When the technological development of an enterprise is path dependent, core technological competencies will develop. In addition, core technological competencies promote technological development. Consequently, enterprises should always examine the advantages of their core technological competencies. Under dynamic competition, enterprises should monitor their own performance as well as their competitors at all times and consequently adjust their technological strategies. This study used two patent indices, Patent Share and Revealed Technological Advantage, to measure the internal core technological competencies of manufacturers. It also integrated four other indices namely: (1) Technology Attractiveness (Relative Growth Rate), (2) growth potential of technologies (Relative Development of Technology Growth Rate), (3) Relative Patent Position, and (4) Revealed Patent Advantages. These were used to analyze the external strengths and weaknesses of the research and development (R&D) portfolios of companies. These two analytical methods can effectively identify the internal core technological competencies and the external advantages of R&D portfolios of leading companies in the solar photovoltaic (PV) industry. This study also discussed the relationship between R&D portfolios and core technological competencies of leading solar photovoltaic companies and compared those with two core technological competencies with those that have a single core technological competence. The study results show that the R&D portfolios of companies engaged in a single, specific technology field have advantages. This study helps improve the quality of technological planning and decision-making of manufacturers, proposes a method of using core technological competencies to analyze the advantages of R&D portfolios, and helps solar PV manufacturers monitor their own core technological competencies as well as their competitors and partner companies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Archibugi, D. (1992). Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: A review. Science and Public Policy, 19(6), 357–368.
Badawy, M. K. (1996). A new paradigm for understanding management technology: A research agenda for technocologists. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(5–6), 717–732.
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 7–19.
Brockhoff, K. (1992). Instruments for patent data analysis in business firms. Technovation, 12(1), 41–58.
Brockhoff, K., Ernst, H., & Hundhausen, E. (1999). Gains and pains from Licensing-Patent-Portfolios as strategic weapons in the cardiac rhythm management industry. Technovation, 19(10), 605–614.
Chen, M.-J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134.
Ernst, H. (1998). Patent Portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15, 279–308.
Ernst, H. (2001). Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: Evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, 30, 143–157.
Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25, 233–242.
Ernst, C. P. (2004). Positioning self-etching adhesive: Versus or in addition to phosphoric acid etching? Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 16(1), 57–69.
Fabry, B., Ernst, H., Langholz, J., & Köster, M. (2006). Patent portfolio analysis as a useful tool for identifying R&D and business opportunities—An empirical application in the nutrition and health industry. World Patent Information, 28(3), 215–225.
Ford, D. (1988). Develop your technology strategy. Long Range Planning, 21(5), 85–95.
Foster, R. N. (1988). Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. New York: Summit Books.
Granstrand, O., Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). “Multi-technology corporations: Why they have distributed” rather than “distinctive core” competencies. California Management Review, 39(4), 8–25.
Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economics, 4, 1661–1707.
Helfat, C. E. (1994). Firm-specificity in corporate applied R&D. Organization Science, 5(2), 173–184. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.173.
Lalitnorasate, P., & Miyazaki, K. (2014). “Core technological competence and knowledge accumulation in the functional food industry: An empirical study of Japanese food firms”, Paper presented at the Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET), Kanazawa, Japan, 2014.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). “Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation”, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, 1995.
Mathews, J. A., Hu, M. C., & Wu, C. Y. (2011). Fast-follower industrial dynamics: The case of taiwan’s emergent solar photovoltaic industry. Industry and Innovation, 18(2), 177–202.
Meyer, M. H., & Roberts, E. B. (1986). New product strategy in small technology-based firms: A pilot study. Management Science, 32(7), 806–821.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2009). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Parida, B., Iniyan, S., & Goic, R. (2011). A review of solar photovoltaic technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(3), 1625–1636.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), 141–156.
Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1–2), 77–99.
Porter, M., “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy”. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57, No. 2. (n.d.), 1979.
Schmoch, U. (1995). Evaluation of technological strategies of companies by means of mds maps. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(4–6), 426–440.
Selznick, P. (2011). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Quid Pro Books.
Smith, A. (1799). In A. Strahan, T. Cadell, & W. Davies (Eds.), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London, UK.
Sobek, D. K., II, Ward, A. C., & Liker, J. K. (1999). Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering. MIT Sloan Management Review, 40(2), 67.
Soete, L., & Wyatt, S. (1983). The use of foreign patenting as an internationally comparable science and technology output indicator. Scientometrics, 5(1), 31–54.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic competencies and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). “A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations”, The Rand Journal of Economics, pp. 172–187.
Wu, C. Y. (2014). Comparisons of technological innovation competencies in the solar photovoltaic industries of Taiwan, China, and Korea. Scientometrics, 98(1), 429–446.
Wu, C. Y., & Mathews, J. A. (2012). Knowledge flows in the solar photovoltaic industry: Insights from patenting by Taiwan, Korea, and China. Research Policy, 41(3), 524–540.
Yang, W. (2016). R&D portfolio and knowledge flow of companies in the solar photovoltaics: Patentometrics perspective. Journal of Technology Management, 21(1), 67–92.
About this article
Cite this article
Lai, K., Lin, C., Chang, Y. et al. A structured approach to explore technological competencies through R&D portfolio of photovoltaic companies by patent statistics. Scientometrics 111, 1327–1351 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2376-0
- Solar photovoltaic
- Patent statistics
- R&D portfolio
- Core technological competencies