IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v129y2018icp314-322.html

Role of relevant lead users of mainstream product in the emergence of disruptive innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Roy, Raja

Abstract

We combine insights received from prior research on the role of lead user and prior investigations of disruptive innovation. Our research illustrates the role of a particular lead user, which we refer to as the relevant lead user, in paving the way for the potentially disruptive technology to be a definitely disruptive one. Through focused consideration, we reveal characteristics that may be significant in identifying users as relevant in relation to potentially disruptive innovation. Our research also reveals that contrary to Christensen's assumption, incumbents do not embrace the inevitable and jump from the old technology to the new. Rather, the transformation occurs over a period of time.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:129:y:2018:i:c:p:314-322
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517314646
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.036?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    3. Ron Adner & Daniel Snow, 2010. "Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1655-1675, October.
    4. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Levinthal, Daniel A, 1998. "The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 217-247, June.
    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. 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.
    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. Cooper, Arnold C. & Schendel, Dan, 1976. "Strategic responses to technological threats," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-69, February.
    11. Oliveira, Pedro & von Hippel, Eric, 2011. "Users as service innovators: The case of banking services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 806-818, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Matt Marx & Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu, 2014. "Dynamic Commercialization Strategies for Disruptive Technologies: Evidence from the Speech Recognition Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3103-3123, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Daniel Holbrook & Wesley M. Cohen & David A. Hounshell & Steven Klepper, 2000. "The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1017-1041, October.
    16. Keith Weigelt & Colin Camerer, 1988. "Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(5), pages 443-454, September.
    17. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    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. Mütterlein, Joschka & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Baier, Daniel, 2019. "Effects of lead-usership on the acceptance of media innovations: A mobile augmented reality case," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 113-124.
    2. Antonio, Jerome L. & Kanbach, Dominik K., 2023. "Contextual factors of disruptive innovation: A systematic review and framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Nätti, Satu & Pikkarainen, Minna, 2021. "Orchestrating for lead user involvement in innovation networks," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    4. Brougham, David & Haar, Jarrod, 2020. "Technological disruption and employment: The influence on job insecurity and turnover intentions: A multi-country study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    5. Blume, Maximilian & Oberländer, Anna Maria & Röglinger, Maximilian & Rosemann, Michael & Wyrtki, Katrin, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of disruptive threats: Identifying relevant threats before one is disrupted," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Uzuegbunam, Ikenna & Geringer, J. Michael, 2021. "Culture, connectedness, and international adoption of disruptive innovation," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1).
    7. Mikel Zubizarreta & Jaione Ganzarain & Jesús Cuadrado & Rafael Lizarralde, 2020. "Evaluating Disruptive Innovation Project Management Capabilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Julian Marius Müller & Raphael Kunderer, 2019. "Ex-Ante Prediction of Disruptive Innovation: The Case of Battery Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Isabel Schmid & Janik Wörner & Susanne Leist, 2022. "Automated identification of different lead users regarding the innovation process," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 945-970, June.
    10. Xiao Liao & Guangyu Ye & Juan Yu & Yunjiang Xi, 2021. "Identifying lead users in online user innovation communities based on supernetwork," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 515-543, May.
    11. Hossein Rouhani Zeidanloo & Miroslav Špaček, 2025. "Assessing disruptive potential in the IT sector: a framework for evaluating company-to-company impact," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-64, December.
    12. 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.

    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    5. Walrave, Bob & Talmar, Madis & Podoynitsyna, Ksenia S. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Verbong, Geert P.J., 2018. "A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 103-113.
    6. 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.
    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. Nicolai J. Foss & Keld Laursen & Torben Pedersen, 2011. "Linking Customer Interaction and Innovation: The Mediating Role of New Organizational Practices," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 980-999, August.
    9. Rebecca Henderson & Sarah Kaplan, 2005. "Inertia and Incentives: Bridging Organizational Economics and Organizational Theory," NBER Working Papers 11849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Rahul Kapoor & Thomas Klueter, 2021. "Unbundling and Managing Uncertainty Surrounding Emerging Technologies," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 62-74, March.
    12. Berg, S. & Wustmans, M. & Bröring, S., 2019. "Identifying first signals of emerging dominance in a technological innovation system: A novel approach based on patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 706-722.
    13. Sarkar, Soumodip & Osiyevskyy, Oleksiy & Clegg, Stewart R., 2018. "Incumbent capability enhancement in response to radical innovations," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 353-365.
    14. Nicholas S. Argyres & Alfredo De Massis & Nicolai J. Foss & Federico Frattini & Geoffrey Jones & Brian S. Silverman, 2020. "History‐informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 343-368, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    17. Sarah Kaplan & Rebecca Henderson, 2005. "Inertia and Incentives: Bridging Organizational Economics and Organizational Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 509-521, October.
    18. Kotsemir, Maxim & Abroskin, Alexander, 2013. "Innovation Concepts and Typology – An Evolutionary Discussion," MPRA Paper 45069, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira Fabrizio, 2012. "How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 971-987, August.
    20. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:tefoso:v:129:y:2018:i:c:p:314-322. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.