IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v44y2015i8p1555-1565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disruption in the US machine tool industry: The role of inhouse users and pre-disruption component experience in firm response

Author

Listed:
  • Roy, Raja
  • Cohen, Susan K.

Abstract

We investigated how incumbent differences affect their response to a disruptive change and found that incumbents with access to inhouse knowledge that helps them understand “what to develop and design” and “how to do it,” are likely to be the leaders in matching the performance features in a disruptive product. We used the advent of machine tools with disruptive Computer Numerical Control (CNC) technology as the context and concentrated on the transition period when the machine tool demand was shifting from customized machine tools with mechanical controls to standardized machine tools with CNCs. We found that incumbents with access to inhouse users and broad pre-disruption component experience were the leaders in matching the agility of the disruptive products. Our findings suggest that the boundary conditions for the theory of disruption is more nuanced than what the literature predicts.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:44:y:2015:i:8:p:1555-1565
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315000062
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.004?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. Tarun Khanna & Marco Iansiti, 1997. "Firm Asymmetries and Sequential R&D: Theory and Evidence from the Mainframe Computer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 405-421, April.
    2. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    3. 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..
    4. Zheng Sun & Ashley Wang & Lu Zheng, 2012. "The Road Less Traveled: Strategy Distinctiveness and Hedge Fund Performance," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(1), pages 96-143.
    5. Papke, Leslie E. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2008. "Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1-2), pages 121-133, July.
    6. Hendricks, Kenneth, 1992. "Reputations in the adoption of a new technology," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 663-677, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    9. Raji Srinivasan & Pamela Haunschild & Rajdeep Grewal, 2007. "Vicarious Learning in New Product Introductions in the Early Years of a Converging Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 16-28, January.
    10. Sunder Kekre & Kannan Srinivasan, 1990. "Broader Product Line: A Necessity to Achieve Success?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(10), pages 1216-1232, October.
    11. Malkiel, Burton G, 1995. "Returns from Investing in Equity Mutual Funds 1971 to 1991," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 549-572, June.
    12. Gino Cattani, 2006. "Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 285-318, April.
    13. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    14. 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.
    15. von Hippel, Eric & Tyre, Marcie J., 1995. "How learning by doing is done: problem identification in novel process equipment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Constance E. Helfat, 1994. "Evolutionary Trajectories in Petroleum Firm R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(12), pages 1720-1747, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    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. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    21. Kirk Monteverde, 1995. "Technical Dialog as an Incentive for Vertical Integration in the Semiconductor Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(10), pages 1624-1638, October.
    22. Carlsson, Bo, 1984. "The development and use of machine tools in historical perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 91-114, March.
    23. David M. Drukker, 2003. "Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(2), pages 168-177, June.
    24. 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.
    25. Tripsas, Mary, 1997. "Surviving Radical Technological Change through Dynamic Capability: Evidence from the Typesetter Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 341-377, March.
    26. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    27. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    28. Carlsson, Bo, 1989. "Flexibility and the theory of the firm," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 179-203, June.
    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. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 228657, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2018. "Absorptive capacity for need knowledge: Antecedents and effects for employee innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 687-699.
    4. 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.
    5. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    6. Guo, Jianfeng & Pan, Jiaofeng & Guo, Jianxin & Gu, Fu & Kuusisto, Jari, 2019. "Measurement framework for assessing disruptive innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 250-265.
    7. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2018. "Absorptive Capacity for Need Knowledge: Antecedents and Effects for Employee Innovativeness," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 687-699.

    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. 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.
    2. Raja Roy & MB Sarkar, 2016. "Knowledge, firm boundaries, and innovation: Mitigating the incumbent's curse during radical technological change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 835-854, May.
    3. Samina Karim & Aseem Kaul, 2015. "Structural Recombination and Innovation: Unlocking Intraorganizational Knowledge Synergy Through Structural Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 439-455, April.
    4. Alva Taylor, 2010. "The Next Generation: Technology Adoption and Integration Through Internal Competition in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 23-41, February.
    5. Peeters, T.J.G., 2013. "External knowledge search and use in new product development," Other publications TiSEM 300ebb34-b090-4210-b95e-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    7. Rahul Kapoor & Ron Adner, 2012. "What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms' Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1227-1248, October.
    8. Bilal Bourkha & Younes Belfellah, 2017. "Inter-organizational imitation: Definition and typology," Post-Print hal-01755470, HAL.
    9. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    10. Srikanth Paruchuri, 2010. "Intraorganizational Networks, Interorganizational Networks, and the Impact of Central Inventors: A Longitudinal Study of Pharmaceutical Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 63-80, February.
    11. Li, Zhengyu, 2016. "Essays on knowledge sourcing and technological capability : A knowledge structure perspective," Other publications TiSEM b8ff31fc-c57b-4bc3-b5a4-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Violina P. Rindova & Antoaneta P. Petkova, 2007. "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 217-232, April.
    13. Shinjinee Chattopadhyay & Janet Bercovitz, 2020. "When one door closes, another door opens … for some: Evidence from the post‐TRIPS Indian pharmaceutical industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 988-1022, June.
    14. Diego Zunino & Fernando F. Suarez & Stine Grodal, 2019. "Familiarity, Creativity, and the Adoption of Category Labels in Technology Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 169-190, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Wang, Ning & Hagedoorn, John, 2014. "The lag structure of the relationship between patenting and internal R&D revisited," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1275-1285.
    17. Tietz, Robert & Morrison, Pamela D. & Lüthje, Christian & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2004. "The process of user-innovation: A case study on user innovation in a consumer goods setting," Working Papers 29, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    18. 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.
    19. Nathan R. Furr & Daniel C. Snow, 2015. "Intergenerational Hybrids: Spillbacks, Spillforwards, and Adapting to Technology Discontinuities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 475-493, April.
    20. Jeffrey T. Macher, 2006. "Technological Development and the Boundaries of the Firm: A Knowledge-Based Examination in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 826-843, June.

    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:44:y:2015:i:8:p:1555-1565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.