Bottleneck Resources, Market Relatedness, and the Dynamics of Organizational Growth

References

• Adner R, Levinthal D (2001) Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Management Sci. 47(5):611–628.Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Audretsch DB (2001) Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. J. Indust. Econom. 49(1):21–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aggarwal V (2020) Resource congestion in alliance networks: How a firm’s partners’ partners influence the benefits of collaboration. Strategic Management J. 41(4):627–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econom. Lett. 80(1):123–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A (1994) The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labor. Res. Policy 23(5):523–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Nandkumar A (2011) Cash-out or flameout! Opportunity cost and entrepreneurial strategy: Theory, and evidence from the information security industry. Management Sci. 57(10):1844–1860.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Cohen W, Walsh J (2016) The acquisition and commercialization of invention in American manufacturing: Incidence and impact. Res. Policy 45(6):1113–1128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Indust. Corporate Change. 10(2):419–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY (2018) Bottlenecks, modules, and dynamic architectural capabilities. Teece DJ, Heaton S, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Dynamic Capabilities (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Management 17(1):99–120.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
• Berger PG, Ofek E (1995) Diversification’s effect on firm value. J. Financial Econom. 37(1):39–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein S (2015) Does going public affect innovation? J. Finance 70(4):1365–1403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breschi S, Lissoni F, Malerba F (2003) Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Res. Policy. 32(1):69–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnahan TF, Trajtenberg M (1995) General purpose technologies ‘Engines of growth’? J. Econometrics 65(1):83–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad. Management Rev. 20(2):343–378.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
• Bryce DJ, Winter SG (2009) A general interindustry relatedness index. Management Sci. 55(9):1570–1585.Link, Google Scholar
• Capron L, Mitchell W (2012) Build, Borrow, or Buy: Solving the Growth Dilemma (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Carroll GR (1985) Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 90(6):1262–1283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang S (2020) Two faces of decomposability in search: Evidence from the recorded music industry 1995–2015. Preprint, submitted June 6, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3621084.Google Scholar
• Chang S, Kogut B, Yang JS (2016) Global diversification discount and its discontents: A bit of self‐selection makes a world of difference. Strategic Management J. 37(11):2254–2274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen C (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Klepper S (1996) Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D. Rev. Econom. Statist. 78(2):232–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W, Nelson R, Walsh J (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Colucci M, Montaguti E, Lago U (2008) Managing brand extension via licensing: An investigation into the high-end fashion industry. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 25(2):129–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danneels E (2011) Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at smith corona. Strategic Management J. 32(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Day GS (1994) The capabilities of market-driven organizations. J. Marketing 58(4):37–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Figueiredo JM, Silverman BS (2007) Churn, baby, churn: Strategic dynamics among dominant and fringe firms in a segmented industry. Management Sci. 53(4):632–650.Link, Google Scholar
• De Luca LM, Atuahene-Gima K (2007) Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to product innovation performance. J. Marketing 71(1):95–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Sci. 35(12):1504–1511.Link, Google Scholar
• Eggers J (2012) Falling flat: Failed technologies and investment under uncertainty. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):47–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK (2007) Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management J. 28(6):563–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Kale P, Krishnan MS, Singh JV (2005) Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management J. 26(1):25–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fabrizio KR, Thomas LG (2012) The impact of local demand on innovation in a global industry. Strategic Management J. 33(1):42–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gambardella A, Torrisi S (1998) Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Res. Policy 27(5):445–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis (Prentice Hall, NJ).Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper No. 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Hannah DP, Eisenhardt KM (2018) How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management J. 39(12):3163–3192.Crossref, 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
• Helfat CE, Lieberman MB (2002) The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre‐history. Indust. Corporate Change 11(4):725–760.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 R (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 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
• Higgins MJ, Rodriguez D (2006) The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Financial Econom. 80(2):351–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG, Tae CJ (2015) Kingpins, bottlenecks, and value dynamics along a sector. Organ. Sci. 26(3):889–907.Link, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(5):984–1001.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
