Network effects revisited: The role of strong ties in technology selection

Academy of Management Journal

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 710-720

  Suarez, Fernando F ^a,b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944539549     PISSN: 00014273     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843947     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 425-455.
2. Brynjolfsson, E., & Kemerer, C. F. 1996. Network externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management Science, 42: 1627-1647.
3. Christensen, C., Suarez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. 1998. Strategies for survival in fast-paced industries. Management Science, 44: s207-s220.
4. Church, J., & Gandal, N. 1992. Network effects, software provision and standardization. Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(1): 85-103.
5. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. 2003. Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 740-751.
6. Cook, K. S. 1977. Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relationships. Sociological Quarterly, 18: 62-82.
7. Cusumano, M., & Gawer, A. 2002. The elements of platform leadership. Sloan Management Review, 43(3): 51-58.
8. Dubin, R. 1978. Theory building. New York: Free Press.
9. Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. 1986. Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product pre-announcements and predation. American Economic Review, 76: 940-955.
10. Granoveter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
11. Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Gruber, H., & Verboven, F. 2001. The evolution of markets under entry and standards regulation - The case of global mobile telecommunications. International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 19: 1189-1212.
13. Gupta, S., Jain, D., & Sawhney, M. 1999. Modeling the evolution of markets with direct network externalities. Marketing Science, 18: 396-416.
14. Hansen, M. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.
15. Hensher, D., & Truong, P. 1985. Measurement of travel time values and opportunity cost from a discrete-choice model. Economic Journal, 95: 438-452.
16. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. 1985. Network externalities, competition and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75: 424-440.
17. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. 1992. Product introduction with network externalities. Journal of Industrial Economics, 40(1): 55-84.
18. Kauffman, R., & Wang, Y. M. 2002. The network externalities hypothesis and competitive network growth. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 12(1): 59-83.
19. Klepper, S., & Simons, K. L. 2000. Dominance by birth-right. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 997-1016.
20. Kraatz, M. S. 1998. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 621-643.
21. McFadden, D. 1974. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3: 303-328.
22. Mitchell, W. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 208-230.
23. Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. 2001. The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2): 1-18.
24. Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
25. Schilling, M. 2002. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 387-398
26. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. 1999. The art of standard wars. California Management Review, 41(2): 8-32.
27. Suarez, F. F. 2004. Battles for technological dominance: An integrated framework. Research Policy, 33(2): 271-286.
28. Suarez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. 1995. Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 415-430.
29. Tam, K. Y., & Hui, K. L. 2001. A choice model for the selection of computer vendors and its empirical estimation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4): 97-124.
30. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.
31. Venkatraman, N., Lee, C. H., & Iyer, B. 2004. Make way for the penguin? Explaining commitment to Linux by software companies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.
32. Wade, J. 1995. Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons. Strategic Management Journal, 16(special issue): 111-134.