IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v24y2013i1p58-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Coevolution of Industries and Important Features of Their Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Johann Peter Murmann

    (Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia)

Abstract

As the rate of innovation increases, organizational environments are becoming faster and more complex, posing greater challenges for organizations to adapt. This study argues that the concept of coevolution offers a bridge between the prescient adaptationist and ex post selectionist perspectives of organizational change to account for the increasing rates of change. The mutual causal influences in a coevolutionary relationship help explain why competing sets of firms or individual firms can capture dominant shares in product markets. Using a comparative historical method and drawing on evidence from five countries over a 60-year period, this paper inquires how precisely coevolutionary processes work in shaping the evolution of industries and important features of their environments. It identifies—in the context of the synthetic dye industry—three causal mechanisms (exchange of personnel, commercial ties, and lobbying) and suggests how they acted as levers on the fundamental mechanisms of evolution. Understanding the levers is important for managing change in a world that is increasingly becoming coevolutionary, requiring managers to focus more on the emergent, system-level properties of their environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Johann Peter Murmann, 2013. "The Coevolution of Industries and Important Features of Their Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 58-78, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:24:y:2013:i:1:p:58-78
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0718
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1110.0718?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    2. Richard A. D'Aveni & Giovanni Battista Dagnino & Ken G. Smith, 2010. "The age of temporary advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(13), pages 1371-1385, December.
    3. Arie Y. Lewin & Henk W. Volberda, 1999. "Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 519-534, October.
    4. Yates, JoAnne, 1993. "Co-evolution of Information-Processing Technology and Use: Interaction between the Life Insurance and Tabulating Industries," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 1-51, April.
    5. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    6. Richard Nelson, 1995. "Co-evolution of Industry Structure, Technology and Supporting Institutions, and the Making of Comparative Advantage," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 171-184.
    7. Yates, JoAnne, 1993. "Co-evolution of Information-Processing Technology and Use: Interaction between the Life Insurance and Tabulating Industries," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 1-51, April.
    8. Bill McKelvey, 1997. "Perspective---Quasi-Natural Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 351-380, August.
    9. Robert R. Wiggins & Timothy W. Ruefli, 2005. "Schumpeter's ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(10), pages 887-911, October.
    10. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R. & Furner, Jonathan & Liu, Robert C. & Ma, Hongyan, 2007. "Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 850-863, July.
    11. Jeffrey Funk, 2009. "The co-evolution of technology and methods of standard setting: the case of the mobile phone industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 73-93, February.
    12. Johann Peter Murmann & Ernst Homburg, 2001. "special feature: Comparing evolutionary dynamics across different national settings: the case of the synthetic dye industry, 1857-1914," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 177-205.
    13. Henry Chesbrough, 1999. "Arrested development: the experience of European hard disk drive firms in comparison with US and Japanese firms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 287-329.
    14. Mowery,David C. & Nelson,Richard R. (ed.), 1999. "Sources of Industrial Leadership," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521645201.
    15. Arie Y. Lewin & Chris P. Long & Timothy N. Carroll, 1999. "The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 535-550, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reid, Gavin C. & Smith, Julia A., 2009. "A coevolutionary analysis of organisational systems and processes: Quantitative applications to information system dynamics in small entrepreneurial firms," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 762-781.
    2. Lahiri, Somnath & Kedia, Ben L., 2011. "Co-evolution of institutional and organizational factors in explaining offshore outsourcing," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 252-263, June.
    3. Ryan, Paul & Giblin, Majella & Andersson, Ulf & Clancy, Johanna, 2018. "Subsidiary knowledge creation in co-evolving contexts," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 915-932.
    4. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    5. Liang Wang & Justin Tan, 2023. "Coevolution of Strategy, Innovation and Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(4), pages 711-721, September.
    6. Michael A. Cusumano & Steven J. Kahl & Fernando F. Suarez, 2015. "Services, industry evolution, and the competitive strategies of product firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 559-575, April.
    7. Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda & Michiel de Boer, 1999. "Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 551-568, October.
    8. Marleen Dieleman & Wladimir M. Sachs, 2008. "Coevolution of Institutions and Corporations in Emerging Economies: How the Salim Group Morphed into an Institution of Suharto's Crony Regime," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(7), pages 1274-1300, November.
    9. Desirée F. Pacheco & Jeffrey G. York & Timothy J. Hargrave, 2014. "The Coevolution of Industries, Social Movements, and Institutions: Wind Power in the United States," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1609-1632, December.
    10. Yadong Luo & Huan Zhang & Juan Bu, 2019. "Developed country MNEs investing in developing economies: Progress and prospect," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(4), pages 633-667, June.
    11. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    12. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    13. Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2011. "Large players in the nanogame: dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 640-664, December.
    14. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Yang, Taeyong, 2012. "The effect of the triple helix system and habitat on regional entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence from the U.S," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 154-166.
    15. Jiang, Shisong & Gong, Limin & Wang, Hua & Kimble, Chris, 2016. "Institution, strategy, and performance: A co-evolution model in transitional China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3352-3360.
    16. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    17. Samuel Adomako & Kwabena Frimpong & Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Francis Donbesuur & Robert A. Opoku, 2021. "Strategic Decision Speed and International Performance: The Roles of Competitive Intensity, Resource Flexibility, and Structural Organicity," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 27-55, March.
    18. Dijk van, M., 2003. "Industry Evolution in Developing Countries: the Indonesian Pulp and Paper Industry," Working Papers 03.02, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    19. Gatti, Corrado & Volpe, Loredana & Vagnani, Gianluca, 2015. "Interdependence among productive activities: Implications for exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 711-722.
    20. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:24:y:2013:i:1:p:58-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.