IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v38y2017i6p1253-1267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stock of downstream complementary assets as a catalyst for product innovation during technological change in the U.S. machine tool industry

Author

Listed:
  • Raja Roy
  • Susan K. Cohen

Abstract

Research summary: We investigate the effect of incumbents' stock of downstream complementary assets on their product innovation during a disruptive technological change. We theorize that a firm's stock of downstream complementary assets, by providing critical information about shifting demand conditions, will play a catalytic role in firm adaptation during such a change. Using the advent of disruptive computer numerical control machine tools in the U.S. machine tool industry during the 1970s and 1980s as the context, we find that firms with greater stocks of downstream complementary assets are likely to be product innovation leaders during such a change. Managerial summary: Disruptive changes are challenging firms across industries. We concentrate on the U.S. machine tool industry during the 1970s and 1980s when Japanese manufacturers with disruptive computer numerical control systems challenged the U.S. manufacturers. We find that, under the threat of disruption, the greater the stock of downstream complementary assets a U.S. machine tool manufacturer has, the more likely it is to be the product innovation leader with the disruptive technology. Our findings provide novel insights for managers in companies that face disruptive changes and can help them avoid the consequences of such changes as predicted by prior research. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Raja Roy & Susan K. Cohen, 2017. "Stock of downstream complementary assets as a catalyst for product innovation during technological change in the U.S. machine tool industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1253-1267, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:38:y:2017:i:6:p:1253-1267
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.2557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2557
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.2557?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. David J. Teece, 2003. "Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Essays In Technology Management And Policy Selected Papers of David J Teece, chapter 16, pages 447-474, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Robert Forrant, 1997. "Good Jobs and the Cutting Edge: The U.S. Machine Tool Industry and Sustainable Prosperity," Macroeconomics 9712008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1504-1511, December.
    5. Robert Forrant, 1997. "Good Jobs and the Cutting Edge: The U.S. Machine Tool Industry and Sustainable Prosperity," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_199, Levy Economics Institute.
    6. Lucio Fuentelsaz & Elisabet Garrido & Juan P. Maicas, 2015. "Incumbents, technological change and institutions: How the value of complementary resources varies across markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(12), pages 1778-1801, December.
    7. Roberto Mazzoleni, 2002. "The organization of US machine tool distribution in Europe (1890--1916)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(1), pages 53-84, February.
    8. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1514-1514, December.
    9. Nicholas Argyres & Lyda Bigelow & Jack A. Nickerson, 2015. "Dominant designs, innovation shocks, and the follower's dilemma," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 216-234, February.
    10. Frank T. Rothaermel & Charles W. L. Hill, 2005. "Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 52-70, February.
    11. Susan Helper, 1995. "Supplier Relations and Adoption of New Technology: Results of Survey Research in the U.S. Auto Industry," NBER Working Papers 5278, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    13. Rajshree Agarwal & Constance E. Helfat, 2009. "Strategic Renewal of Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 281-293, April.
    14. Rahul Kapoor & Nathan R. Furr, 2015. "Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants' technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 416-436, March.
    15. Ronald V. Kalafsky, 2006. "Performance And Practice: Examining The Machine Tool Industries Of Japan And The United States," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 97(2), pages 178-194, April.
    16. Roy, Raja & Cohen, Susan K., 2015. "Disruption in the US machine tool industry: The role of inhouse users and pre-disruption component experience in firm response," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1555-1565.
    17. Suresh Kotha & Anil Nair, 1995. "Strategy and environment as determinants of performance: Evidence from the Japanese machine tool industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(7), pages 497-518.
    18. Stavins, Joanna, 1995. "Model Entry and Exit in a Differentiated-Product Industry: The Personal Computer Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(4), pages 571-584, November.
    19. Carlsson, Bo, 1984. "Firm Strategies in the Machine Tool Industry in the United States and Sweden: Responses to Technological Challenges and Global Competition," Working Paper Series 134, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    20. Shibata, Tomoatsu & Yano, Masaharu & Kodama, Fumio, 2005. "Empirical analysis of evolution of product architecture: Fanuc numerical controllers from 1962 to 1997," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 13-31, February.
    21. Mazzoleni, Roberto, 1997. "Learning and path-dependence in the diffusion of innovations: comparative evidence on numerically controlled machine tools," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 405-428, December.
    22. Anderson, Philip & Tushman, Michael L, 2001. "Organizational Environments and Industry Exit: The Effects of Uncertainty, Munificence and Complexity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 675-711, September.
    23. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku, 1996. "Market orientation and innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 93-103, February.
    24. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    25. Chen, IJ & Calantone, RJ & Chung, C-H, 1992. "The marketing-manufacturing interface and manufacturing flexibility," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 431-443, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. He, Yubing & Lin, Ting & Zhang, Si, 2023. "Does complementary technology within an ecosystem affect disruptive innovation? Evidence from Chinese electric vehicle listed firms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Marco Brand & Victor Tiberius & Peter M. Bican & Alexander Brem, 2021. "Agility as an innovation driver: towards an agile front end of innovation framework," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 157-187, January.
    3. Sean T. Hsu & Susan K. Cohen, 2022. "Overcoming the Incumbent Dilemma: The Dual Roles of Multimarket Contact During Disruption," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 319-348, March.
    4. Andrew T. Crecelius & Justin M. Lawrence & Ju-Yeon Lee & Son K. Lam & Lisa K. Scheer, 2019. "Effects of channel members’ customer-centric structures on supplier performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 56-75, January.
    5. Roy, Raja, 2018. "Role of relevant lead users of mainstream product in the emergence of disruptive innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 314-322.
    6. Thi Thu Tra Pham & Thai Vu Hong Nguyen & Son Kien Nguyen & Hieu Thi Hoang Nguyen, 2023. "Does planned innovation promote financial access? Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(2), pages 281-307, June.

