來源: www.dcfrg.com.cn 作者:vicky 發布時間:2018-12-15 論文字數:44252字
論文編號: sb2018121310533924068 論文語言:English 論文類型:碩士畢業論文
本文是一篇企業管理論文, 筆者進行了廣泛而大量的文獻綜述以及數據分析,研究了在 2009-2011 年間進行技術并購的中國上市公司,分析公司在并購前后的創新產出。
本文是一篇企業管理論文, 本研究的時間跨度為從 2005-2015 年的 10 年時間。本文旨在回顧已有文獻并進行分析,進而為并購對公司創新的作用提供更長遠的啟示。

1 Introduction

1.1 Background
On a global level, an increasingly large number of companies, especially after the 2009 international economic recession have been engaging in M&A. In recent years it is observed that there has been a steady increase in the number and value of M&A?s on a global level. The value had a significant increase from 2005 to 2017, US $2859 billion to US $3559 billion (graph 1), on the other hand, the number of transactions almost doubled from  36,201in  2005  transaction  to  50,626  in  2017,  and  is  on  continuous  growth, according to the Institute for Merger Acquisitions and Alliances Strategic.

PWC  (2016)  report  presents  the  evidence  that,  in  2015,  the  scale  of  Global Technological  M&As  reached  US  $313  billion,  while  the total  amount  of  M&As  in Chinese high-tech industry reached US $122 billion. Therefore, technological M&A have become an important method to acquire, absorb, utilize, and explore advanced technology knowledge by companies. 

1.2Innovative efficiency: "high and low"
Innovation  has  a  significant  impact  on  technology  acquisition  decisions (Entezarkheir and Moshiri, 2016; Bena and Li, 2014). However, there is no argument on what kind of innovation  characteristics affect M  & A decision, especially the impact of innovation efficiency. Innovation efficiency refers to the ability of an enterprise to obtain innovative output given R & D investment. 
Higgins and Rodriguez (2006) argue that the more the patentee the main company has, the more internal bargaining power it has compared with the target company and the lower the premium paid will be, therefore, it is more likely to initiate technology mergers and acquisitions. Based on the M & A events of US-listed companies from 1984 to 2006, Bena  and  Li  (2014)  found  that  M  &  A  companies  are  more innovative  and  have  more patents, while their R & D investment is relatively small, so these enterprises have higher efficiency in innovation. In contrast, the target company's internal investment in R&D is significantly  higher,  but  its  patent  growth  rate  is  very  low,  so  because  of this,  these Innovative  efficiency:  "high  and  low “companies  are  less  innovative;  Entezarkheir  and Moshiri (2016) based on the 1980-2003 M & A of US manufacturing listed companies, found  that  innovation  capacity  significantly  increased  the  probability  of  participation  in technology mergers and acquisitions.
2 Literature review

2.1 M&A literature in relation to innovation literature
Corporate acquisitions are strategic actions that loom large in the minds of many managers. Despite decades of systematic research of study, little conclusive knowledge is existent on the main question: why do the acquisitions of some companies perform better than  those  of  others? The  researches  that  has  been  discussing  this  issue  has  focused mainly on deal-precise variables (i.e., how procurement takes place).
RBV suggests that competitive advantage lies in the resources and capabilities of the company (Barney, 1991; Conner, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Teece and Pisano, and Shuen, 1997). This view is based on an assumption that  firm resources are both  heterogeneous across firm and imperfectly mobile (Barney, 1991; Capron and Hulland, 1999; Hunt and Morgan, 1995). Firm resources (e.g., Rand.D projects, products) are stocks of knowledge and other tangible and intangible factors that a firm owns and controls, accumulated in a firm-specific  and  path-dependent  manner (Swaminathan,  Murshed,  and  Hulland,  2008; Yu, Umashankar and  Rao, 2016). Through acquisitions enterprise-specific assets within an  organization  merged  with  assets  in  another  organization  to  reallocate  resources  to more  productive  uses  (Capron, Dussauge,  and  Mitchell,  1998;  Capron,  Mitchell,  and Swaminathan,  1998),  improve  the  productivity  of  combined  assets  (Haspeslagh and Jemison, 1991; Anand and Singh, 1997) and enlarge the acquirer is the knowledge base, technological  knowledge  and  technical capacity  (Ahuja  and  Katia,  2001;  Huang,  Wang Yu, 2017).

2.2 Factors that affect the technology M & A decision
Acquiring the innovative resources of the target company is the main motivation for  technology  acquisitions.  So,  what  factors  affect  the company's  technology  M&A decisions?  Scholars  have  done  extensive  research  on  the  preconditions  of  technology mergers  and acquisitions.  To  shortly  sum  up,  mainly  including  the  size  of  the organization, organizational structure, and innovative features. 
The most common scenario in M & A activity is the large companies' acquisitions of  newly  created  SME-intensive  firms  to  absorb  and internalize  the  companies technological innovation potential (Sears and Hoetker, 2014). These start-ups may be the source  of  breakthrough innovation  and  new  technical  knowledge  (Anderson  and  Xiao, 2016). According to the report of the American Science Foundation, the proportion of R &  D  in  the  whole  industry  invested  by  enterprises  with  less  than  1000  employees  rose from 4.4% in 1980 to 25% in 2003 (Benson and Ziedonis, 2009). Therefore, technology-intensive SMEs more easily become the target of technology mergers and acquisitions.
3 Hypothesis Proposal ....................... 22
3.1 Before vs. after M&A impact on company innovation .................... 22
3.2 Time frame of the effects of M&A on the company innovation ................ 22
4 Methodology .................... 25
4.1 Research planning .............. 25
4.2 Research method .................. 27
5 Results ...................... 44
5.1 Wilcoxon signed ranks test ....................... 44
5.1.1 Post-merger Wilcoxon test .................... 44
5.1.2 Pre-merger Wilcoxon test ....................... 48

6 Discussion
The overall impression of the reseals is very good, and the author is satisfied with the outcome. All the hypothesis ware tested thru an
econometric model. The author used two Poisson regression models approach and combined with Wilcoxon signed rank test, in conducting the
research. The combination of the two methods was a good one because it helps prove each other?s results. On the other hand, the Wilcoxon
signed rank test was used in testing the hypothesis, if the innovation output of the firm after the merger was improved  by  the  effect  of  the merger,  in  comparison  with  the  innovation  output  of  the company  before  the  merge.  The  Poisson  regression  model  was  used  to test the independent  variables  that  have  the  greatest  influence  on  the  dependent  variable,  the author here focused on two aspects; one was if the acquisition percentage of the buying company had an effect on the innovation output. The second was if SOE companies have a better performance in terms of innovation output after the merger.   The author believes that  the  research  method  used  provides  a valuable  outcome  that  adds  to  the  existing knowledge  base  in  the  field  of  merger  acquisition  and  the  effect  it  has  on  innovation output. 

7 Conclusion

7.1 Expected research implications
This  research  makes  several  theory  contributions.  First,  this  research  explores  a time  period  of  the  impact  of  external  knowledge sources  after  technology  acquisition. Technology  acquisition  served  as  a  kind  of  method  of  knowledge  acquisition,  the learning  and absorptive  activities  need  a  longer  time.  Therefore,  this  paper  provides  a window  period  for  the  examination  of  what  and  how  the external  sources  impacts knowledge  acquisition  as  regards  to  technological  acquisition,  based  on  the  theories  of dynamic capabilities, learning process and knowledge upgrading time-lagged.
Second,  using  a  Wilcoxon  signed  rank  test,  we  confirmed  the  subsequent innovation of acquiring firms and we found the second/ third years are the watershed time point for innovation performance change. The empirical focus on continuous behavior of technological acquisitions  over  the  sample  span  enables  us  to  distinguish  the  learning outcomes  in  different  period,  thus  identifying  the heterogeneous  impact  of  distinctive time span on innovation. The finding suggests that the innovation effect of technological acquisition is not significant only until the second/ third year after the deal.