IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v60y2014i12p3103-3123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Commercialization Strategies for Disruptive Technologies: Evidence from the Speech Recognition Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Matt Marx

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

  • Joshua S. Gans

    (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada)

  • David H. Hsu

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

Abstract

When start-up innovation involves a potentially disruptive technology—initially lagging in the predominant performance metric, but with a potentially favorable trajectory of improvement—incumbents may be wary of engaging in cooperative commercialization with the start-up. While the prevailing theory of disruptive innovation suggests that this will lead to (exclusively) competitive commercialization and the eventual replacement of incumbents, we consider a dynamic strategy involving product market entry before switching to a cooperative commercialization strategy. Empirical evidence from the automated speech recognition industry from 1952 to 2010 confirms our main hypothesis. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy .

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:60:y:2014:i:12:p:3103-3123
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2035
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2035?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    3. Joel A. C. Baum & Tony Calabrese & Brian S. Silverman, 2000. "Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 267-294, March.
    4. 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..
    5. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    6. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    7. David H. Hsu, 2006. "Venture Capitalists and Cooperative Start-up Commercialization Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 204-219, February.
    8. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    9. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    10. Ron Adner & Peter Zemsky, 2005. "Disruptive Technologies and the Emergence of Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(2), pages 229-254, Summer.
    11. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    12. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    13. Marco Iansiti, 2000. "How the Incumbent Can Win: Managing Technological Transitions in the Semiconductor Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 169-185, February.
    14. Constance E. Helfat & Marvin B. Lieberman, 2002. "The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 725-760, August.
    15. Giovanni Gavetti & Jan W. Rivkin, 2007. "On the Origin of Strategy: Action and Cognition over Time," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 420-439, June.
    16. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    17. Yuxin Chen & Özge Turut, 2013. "Context-Dependent Preferences and Innovation Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(12), pages 2747-2765, December.
    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. Niron Hashai & Sarit Markovich, 2017. "Market Entry by High Technology Startups: The Effect of Competition Level and Startup Innovativeness," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 141-160, September.
    2. Osoro, Otieno & Kirama, Stephen & Knoben, Joris & Vermeulen, P.A.M., 2015. "Factors Affecting Engagement and Commercialization of Innovation Activities of Firms in Tanzania," Other publications TiSEM 3f542727-8927-424a-8579-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. 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.
    4. Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Sascha G. & Walter, Achim, 2010. "Contingency Factors and the Technology-Performance-Relationship in Start-ups," EconStor Preprints 37082, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Thomas Hellmann, 2007. "When Do Employees Become Entrepreneurs?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 919-933, June.
    6. Fabrizi, Simona & Lippert, Steffen & Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2007. "Venture Capitalists, Asymmetric Information and Ownership in the Innovation Process," MPRA Paper 6265, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. Marx, Matt & Hsu, David H., 2015. "Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1815-1826.
    9. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    10. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    11. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    12. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2021. "Enabling Entrepreneurial Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5510-5524, September.
    13. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    15. Massimo Colombo & Liliana Doganova & Evila Piva & Diego D’Adda & Philippe Mustar, 2015. "Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: the performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 696-722, August.
    16. Devarakonda, Ramakrishna & Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Tadikonda, Harsha, 2022. "Founder social capital and value appropriation in R&D alliance agreements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    17. Magistretti, Stefano & Dell'Era, Claudio & Verganti, Roberto, 2020. "Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Henkel, Joachim & