IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v53y2007i1p16-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vicarious Learning in New Product Introductions in the Early Years of a Converging Market

Author

Listed:
  • Raji Srinivasan

    (Red McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1176)

  • Pamela Haunschild

    (Red McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1176)

  • Rajdeep Grewal

    (Smeal College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

Abstract

Technological developments combine previously distinct technologies that result in converging markets. In converging markets, firms from different industries compete against each other, often for the first time. We propose that firms introducing new products in converging markets will learn vicariously from other firms in the market. Further, we propose that this learning will vary across the dual-technology frontier (DTF), where the high-technology frontier (HTF) and low-technology frontier (LTF) map onto innovative activities driven by technological opportunity and user needs. We propose that at the HTF, local search will dominate and firms will be influenced by HTF product introductions of similarly sized, successful firms. At the LTF, learning will occur across the DTF, vary by origin industry of the firm, and be affected by complementarities in routines and capabilities and market competition among firms. We test the proposed model of vicarious learning using panel data on new product introductions of 67 firms in the U.S. digital camera market in the 1990s. Findings generally support our proposed model of vicarious learning in this market. They show heterogeneity in vicarious learning across the technology frontier and firm characteristics--including the origin industry of target firms. Our results show that vicarious learning in new product introductions in converging markets--which includes both mimetic and nonmimetic learning--is similar in some ways, but different from more traditional markets. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for theories of organizational learning, new product development, and converging markets.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:1:p:16-28
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0608
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0608?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. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    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. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Gambardella, Alfonso & Torrisi, Salvatore, 1998. "Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 445-463, September.
    5. Stephen J. Mezias & Mary Ann Glynn, 1993. "The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, revolution, and evolution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 77-101, February.
    6. David G. McKendrick, 2001. "Global strategy and population‐level learning: the case of hard disk drives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 307-334, April.
    7. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika Van Der Linde, 2002. "Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(4), pages 583-639, October.
    8. George P. Huber, 1991. "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 88-115, February.
    9. Eric Abrahamson & Lori Rosenkopf, 1997. "Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 289-309, June.
    10. Montgomery, Cynthia A & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1992. "Risk Reduction and Umbrella Branding," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(1), pages 31-50, January.
    11. Chamley, Christophe & Gale, Douglas, 1994. "Information Revelation and Strategic Delay in a Model of Investment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(5), pages 1065-1085, September.
    12. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    13. Geroski, P A, 1990. "Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 586-602, July.
    14. Schmookler, Jacob, 1962. "Economic Sources of Inventive Activity," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Linda Argote & Sara L. Beckman & Dennis Epple, 1990. "The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 140-154, February.
    16. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    2. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    3. David H. Hsu & Kwanghui Lim, 2014. "Knowledge Brokering and Organizational Innovation: Founder Imprinting Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1134-1153, August.
    4. Anindya Ghosh & Xavier Martin & Johannes M. Pennings & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2014. "Ambition Is Nothing Without Focus: Compensating for Negative Transfer of Experience in R&D," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 572-590, April.
    5. Amit Jain & Will Mitchell, 2022. "Specialization as a double‐edged sword: The relationship of scientist specialization with R&D productivity and impact following collaborator change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 986-1024, May.
    6. Linda Argote & Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ---40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 337-349, June.
    7. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Jerker Denrell & James G. March, 2001. "Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 523-538, October.
    11. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Elona Marku, 2018. "Patent value and the Tobin’s q ratio in media services," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    13. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    14. Eelke Wiersma, 2007. "Conditions That Shape the Learning Curve: Factors That Increase the Ability and Opportunity to Learn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(12), pages 1903-1915, December.
    15. Sirén, Charlotta & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction between strategic planning and learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 653-663.
    16. Daniela P. Blettner & Zi-Lin He & Songcui Hu & Richard A. Bettis, 2015. "Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 987-1005, July.
    17. Mohammadi, Ali & Broström, Anders & Franzoni, Chiara, 2015. "Work Force Composition and Innovation: How Diversity in Employees’ Ethnical and Disciplinary Backgrounds Facilitates Knowledge Re-combination," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 413, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    18. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    19. Krafft Jackie & Quatraro Francesco & Colombelli Alessandra, 2011. "High Growth Firms and Technological Knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201114, University of Turin.
    20. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:1:p:16-28. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.