IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v41y2012i5p871-883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominance in the prototyping phase—The case of hydrogen passenger cars

Author

Listed:
  • Bakker, Sjoerd
  • van Lente, Harro
  • Meeus, Marius T.H.

Abstract

The notion of dominant designs refers to dominance in the market, hence the literature on dominant designs ignores the selection process that already takes place in pre-market R&D stages of technological innovation. In this paper we address the question to what extent pre-market selection takes place within an industry and how this may lead to dominance of one design over others before the market comes into play. Furthermore we study what selection criteria apply in the absence of actual market criteria. We do so through a historical analysis of design paths for hydrogen passenger cars.

Suggested Citation

  • Bakker, Sjoerd & van Lente, Harro & Meeus, Marius T.H., 2012. "Dominance in the prototyping phase—The case of hydrogen passenger cars," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 871-883.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:5:p:871-883
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312000212
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.007?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raghu Garud & Michael A. Rappa, 1994. "A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 344-362, August.
    2. Frenken, Koen & Saviotti, Paolo P. & Trommetter, Michel, 1999. "Variety and niche creation in aircraft, helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 469-488, June.
    3. Shobha S. Das & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 2000. "Competing with New Product Technologies: A Process Model of Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(10), pages 1300-1316, October.
    4. Kim B. Clark & W. Bruce Chew & Takahiro Fujimoto, 1987. "Product Development in the World Auto Industry," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 729-782.
    5. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    6. Funk, Jeffrey L., 2003. "Standards, dominant designs and preferential acquisition of complementary assets through slight information advantages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1325-1341, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Collantes, Gustavo & Sperling, Daniel, 2008. "The origin of California's zero emission vehicle mandate," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1302-1313, December.
    9. McDowall, William & Eames, Malcolm, 2006. "Forecasts, scenarios, visions, backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: A review of the hydrogen futures literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1236-1250, July.
    10. Marc Willinger & Ehud Zuscovitch, 1993. "Efficience, irréversibilités et constitution des technologies," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 65(1), pages 7-22.
    11. Clayton M. Christensen & Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1998. "Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages 207-220, December.
    12. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
    13. Thomke, Stefan & von Hippel, Eric & Franke, Roland, 1998. "Modes of experimentation: an innovation process--and competitive--variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 315-332, July.
    14. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    15. Hagedoorn, John & Carayannis, Elias & Alexander, Jeffrey, 2001. "Strange bedfellows in the personal computer industry: technology alliances between IBM and Apple," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 837-849, May.
    16. James Wade, 1995. "Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: An empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 111-133.
    17. Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1995. "Dominant designs and the survival of firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 415-430.
    18. Thomke, Stefan H., 1998. "Simulation, learning and R&D performance: Evidence from automotive development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 55-74, May.
    19. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    20. Miller, Roger, et al, 1995. "Innovation in Complex Systems Industries: The Case of Flight Simulation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 363-400.
    21. Steven Klepper, 2002. "The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 645-666, August.
    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. Sierzchula, William & Nemet, Gregory, 2015. "Using patents and prototypes for preliminary evaluation of technology-forcing policies: Lessons from California's Zero Emission Vehicle regulations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 213-224.
    2. Guha, Mahua & Das, Gopal, 2017. "Routine contraction in good times: An example of a typical prototype development routine," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 145-152.
    3. Kirkels, Arjan F., 2014. "Punctuated continuity: The technological trajectory of advanced biomass gasifiers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 170-182.
    4. Huenteler, Joern & Ossenbrink, Jan & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "How a product’s design hierarchy shapes the evolution of technological knowledge—Evidence from patent-citation networks in wind power," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1195-1217.
    5. Kim Wang, 2017. "Technology Deployment By Late Movers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(04), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Jin, Byungchae, 2019. "Country-level technological disparities, market feedback, and scientists’ choice of technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 385-400.
    7. Geerten van de Kaa & Lieke van den Eijnden & Neelke Doorn, 2020. "Filtering Out Standard Success Criteria in the Case of Multi-Mode Standardization: Responsible Waste Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-10, February.

    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. Sjoerd Bakker, 2009. "The Emergence of a Dominant Design – a study on hydrogen prototypes," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 09-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Nov 2009.
    2. 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.
    3. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    4. Cecere, Grazia & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Battaglia, Riccardo David, 2015. "Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 162-175.
    5. 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.
    6. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    7. Camerani, Roberto & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Fontana, Roberto, 2020. "It's never too late (to enter)… till it is! Firms’ entry and exit in the digital audio player industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    8. Malhotra, Abhishek & Zhang, Huiting & Beuse, Martin & Schmidt, Tobias, 2021. "How do new use environments influence a technology's knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of lithium-ion battery technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    9. Hazhir Rahmandad, 2019. "Interdependence, Complementarity, and Ruggedness of Performance Landscapes," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 234-249, September.
    10. Najda-Janoszka, Marta, 2017. "Industry Transition - Challenges for Value Capture," MPRA Paper 81919, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Uwe Cantner & Simone Vannuccini, 2012. "A New View of General Purpose Technologies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    13. Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
    14. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Roberts, Edward B., 2003. "Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1569-1588, October.
    15. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Giuri, Paola, 2000. "When shakeout doesn't occur: The evolution of the turboprop engine industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 847-870, August.
    16. Chaturvedi, Tuhin & Prescott, John E., 2020. "Dynamic Fit In An Era Of Ferment: Product Design Realignment And The Survival-Enhancing Role Of Alliances And Acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    17. Puay Khoon Toh & Taekyu Kim, 2013. "Why Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? A Competition-Based View of How Technological Uncertainty Affects a Firm’s Technological Specialization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1236, August.
    18. Funk, Jeffery, 2009. "Components, systems and discontinuities: The case of magnetic recording and playback equipment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1192-1202, September.
    19. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:5:p:871-883. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.