Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1257-1278

  Wu, Brian ^a   Wan, Zhixi ^b   Levinthal, Daniel A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

complementary assets; incumbent failure; innovation incentives; radical technological change; technical trajectory

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRY; PRISMS;

COMPLEMENTARY ASSETS; DUAL ROLE; FIRM HETEROGENEITY; INNOVATION INCENTIVES; TECHNICAL CHANGE; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE; TECHNOLOGY CHANGE; TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES;

TRAJECTORIES;

EID: 84904514779     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2159     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adner R, Snow D,. 2010. Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats. Industrial and Corporate Change 19 (5): 1655-1675.
2. Adner R, Zemsky P,. 2005. Disruptive technologies and the emergence of competition. RAND Journal of Economics 36 (2): 229-254.
3. Adner R, Zemsky P,. 2006. A demand-based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 27 (3): 215-239.
4. Agarwal R, Helfat CE,. 2009. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization Science 20 (2): 281-293.
5. Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A,. 2001. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
6. Arrow K., 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Nelson R, (ed). Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ; 609-625.
7. Arthur WB,. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal 99 (394): 116-131.
8. Benner MJ,. 2010. Securities analysts and incumbent response to radical technological change: evidence from digital photography and Internet telephony. Organization Science 21 (1): 42-62.
9. Benner MJ, Tripsas M,. 2012. The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management Journal 33 (3): 277-302.
10. Christensen C,. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
11. Cohen S, Tripsas M,. 2012. Managing technological transitions: the importance of disengaging from the old. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC: Working paper.
12. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA,. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 128-152.
13. Dew N, Goldfarb B, Sarasvathy S,. 2006. Optimal inertia: when organizations should fail. In Ecology and Strategy: Advances in Strategic Management, Volume 23, Baum JAC, Dobrev SD, van Witteloostuijn A, (eds). Emerald Group Publishing: Bingley, U.K; 73-99.
14. Dierickx I, Cool K,. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35 (12): 1504-1512.
15. Dosi G,. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy 11: 147-162.
16. Dushnitsky G,. 2010. Entrepreneurial optimism in the market for technological inventions. Organization Science 21 (1): 150-167.
17. Dushnitsky G, Lenox MJ,. 2005. When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal 26 (10): 947-965.
18. Dushnitsky G, Shaver JM,. 2009. Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: the paradox of corporate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal 30 (10): 1045-1064.
19. Company EK,. 1991. Annual Report. Rochester, N.Y: Eastman Kodak Company.
20. Elfenbein DW,. 2007. Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (4): 688-715.
21. Furr N, Snow D,. 2012. Threat rigidity or threat action? Rethinking threat response in light of technology's last gasp. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Working paper.
22. Gans JS, Hsu DH, Stern S,. 2002. When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND Journal of Economics 33 (4): 571-586.
23. Gans JS, Stern S,. 2000. Incumbency and R&D incentives: licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 9 (4): 485-511.
24. Gilbert CG,. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal 48 (5): 741-763.
25. Girotra K, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT,. 2007. Valuing R&D projects in a portfolio: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Science 53 (9): 1452-1466.
26. Goldfarb B,. 2008. The effect of government contracting on academic research: does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy 37 (1): 41-58.
27. Helfat CE,. 1997. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal 18 (5): 339-360.
28. Henderson R,. 1993. Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics 24 (2): 248-270.
29. Henderson RM, Clark KB,. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 9-30.
30. Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT,. 2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review 28 (2): 257-274.
31. Jensen MC,. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance 48 (3): 831-880.
32. Kapoor R, Lee JM,. 2012. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal 34 (3): 274-296.
33. Kim BK,. 2011. New wine in old bottles: the role of status and market identity in creating a 'digital media' category. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI: Dissertation.
34. King AA, Tucci CL,. 2002. Incumbent entry into new market niches: the role of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities. Management Science 48 (2): 171-186.
35. Leonard-Barton D,. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 13: 111-125.
36. Mitchell W,. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (2): 208-230.
37. Nelson R,. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67 (3): 297-306.
38. Nelson R, Winter S,. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA.
39. Pacheco-de-Almeida G,. 2010. Erosion, time compression, and self-displacement of leaders in hypercompetitive environments. Strategic Management Journal 31 (13): 1498-1526.
40. Pacheco-de-Almeida G, Zemsky P,. 2007. The timing of resource development and sustainable competitive advantage. Management Science 53 (4): 651-666.
41. Podolny JM,. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology 107 (1): 33-60.
42. Reinganum JF,. 1983. Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review 73 (4): 741-748.
43. Rench C,. 1984. Interview by William Aspray, 18 April. Charles Babbage Institute: Minneapolis, MN.
44. Rosen RJ,. 1991. Research and development with asymmetric firm sizes. RAND Journal of Economics 22 (3): 411-429.
45. Rosenbloom RS,. 2000. Leadership, capabilities, and technological change: the transformation of NCR in the electronic era. Strategic Management Journal 21 (10/11): 1083-1103.
46. Shapiro C, Varian HR,. 1999. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
47. Sosa ML,. 2009. Application-specific R&D capabilities and the advantage of incumbents: evidence from the anticancer drug market. Management Science 55 (8): 1409-1422.
48. Sutton J,. 1997. Technology and Market Structure. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
49. Taylor A, Helfat CE,. 2009. Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science 20 (4): 718-739.
50. Teece DJ,. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 (6): 285-305.
51. Tripsas M,. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 18: 119-142.
52. Tripsas M, Gavetti G,. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal 21 (10/11): 1147-1161.
53. Turner SF, Mitchell W, Bettis RA,. 2010. Responding to rivals and complements: how market concentration shapes generational product innovation strategy. Organization Science 21 (4): 854-872.
54. Tushman ML, Anderson P,. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (3): 439-465.
55. Vives X,. 2001. Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
56. Zhu F, Iansiti M,. 2012. Entry into platform-based markets. Strategic Management Journal 33 (1): 88-106.