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.

中文翻译：

---

整合还是不整合？了解目标公司的知识整合

目的

技术收购是获取外部知识的常见现象，但我们对收购方整合与否的条件了解有限。一方面，收购方可能制定整合目标公司的政策，以从其先验知识中受益。另一方面，目标公司在继续其知识创造方面可能面临挑战，而收购方可能希望为其提供自主权，以免扰乱它。本文旨在确定目标公司在收购后整合程度较低的情况，从而使他们能够保持更多自主权并为知识创造做出更多贡献。

设计/方法论/途径

我们在匹配专利的纵向数据集上使用双重差分法，在全球生物制药行业的实证环境中测试我们的论点。我们检查收购前后收购方和目标公司的专利收到的自引。

发现

我们发现，平均而言，目标公司先前的专利在收购后并没有获得更多的自引。我们的结论是，这是因为他们的研发活动受到干扰，表明收购后整合程度更高。然而，更细致的发现表明，情况可能并非一直如此。当目标公司拥有更多研究经验、国际化或专注于互补技术时，目标公司先前的专利在收购后将继续获得更多的自引。它表明，在这种情况下，目标公司继续创造知识，表明收购后整合的水平较低。

原创性/价值

我们的研究结果有助于收购后整合研究。虽然收购后整合的负面影响很常见，但我们目前的情况是这种负面影响发生的可能性较小。我们强调，收购的背景可能是目标整合程度的重要决定因素。此外，我们通过添加基于知识的视角来补充整合研究（整合的文化、结构、人力资源和领导力视角）。这种动态对于收购方和目标公司从收购中获取价值具有重要影响。