    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. Mahka Moeen & Will Mitchell, 2020. "How do pre‐entrants to the industry incubation stage choose between alliances and acquisitions for technical capabilities and specialized complementary assets?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(8), pages 1450-1489, August.
    2. Jaideep Anand & Raffaele Oriani & Roberto S. Vassolo, 2010. "Alliance Activity as a Dynamic Capability in the Face of a Discontinuous Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1213-1232, December.
    3. Roy, Raja & Cohen, Susan K., 2015. "Disruption in the US machine tool industry: The role of inhouse users and pre-disruption component experience in firm response," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1555-1565.
    4. Mahka Moeen, 2017. "Entry into Nascent Industries: Disentangling a Firm's Capability Portfolio at the Time of Investment Versus Market Entry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(10), pages 1986-2004, October.
    5. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    6. Brian Wu & Zhixi Wan & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2014. "Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(9), pages 1257-1278, September.
    7. 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.
    8. M. Lourdes Sosa, 2011. "From Old Competence Destruction to New Competence Access: Evidence from the Comparison of Two Discontinuities in Anticancer Drug Discovery," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1500-1516, December.
    9. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli, 2006. "Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 293-308, February.
    10. Tang Wang & Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2020. "Capability interactions and adaptation to demand‐side change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1595-1627, September.
    11. Jonatan Pinkse & Ans Kolk, 2010. "Challenges and trade‐offs in corporate innovation for climate change," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 261-272, May.
    12. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    13. Natarajan Balasubramanian, 2011. "New Plant Venture Performance Differences Among Incumbent, Diversifying, and Entrepreneurial Firms: The Impact of Industry Learning Intensity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 549-565, March.
    14. April M. Franco & MB Sarkar & Rajshree Agarwal & Raj Echambadi, 2009. "Swift and Smart: The Moderating Effects of Technological Capabilities on the Market Pioneering-Firm Survival Relationship," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1842-1860, November.
    15. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    17. J. P. Eggers, 2016. "Reversing course: Competing technologies, mistakes, and renewal in flat panel displays," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1578-1596, August.
    18. Chun Yang & Bart Bossink & Peter Peverelli, 2017. "High-tech start-up firm survival originating from a combined use of internal resources," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 799-824, December.
    19. John Eklund & Rahul Kapoor, 2019. "Pursuing the New While Sustaining the Current: Incumbent Strategies and Firm Value During the Nascent Period of Industry Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 383-404, March.
    20. David Atkinson, 2013. "Dynamic capabilities: implications for marketing strategy formulation and implementation," International Journal of Business Environment, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(3), pages 252-267.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:stratm:v:38:y:2017:i:6:p:1253-1267. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    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.