• Karim S (2012) Exploring structural embeddedness of product market activities and resources within business units. Strategic Organ. 10(4):333–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karim S, Mitchell W (2000) Path‐dependent and path‐breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the US medical sector, 1978–1995. Strategic Management J. 21(10–11):1061–1081.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
• Keum DD (2020) Cog in the wheel: Resource release and the scope of interdependencies in corporate adjustment activities. Strategic Management J. 41(2):175–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• 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 Sci. 48(2):171–186.Link, Google Scholar
• King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal. 9(2):137–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S (1996) Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3):562–583.Google Scholar
• Laforet S, Saunders J (2005) Managing brand portfolios: How strategies have changed. J. Advertising Res. 45(3):314–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Wu B (2010) Opportunity costs and non‐scale free capabilities: Profit maximization, corporate scope, and profit margins. Strategic Management J. 31(7):780–801.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lord MD, Ranft AL (2000) Organizational learning about new international markets: Exploring the internal transfer of local market knowledge. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 31(4):573–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manral L, Harrigan KR (2017) Corporate advantage in customer-centric diversification. J. Strategic Marketing 26(6):498–519.Google Scholar
• Miller D, Shamsie J (1996) The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Acad. Management J. 39(3):519–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moeen M (2017) Entry into nascent industries: disentangling a firm’s capability portfolio at the time of investment vs. market entry. Strategic Management J. 38(10):1986–2004.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morandi Stagni R, Santaló J, Giarratana MS (2020) Product-market competition and resource redeployment in multi-business firms. Strategic Management J. 41(10):1799–1836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nerkar A, Roberts PW (2004) Technological and product‐market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 25(8–9):779–799.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavitt K (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res. Policy 13(6):343–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavitt K (1998) Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: What Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn’t. Indust. Corporate Change 7(3):433–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penrose ET (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad. Management Rev. 26(1):22–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Priem RL (2007) A consumer perspective on value creation. Acad. Management Rev. 32(1):219–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Singh H, Zollo M (2006) Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Acad. Management J. 49(2):263–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ranft AL, Lord MD (2002) Acquiring new technologies and capabilities: A grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organ. Sci. 13(4):420–441.Link, Google Scholar
• Rawley E (2010) Diversification, coordination costs, and organizational rigidity: Evidence from microdata. Strategic Management J. 31(8):873–891.Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT (2001) Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management J. 22(6‐7):687–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sakhartov AV (2017) Economies of scope, resource relatedness, and the dynamics of corporate diversification. Strategic Management J. 38(11):2168–2188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sakhartov AV, Folta TB (2014) Resource relatedness, redeployability, and firm value. Strategic Management J. 35(12):1781–1797.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Serrano CJ (2010) The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents. RAND J. Econom. 41(4):686–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Serrano CJ, Ziedonis R (2018) How redeployable are patent assets? Evidence from failed startups. NBER Working Paper No. 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Silverman BS (1999) Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Sci. 45(8):1109–1124.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
• Speckbacher G, Neumann K, Hoffmann WH (2015) Resource relatedness and the mode of entry into new businesses: Internal resource accumulation vs. access by collaborative arrangement. Strategic Management J. 36(11):1675–1687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybels RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2):315–349.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
• Teece DJ (1988) Technological change and the nature of the firm. Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L, eds. Technological Change and Economic Theory (Pinter, London).Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2006) Reflections on “Profiting from Innovation.” Res. Policy 35(8):1131–1146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ, Rumelt R, Dosi G, Winter S (1994) Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 23(1):1–30.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
• Uzunca B (2018) A competence-based view of industry evolution: The impact of submarket convergence on incumbent−entrant dynamics. Acad. Management J. 61(2):738–768.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Hippel E (1994) “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Sci. 40(4):429–439.Link, Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 5(2):171–180.Crossref, 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
• Wu G, Dokko G (2007) Typecasting entrepreneurs: Boundary-crossing experience, funding and the performance of ventures. Presentation, Academy of Management meetings, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
• Zander I, Zander U (2005) The inside track: On the important (but neglected) role of customers in the resource‐based view of strategy and firm growth. J. Management Stud. 42(8):1519–1548.Crossref, Google Scholar