Intergenerational Hybrids: Spillbacks, Spillforwards, and Adapting to Technology Discontinuities

References

• Adner R, (2012) The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation (Portfolio, London).Google Scholar
• Adner R, Kapoor R (2010) Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management J. 31(3):306–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R, Kapoor R (2012) Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Working paper, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.Google Scholar
• Adner R, Snow D (2010a) Bold retreat. Harvard Bus. Rev. 88(2):76–81.Google Scholar
• Adner R, Snow D (2010b) Old technology responses to new technology threats: Demand heterogeneity and technology retreats. Indust. Corporate Change 19(5):1655–1675.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Bayus BL (2002) The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Management Sci. 48(8):1024–1041.Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Tripsas M (2011) Technology and industry evolution. Shane S ed. Handbook of Technology and Innovation Management (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ) 3–55.Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Katila R (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management J. 22(3):197–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Katila R (2004) Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management J. 25(8/9):887–907.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson P, Tushman M (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(4):604–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ansari S, Garud R (2009) Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical systems: The case of mobile communications. Res. Policy 38(2):382–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, Vol. 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ (2009) Dynamic or static capabilities? Process management practices and response to technological change. J. Product Innovation Management 26(5):473–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ (2010) Securities analysts and incumbent response to radical technological change: Evidence from digital photography and Internet telephony. Organ. Sci. 21(1):42–62.Link, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman M (2002) Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(4):676–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman M (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):238–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown SL, Eisenhardt K (1997) The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brusoni S, Prencipe A, Pavitt K (2001) Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(4):597–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattani G (2005) Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and technological performance: A study on the evolution of fiber optics, 1970–1995. Organ. Sci. 16(6):563–580.Link, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (1992a) Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve. Part I: Component technologies. Production Oper. Management 1(4):334–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (1992b) Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve. Part II: Architectural technologies. Production Oper. Management 1(4):358–366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Christensen C, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management J. 17(3):197–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM, Suárez FF, Utterback JM (1998) Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Management Sci. 44(12, Part 2):S207–S220.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen S, Tripsas M (2014) Managing technical transitions: The importance of disengaging from the old. Working paper, Boston College, Boston.Google Scholar
• Dosi G, Nelson RR, Winter SG (2000) Introduction: The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Dosi G, Nelson RR, Winter SG, eds. Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, New York), 1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dowell G, Swaminathan A (2000) Racing and back-pedalling into the future: New product introduction and organizational mortality in the U.S. bicycle industry, 1880–1918. Organ. Stud. 21(2):405–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP (2012) Falling flat: Failed technologies and investment under uncertainty. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):47–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP (2014) Competing technologies and industry evolution: The benefits of making mistakes in the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management J. 35(2):159–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP, Kaplan S (2009) Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organ. Sci. 20(2):461–477.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Sorenson O (2001) Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Res. Policy 30(7):1019–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foster RN (1986) The S-curve: A new forecasting tool. Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage (Simon and Schuster, New York), 88–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furr N, Snow D (2014) Fighting back: Last gasp or strategic response to technology threats? The case of the carburetor technological discontinuity. Working paper, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
• Furr N, Cavarretta F, Garg S (2012) Who changes course? The role of domain knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 6(3):236–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furr N, Dyer J, Nickerson J (2014) A contingency theory of management under uncertainty. Working paper, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
• Garud R, Kumaraswamy A (1995) Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management J. 16(S1):93–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Nayyar PR (1994) Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management J. 15(5):365–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gersick C (1991) Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad. Management Rev. 16(1):10–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert C (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Acad. Management J. 48(5):741–763.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert CG (2006) Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames coexist? Organ. Sci. 17(1):150–167.Link, Google Scholar
• Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ. Sci. 7(4):375–387.Link, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Helfat CE (1997) Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R and D. Strategic Management J. 18(5):339–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management J. 24(10):997–1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS (2000) Product sequencing: Co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities, and products. Strategic Management J. 21(10/11):961–979.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM (1993) Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND J. Econom. 24(2):248–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R (1995) Of life cycles real and imaginary: The unexpectedly long old age of optical lithography. Res. Policy 24(4):631–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management J. 15(S1):63–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holbrook D, Cohen WM, Hounshell DA, Klepper S (2000) The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in early history of the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management J. 21(10/11):1017–1041.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu D, Lim K (2014) Knowledge brokering and organizational innovation: Founder imprinting effects. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1134–1153.Link, Google Scholar
• Kahn JA (1986) Gasoline prices and the used automobile market: A rational expectations asset price approach. Quart. J. Econom. 101(2):323–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Murray F, Henderson R (2003) Discontinuities and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Indust. Corporate Change 12(2):203–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R, Furr N (2015) Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants’ technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strategic Management J. 36(3):416–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Management J. 45(6):1183–1194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knight F (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Kulatilaka N (2001) Capabilities as real options. Organ. Sci. 12(6):744–758.Link, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(3):383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Lai R, D’Amour A, Yu A, Sun Y, Torvik V, Fleming L (2011) Disambiguation and Co-Authorship Networks of the U.S. Patent Inventor Database (Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Levinthal D (1998) The slow pace of rapid technological change: Gradualism and punctuation in technological change. Indust. Corporate Change 7(2):217–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moorman C, Miner AS (1998) Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Acad. Management Rev. 23(4):698–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Pisano GP (1996) Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology. Res. Policy 25(7):1097–1119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robert Bosch GmbH (2011) Automotive Handbook, 8th ed. (Bentley Publishers, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Rosenbloom RS (2000) Leadership, capabilities, and technological change: The transformation of NCR in the electronic era. Strategic Management J. 21(10/11):1083–1103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Tushman M (1994) The coevolution of techology and organization. Baum JAC, Singh JV, eds. Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations (Oxford University Press, New York), 403–424.Google Scholar
• Sommer SC, Loch CH, Dong J (2009) Managing complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty in startup companies: An empirical study. Organ. Sci. 20(1):118–133.Link, Google Scholar
• Sosa ML (2009) Application-specific R&D capabilities and the advantage of incumbents: Evidence from the anticancer drug market. Management Sci. 55(8):1409–1422.Link, Google Scholar
• Sosa ML (2011) From old competence destruction to new competence access: Evidence from the comparison of two discontinuities in anticancer drug discovery. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1500–1516.Link, Google Scholar
• Suárez FF, Utterback JM (1995) Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management J. 16(6):415–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sull DN, Tedlow RS, Rosenbloom RS (1997) Managerial commitments and technological change in the U.S. tire industry. Indust. Corporate Change 6(2):461–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor A, Helfat CE (2009) Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organ. Sci. 20(4):718–739.Link, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15(6):285–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2006) Reflections on “profiting from innovation.” Res. Policy 35(8):1131–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econom. 21(1):172–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M (1997a) Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability: Evidence from the typesetter industry. Indust. Corporate Change 6(2):341–377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M (1997b) Unravelling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):119–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M (2009) Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital Photography Company.” Organ. Sci. 20(2):441–460.Link, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management J. 21(10/11):1147–1161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Utterback JM (1996) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Wu B, Wan Z, Levinthal DA (2014) Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices. Strategic Management J. 35(9):1257–1278.Crossref, Google Scholar