How the Incumbent Can Win: Managing Technological Transitions in the Semiconductor Industry

References

  • Adler Paul S., Clark Kim B. Behind the learning curve: A sketch of the learning process. Management Sci. (1991) 37(3):267–281LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Alexander C.Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Allen T. J.Managing the Flow of Technology (1977) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Allen T. J., Hauptman O. The influence of communication technologies on organizational structure. Comm. Res. (1987) 14:575–578CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ancona D. G. Top management teams: Preparing for the revolution. Social Psychology in Business Organization (1989) (Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
  • Ancona D. G., Caldwell D. F. Bridging the boundary: External process and performance in organizational teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1992) 37:634–665CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson P., Tushman M. L. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35:604–633CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Argyris C., Schon D.Organizational Learning (1978) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
  • Christensen Clayton. The Innovator's Dilemma (1997) (HBS Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Christensen Richard Rosenbloom. Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Res. Policy (1995) 24:233–257CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Clark K. B. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Res. Policy (1985) 14:235–251CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Clark K. B., Fujimoto T.Product Development Performance (1991) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Cohen H., Keller S., Streeter D. The transfer of technology from research to development. Res. Management (1979) 11–17Google Scholar
  • Collins H. M., Barnes B., Edge D. Tacit knowledge in scientific networks. Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science (1982) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Cooper R. G. A process model for industrial new product development. IEEE Trans. Eng. Management (1983) EM30(1CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Daft R. L., Weick K. E. Towards a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad. Management Rev. (1984) 9:284–295CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dewar R. D., Dutton J. E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. (1986) 32(11):1422–1433LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dougherty D. Understanding new markets for new products. Strategic Management J. (1990) 11:59–78CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Eisenhardt K. M., Tabrizi B. N. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1995) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ettlie J. E., Bridges W. P., O'Keefe R. D. Organizational strategy and structural differences for radical vs. incremental innovation. Management Sci. (1984) 30(6):682–695LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hannan M. T., Freeman J. Structural inertia and organizational change. Amer. Sociological Rev. (1984) 49:149–164CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Henderson R. The evolution of integrative capability: Innovation in cardiovascular drug discovery. Indust. Corporate Change (1994) 3(3):607–630CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Henderson R. Of lifecycles real and imaginary: The unexpected old age of optical lithography. Res. Policy (1995) 24:631–643CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Henderson R. M., Clark K. B. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35:9–30CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Iansiti M. Technology integration: Managing the interaction between applied science and product development. Res. Policy (1995) 24:521–524CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Iansiti M.Technology Integration: Making Critical Choices in a Dynamic World (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Iansiti M., Clark K. B. Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Indust. Corporate Change (1994) 3:557–605CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Iansiti M., Khanna T. Technological evolution, system architecture and the obsolescence of firm capabilities. Indust. Corporate Change (1995) 4(2):333–361CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Iansiti M., West J. From physics to function. J. Prod Innovation Management (1998) Google Scholar
  • Katz R. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1982) 27:81–104CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Katz R., Allen T. J. Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Acad. Management J. (1985) Google Scholar
  • Keller R. T. Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Acad. Management J. (1986) 29(4):715–726CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kiesler S., Sproull L. Managerial response to changing environments: Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1982) 27:548–570CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lant T., Mezias S. An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3(1):47–71LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Leonard-Barton D. Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Res. Policy (1988) 17:251–267CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management J. (1992) 13:111–125CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Levitt B., March J. Organizational learning. Stanford University Ann. Rev. (1988) 14:319–340Google Scholar
  • McGrath R. G., MacMillan I. C., Tushman M. L. The role of executive team actions in shaping dominant designs: Towards the strategic shaping of technological progress. Strategic Management J. (1992) 13:137–161CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nelson Richard, Winter Sidney. An evolutionary theory of economic change (1982) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Pisano G.The Development Factory (1996) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Rosenberg N.Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (1982) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Sherwin E. W., Isenson R. S. Project hindsight. Science (1967) 156:1571–1577CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Simon Herbert A. Rationality as process and as product of thought. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1978) 69(4):1–16Google Scholar
  • Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Indust. Corporate Change (1994) Google Scholar
  • Thomke S. Managing experimentation in the design of new products and processes. Management Sci. (1998a) 44(6):743–762LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Thomke S., Von Hippel E., Francke R. Modes of experimentation: An innovation process and competitive variable. Res. Policy (1998b) 27:315–332CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tushman M. L., Anderson P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1986) 31:439–465CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tushman M. L., Romanelli E. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Res. Organ. Behavior (1985) 7:171–222Google Scholar
  • Tushman M. L., O'Reilly C. A.Winning Through Innovation (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tyre M. J., Orlikowski W. J. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organ. Sci. (1994) 5:98–118LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Utterback James M.Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation (1994) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
  • Virany B., Tushman M., Romanelli E. Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: An organization learning approach. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3(1):72–91LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Von Hippel E. Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Res. Policy (1990) 19:407–418CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Von Hippel E. The impact of “sticky data” on innovation and problem solving. Management Sci. (1994) 40(4):429–439LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Von Hippel E., Tyre M. How “learning by doing” is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Res. Policy (1995) 24:1–12CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • West J.Institutional diversity and modes of organization for advanced technology development: Evidence from the global semiconductor industry (1996) . Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Business School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  • Wheelwright S. C., Clark K. B.Revolutionizing Product Development (1992) (The Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.