Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change
AbstractWhat factors cause a mature industry to re-enter a period of technological turbulence? This paper addresses this question by developing a model of technological evolution that incorporates both technological trajectories and a new concept: preference trajectories, which are cycles of incremental and discontinuous change in preferences. Preference discontinuities turn out to play an important role in triggering technological transitions in an industry. I illustrate the model with an historical study of the typesetter industry, which underwent three major technological transitions, each of which was driven by preference discontinuities. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Managerial and Decision Economics.
Volume (Year): 29 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2-3 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Levinthal, Daniel A, 1998. "The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 217-47, June.
- Trajtenberg, M. & Bresnahan, T.F., 1992.
"General Purpose Technologies: "Engines of Growth","
16-92, Tel Aviv.
- Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
- Dosi, Giovanni, 1982.
"Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change,"
Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 147-162, June.
- Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
- Klepper, Steven, 1997. "Industry Life Cycles," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 145-81.
- Clark, Kim B., 1985. "The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 235-251, October.
- Sahal, Devendra, 1985. "Technological guideposts and innovation avenues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 61-82, April.
- Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
- Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
- Robert Meyer & Eric J. Johnson, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations in the Modeling of Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages G180-G189.
- Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
- Donald Green & Karen Jacowitz & Daniel Kahneman & Daniel McFadden, 1995.
"Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods,"
_010, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
- Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
- Cooper, Arnold C. & Schendel, Dan, 1976. "Strategic responses to technological threats," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-69, February.
- Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1993.
"In search of useful theory of innovation,"
Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 108-108, April.
- David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-37, May.
- Yates, JoAnne, 1951-, 1993. "Co-evolution of information processing technology and use : interaction between the life insurance and tabulating industries," Working papers 3575-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Chesbrough, Henry W, 1999. "The Organizational Impact of Technological Change: A Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 447-85, September.
- Rosenkopf, Lori & Tushman, Michael L, 1998. "The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 311-46, June.
- Glen L. Urban & Eric von Hippel, 1988. "Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 569-582, May.
- Eric J. Johnson & David A. Schkade, 1989. "Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 406-424, April.
- Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 479-505, May.
- repec:dgr:uvatin:0000032 is not listed on IDEAS
- P.D. Koellinger & A.R. Thurik, 0000. "Entrepreneurship and the Business Cycle," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-032/3, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Sep 2009.
- Linda Hamdi-Kidar & Cyrielle Vellera, 2012. "What drives lead users to become users entrepreneurs ? an exploratory study of motivations," Post-Print halshs-00851319, HAL.
- Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
- Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
- Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
- Robertson, Paul L. & Casali, G.L. & Jacobson, David, 2012. "Managing open incremental process innovation: Absorptive Capacity and distributed learning," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 822-832.
- Klenner, Philipp & Hüsig, Stefan & Dowling, Michael, 2013. "Ex-ante evaluation of disruptive susceptibility in established value networks—When are markets ready for disruptive innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 914-927.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.