하이테크 산업의 기술적 인수합병의 혁신 성과 연구-탐색과 활용의 접근을 통한 실증 분석-

Exploration embraces search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery and innovation, while exploitation embraces choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation and execution. Exploration takes long-term effects, and the effects of exploration are usually uncertain and sometimes negative. To the contrary, exploitation takes short-term effect, and the effects of exploitation are generally predictable and positive. Both exploration and exploitation are crucial for firms’ sustainable growth and ultimate survival, although it is believed that there is trade-off between exploration and exploitation. Acquiring external knowledge is important for the firms' explorative learning as well as exploitative learning in high-tech industries, which are characterized by accelerated rate of technological change, high R&D intensity, and technological complexity. M&A (Merger and Acquisition) is one of the measures through which the firms acquire external knowledge. In addition, a better level of knowledge integration between internal knowledge and external knowledge could be achieved through M&A than through other measures, such as inter-firm technology alliance or contractual research. Acquisition of external knowledge through M&A can have positive effects on the innovative performance of the acquirer by two mechanisms–economy of scale and knowledge spillover. The acquiring firm can increase R&D productivity by (1) reducing overlapping R&D input on the common technological areas on which both the acquiring firm and the acquired firm invest and (2) achieving more innovative output by internalizing knowledge spillover between its existing knowledge base and the knowledge base of the acquired firm. However, M&A can also have negative effects on innovative performance. A low level of knowledge integration between the acquiring firm and the acquired firm, which is usually caused by a low strategic fit between the two firms, drives out the acquiring firm from innovative activities. The depletion of the acquiring firm’s financial resource caused by M&A makes the acquiring firm myopic; hence it prohibits the acquiring firm to invest in innovative activities which focus on long-term performance. Although the impact of M&A on the innovative performance of the acquiring firm is still controversial, the technological relatedness between the acquiring firm and the acquired firm is regarded as one of the major determinants of innovative performance. Technological relatedness plays an important role in facilitating integration of two firms’ knowledge base, and enhancing absorptive capacity, which promotes the acquiring firm’s utilization of the acquired firm’s knowledge. In this paper, we analyze the effects of the two sub-dimensions of technological relatedness–commonality and novelty–between the acquiring firm and the acquired firm on the explorative innovative performance share of the acquiring firm after M&A. For the 62 acquiring firms and their acquired targets in the pharmaceutical industry, the empirical analysis focused on examining the effects of ‘the size of the acquired firm’s common knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ and ‘the size of the acquired firm’s new knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ on the ‘explorative innovation share of the acquiring firm after M&A’. The results showed that (1) the technological relatedness between the acquiring firm and the acquired firm is the major determinant of explorative innovation share of the acquiring firm after M&A, (2) ‘the size of the acquired firm’s common knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ is curvilinearly (U shape) related to ‘explorative innovation share of the acquiring firm after M&A’, and (3) ‘the size of the acquired firm’s new knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ is curvilinearly (inverted U shape) related to ‘explorative innovation share of the acquiring firm after M&A’. On one hand, the increase in ‘the size of the acquired firm’s common knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ makes the acquiring firm reinforce their existing knowledge base firm after M&A, by promoting the definition, interpretation, and assimilation of knowledge between the acquiring firm and the acquired firm, and impeding inter-organizational learning between the two firms. On the other hand, it enables the acquiring firm to take risk and conduct experimentation activities, because such M&A drives out a strong rival from the technology market, which finally results in quasi-rent for the acquiring firm. The U-shaped relationship between ‘the size of the acquired firm’s common knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ and ‘explorative innovation share of the acquiring firm after M&A’ shows that the effects of the former outweigh the latter up to a certain point of ‘the size of the acquired firm’s common knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’, however the latter outweigh the former after that point. In parallel, the increase in ‘the size of the acquired firm’s new knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ enlarges the acquiring firm’s explorative capability by enlarging its own knowledge base and intensifying routes to the external innovative. However, it makes the acquiring firm to be conservative and defensive on R&D by developing stress and unrest for the researchers. The inverted U-shaped relationship between ‘the size of the acquired firm’s new knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’ and ‘explorative innovation share of the acquiring firm after M&A’ shows that the effects of the former outweigh the latter up to a certain point of ‘the size of the acquired firm’s new knowledge relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge’, however the latter outweigh the former after that point. The results show that (1) the size of the acquired firm’s common and/or new knowledge base “relative to the size of the acquiring firm’s knowledge” is major determinant of the size of acquired firm’s new knowledge relative to the size of acquiring firm’s knowledge, and (2) the two sub-dimensions of technological relatedness are “curvilinearly” related , gives an important implication, especially for the small and medium sized innovative firms, which generally have small knowledge base. Because the relative size of acquired firm’s knowledge base compared to their own knowledge base is usually small for large firms, which generally have large knowledge base, the effect of commonality on the share of explorative innovation is negative and that of novelty is generally positive. However, contrary to large firms, the effects can be opposite for small- and medium- sized innovative firms, because the relative size of the acquired firm’s knowledge base is greater for them. The major contribution of the paper is it conceptualized and operationalized the technological relatedness as a two-dimensional concept, which is consisted with two independent sub-dimensions (commonality and novelty), while previous researches regarded technological relatedness as a one-dimensional concept–high commonality of acquired firm’s knowledge base means low novelty. With the two-dimensional conceptualization of technological relatedness, the paper presents an integrative framework and provides supportive evidences on the effects of technological relatedness of M&A on the post M&A acquirer’s innovation, which can explain the inconsistent effects of technological relatedness identified by the previous researches.