View Item 

Show simple item record

Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices
dc.contributor.authorWu, Brianen_US
dc.contributor.authorWan, Zhixien_US
dc.contributor.authorLevinthal, Daniel A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-08-06T16:49:57Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_14_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-08-06T16:49:57Z
dc.date.issued2014-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationWu, Brian; Wan, Zhixi; Levinthal, Daniel A. (2014). "Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices." Strategic Management Journal 35(9): 1257-1278.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0143-2095en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0266en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/108073
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltden_US
dc.subject.otherTechnical Trajectoryen_US
dc.subject.otherInnovation Incentivesen_US
dc.subject.otherComplementary Assetsen_US
dc.subject.otherIncumbent Failureen_US
dc.subject.otherRadical Technological Changeen_US
dc.titleComplementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choicesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelBusiness (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEconomicsen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelFilm and Video Studiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelManagementen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelUrban Planningen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelArtsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelBusiness and Economicsen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108073/1/smj2159.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/smj.2159en_US
dc.identifier.sourceStrategic Management Journalen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTurner 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHenderson 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHenderson 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHill CWL, Rothaermel FT. 2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review 28 ( 2 ): 257 – 274.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJensen MC. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance 48 ( 3 ): 831 – 880.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKapoor R, Lee JM. 2012. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: how organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management Journal 34 ( 3 ): 274 – 296.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKing 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeonard‐Barton D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 13: 111 – 125.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMitchell W. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly 34 ( 2 ): 208 – 230.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNelson R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67 ( 3 ): 297 – 306.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNelson R, Winter S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePacheco‐de‐Almeida G. 2010. Erosion, time compression, and self‐displacement of leaders in hypercompetitive environments. Strategic Management Journal 31 ( 13 ): 1498 – 1526.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePacheco‐de‐Almeida G, Zemsky P. 2007. The timing of resource development and sustainable competitive advantage. Management Science 53 ( 4 ): 651 – 666.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePodolny JM. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology 107 ( 1 ): 33 – 60.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReinganum JF. 1983. Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review 73 ( 4 ): 741 – 748.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRench C. 1984. Interview by William Aspray, 18 April. Charles Babbage Institute: Minneapolis, MN.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosen RJ. 1991. Research and development with asymmetric firm sizes. RAND Journal of Economics 22 ( 3 ): 411 – 429.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenbloom RS. 2000. Leadership, capabilities, and technological change: the transformation of NCR in the electronic era. Strategic Management Journal 21 ( 10/11 ): 1083 – 1103.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShapiro C, Varian HR. 1999. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSosa ML. 2009. Application‐specific R&D capabilities and the advantage of incumbents: evidence from the anticancer drug market. Management Science 55 ( 8 ): 1409 – 1422.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSutton J. 1997. Technology and Market Structure. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor A, Helfat CE. 2009. Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science 20 ( 4 ): 718 – 739.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTeece DJ. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 ( 6 ): 285 – 305.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTripsas 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTripsas M, Gavetti G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal 21 ( 10/11 ): 1147 – 1161.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAdner R, Snow D. 2010. Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats. Industrial and Corporate Change 19 ( 5 ): 1655 – 1675.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAdner R, Zemsky P. 2005. Disruptive technologies and the emergence of competition. RAND Journal of Economics 36 ( 2 ): 229 – 254.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAdner R, Zemsky P. 2006. A demand‐based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 27 ( 3 ): 215 – 239.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAgarwal R, Helfat CE. 2009. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization Science 20 ( 2 ): 281 – 293.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A. 2001. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArrow 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArthur WB. 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock‐in by historical events. Economic Journal 99 ( 394 ): 116 – 131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenner MJ. 2010. Securities analysts and incumbent response to radical technological change: evidence from digital photography and Internet telephony. Organization Science 21 ( 1 ): 42 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBenner 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChristensen C. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCohen S, Tripsas M. 2012. Managing technological transitions: the importance of disengaging from the old. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC: Working paper.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCohen WM, Levinthal DA. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 ( 1 ): 128 – 152.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDew 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDierickx I, Cool K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35 ( 12 ): 1504 – 1512.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDosi G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy 11: 147 – 162.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDushnitsky G. 2010. Entrepreneurial optimism in the market for technological inventions. Organization Science 21 ( 1 ): 150 – 167.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDushnitsky G, Lenox MJ. 2005. When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal 26 ( 10 ): 947 – 965.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDushnitsky G, Shaver JM. 2009. Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: the paradox of corporate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal 30 ( 10 ): 1045 – 1064.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCompany EK. 1991. Annual Report. Rochester, N.Y: Eastman Kodak Company.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElfenbein DW. 2007. Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 ( 4 ): 688 – 715.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFurr 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGans 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTushman ML, Anderson P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 ( 3 ): 439 – 465.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVives X. 2001. Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZhu F, Iansiti M. 2012. Entry into platform‐based markets. Strategic Management Journal 33 ( 1 ): 88 – 106.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGans JS, Stern S. 2000. Incumbency and R&D incentives: licensing the gale of creative destruction. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 9 ( 4 ): 485 – 511.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilbert CG. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal 48 ( 5 ): 741 – 763.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGirotra K, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT. 2007. Valuing R&D projects in a portfolio: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Management Science 53 ( 9 ): 1452 – 1466.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldfarb B. 2008. The effect of government contracting on academic research: does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy 37 ( 1 ): 41 – 58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHelfat CE. 1997. Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal 18 ( 5 ): 339 – 360.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
smj2159.pdf
Size:
991.5KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.