Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work

References

• Angrist JD, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anonymous Laser Compliance Expert (2015) Interview by Elena Novelli. Telephone conversation, July 9.Google Scholar
• Anonymous Laser Market Development Manager (2015) Interview by Elena Novelli. Telephone conversation, June 22.Google Scholar
• ArcelorMittal (2009) Annual Report 2009: Management Report. Accessed October 19, 2017, http://corporate.arcelormittal.com/∼/media/Files/A/ArcelorMittal/investors/annual-reports/2009/638-17-0-AnnualReport2009-ManagementReport.pdf.Google Scholar
• Argyres N, Zenger T (2012) Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries: An integrative theory. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1643–1657.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2003) Enjoying the quiet life? Corporate governance and managerial preferences. J. Political Econom. 111(5):1043–1075.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T, Gambardella A (1998) The division of inventive labor and the extent of the market. Helpman E, ed. General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 253–281.Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T, Trajtenberg M (1995) General-purpose technologies: Engines of growth? J. Econometrics 65(1):83–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T, Bryonlfsson E, Hitt M (2002) Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quart. J. Econom. 117(1):339–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF, Greenstein S, Henderson RM (2012) Schumpeterian competition and diseconomies of scope: Illustrations from the histories of Microsoft and IBM. Lerner J, Stern S, eds. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 203–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E, Milgrom P (2012) Complementarities in organizations. Gibbons R, Roberts J, eds. Handbook of Organizational Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 11–55.Google Scholar
• Cassiman B, Valentini G (2016) Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strategic Management J. 37(6):1034–1046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler AD (1990) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Christensen C (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma (Harper, New York).Google Scholar
• Conti R, Gambardella A, Novelli E (2013) Research on markets for inventions and implications for R&D allocation strategies. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):717–774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conti R, Gambardella A, Novelli E (2019) Specializing in general purpose technologies as a firm long-term strategy. Indust. Corporate Change. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dushnitsky G, Klueter T (2017) Which industries are served by online marketplaces for technology? Res. Policy 46(3):651–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galbraith J (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston).Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Giarratana M (2013) General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology. Res. Policy 42(2):315–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, McGahan AM (2010) Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning 43(2):262–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans J (2016) The Disruption Dilemma (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res. Policy 32(2):333–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerstner L (2002) Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? Inside IBM’s Historic Turnaround (Harper, New York).Google Scholar
• Hecht J (2011) Understanding Lasers: An Entry-Level Guide (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Eisenhardt KM (2004) Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management J. 25(13):1217–1232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG, Winter SG (2005) The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: Explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management J. 26(5):395–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R (2013) Persistence of integration in the face of specialization: How firms navigated the winds of disintegration and shaped the architecture of the semiconductor industry. Organ. Sci. 24(4):1195–1213.Link, Google Scholar
• Kapoor R, Adner R (2012) What firms make vs. what they know: How firms’ production and knowledge boundaries affect competitive advantage in the face of technological change. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1227–1248.Link, Google Scholar
• Kerr W, Nanda R, Rhodes-Kropf M (2014) Entrepreneurship as experimentation. J. Econom. Perspect. 28(3):25–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim C, Bettis R (2014) Cash is surprisingly valuable as a strategic asset. Strategic Management J. 35(13):2053–2063.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S (1997) Industry life cycles. Indust. Corporate Change 6(1):145–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S, Sleeper S (2005) Entry by spin-offs. Management Sci. 51(8):1291–1306.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal D, Wu B (2010) Opportunity costs and non-scale free capabilities: Profit maximization, corporate scope, and profits margins. Strategic Management J. 31(7):780–801.Google Scholar
• Meade A, Agarwal R, Braguinsky S, Shah S (2018) Immortality through knowledge: The role of pioneering firms in the growth of nascent industries. Working paper, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1990) Rationalizability, learning, and equilibrium in games with strategic complementarities. Econometrica 58(6):1255–1277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moeen M, Agarwal R (2017) Incubation of an industry: Heterogeneous knowledge bases and modes of value capture. Strategic Management J. 38(3):566–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montgomery CA, Wernerfelt B (1988) Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin’s q. RAND J. Econom. 19(4):623–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson RR (1959) The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Political Econom. 67(3):297–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penrose ET (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Puhani PA (2012) The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear “difference-in-differences” models. Econom. Lett. 115(1):85–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qian L, Agarwal R, Hoetker G (2012) Configuration of value chain activities: The effect of pre-entry capabilities, transaction hazards, and industry evolution on decisions to internalize. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1330–1349.Link, Google Scholar
• Rockwell RJ, Parkinson J (1999) State and local government laser safety requirements. J. Laser Appl. 11(5):225–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F, Grigoriou K, Retana G, King D (2016) IBM at the Crossroads. Harvard Business School Case MH0036 (Harvard Business Publishing, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Sobel RS, Garrett TA (2002) On the measurement of rent seeking and its social opportunity cost. Public Choice 112(1–2):115–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stigler GJ (1951) The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. J. Political Econom. 59(3):185–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutton J (1998) Technology and Market Structure: Theory and History (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (1980) Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 1(3):223–247.Crossref, 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
• Thoma G (2009) Striving for a large market: Evidence from a general purpose technology in action. Indust. Corporate Change 18(1):107–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar