
521,
735
4.78
Wat
erSu
ppy/
Plum
bing
/Pip
es/W
aste
Trea
t.72
.17
-19
.14
-20
.83
1567
754.
57G
lass
/Cer
amic
/Cem
ent
-13
.50
7.54
-6.
7716
9676
4.29
Pack
agin
g/La
belin
g/Co
nvey
ing
38.9
449
.38
38.1
64,
877
217
4.26
Bui
ldin
g/Co
nstru
ctio
nM
ater
ials
-6.
791.9
726
.82
1254
503.8
3M
otor
Veh
icle
san
dPa
rts33
.86
14.6
9-21
.70
8,81
734
63.
78M
etal
lurg
y-29
.70
-4,
13-29
.87
3637
142
3.76
Met
alW
orki
ng5.2
47.6
1-11
.37
2249
843.
60O
ther
Tran
spor
t50
.72
10.03
-11
.89
2,97
210
83.5
1R
esin
s/Pol
ymer
s/Rub
ber
5.30
2.28
-18
.18
1049
638
13.
50Li
feSa
ving
/Fire
Figh
ting
39.31
40.5
030
.63
524
193.
50Ea
rthM
ovin
g/D
rillin
g:M
inin
g/Bl
astin
g-25
.14
11.2
615
.955,
659
199
3.40
Dye
s/Pai
nts/C
oatin
gs34
.24
17.63
-13
.24
5329
184
3.34
Com
pute
rSof
iwar
e49
.73
37.4
5-4.
5926
.948
887
3.19
Food
/Tob
acco
17.9
75.3
5-5.
7519
3260
3.01
Stat
iona
ry/B
inde
rs/L
abel
s/Writ
ing
Impl
emen
ts-9.
68-8.
78-28
.25
542
132.
34Pe
trole
um/G
as/C
oke
45.51
17.65
-6.6
133
9173
2.11
Prin
ting
Pres
ses/P
rintin
g(m
echa
nical)
-0.
38-3.
84-20
.83
1,201
50.4
1
Val
AdG
r98t
oO7
and
Gro
ssO
utG
r98t
oo7
mea
sure
din
mill
ions
ofd
olla
rsFT
EEm
pGr9
8toO
7m
easu
red
inth
ousa
nds
ofe
mpl
oyee
s