Follow this blog:
RSS

Study: When private companies go public, innovation suffers

By | February 14, 2013, 4:23 AM PST

A surprising new study found that after companies go public, the rate of innovation actually declines.

Paradoxically, undergoing an IPO, which enables an influx of investor funds and the potential to garner wider interest, typically puts the company in a better position to innovate. The reasons for why this doesn’t happen appear quite complex and involve a transitional shift in the overall approach to innovation as well as company culture.

The study, conducted by Finance professor Shai Bernstein at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, looked at the patenting patterns of 2,000 public and private U.S. tech firms between 1983 and 2006. He also analyzed data on the inventors listed on the patents.

“I find a signinficant link between public ownership and innovation: going public causes a substantial decline of approximately 40 percent in innovation novelty as measured by patent citations,” he writes in the paper. “At the same time, I find no change in the scale of innovation, as measured by the number of patents. These results suggest that the transition to public equity markets leads firms to reposition their R&D investments toward more conventional projects.”

After going public, the new strategy to innovation gets re-calibrated in a manner geared toward minimizing risks like opting for incremental and less ambitious improvements instead of pushing for bolder potential breakthroughs. He also observed a tendency for companies to switch towards buying up other companies and assimilating their ideas. The big tech giants like Google and Microsoft come to mind in regards to cultivating some of their new ideas through acquisitions.

On the business end, being accountable to a board of investor’s puts company heads in a position where achieving results becomes more of a priority. So in turn, inventors either adapt or head elsewhere where their work can be more beneficial, Bernstein explains in the paper.

Breaking it down, the finding is not as much of a surprise or as counterintuitive as it seems. The bigger a company gets, the more cautious it becomes. And real innovation, by its very nature, is risky.

Inventor’s spotlight:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tuan Nguyen

About Tuan Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2011 to 2013.

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan Nguyen

Contributing Editor

Tuan C. Nguyen is a freelance science journalist based in New York City. He has written for the U.S. News and World Report, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, AOL, Yahoo! News and LiveScience. Formerly, he was reporter and producer for the technology section of ABCNews.com. He holds degrees from the University of California Los Angeles and the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan C. Nguyen does not hold any investments in the technology companies he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
2
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Accounting penalizes innovation
Public companies are emasculated by Wall Street scorekeeping, as explained here: http://www.khoslaventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/InnovatorsEcosystem_12_19_111.pdf
Posted by Wilmot McCutchen
14th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm... One study, with one conclusin, from a professor
with a very specific goal of determining whether innovation is hampered by companies going public.

We need a lot more studies before any worthwhile conclusions can be drawn.

Also, if one were to investigate deeply within the corporate environments that are responsible for R&D, chances are that, the conclusion would be that, there has been a lot more innovation coming from the collective research being inside corporate environments, than what would be accomplished by the same number of people out of the corporate environment. A corporation has a lot more resources, including the funding, to allow people to do their work without having to worry about funding for the research.

More innovations have come from the big corporations, including IBM and Microsoft and Oracle and HP and Google and Apple and GE and thousands of others, than from non-corporate entities. The PC and tablets and smartphones markets would not have advanced to the point where they are at now, without the corporate R&D budgets which are intended to create new products, and to improve products, while at the same time, allowing people to work with peace of mind, and not having to worry about how to fund further research on their own.

Also, what is wrong with a big corporation buying a smaller company that might have an innovative product? Chances are that, the innovation stands a greater chance of being monetized much more easily by the larger company, while also getting the product into wider distribution and into the consumers' hands and into the business environments?

The article above concentrated on the "perceived" negatives, without delving into the much bigger positives of corporate R&D.
Posted by adornoe
14th Feb
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!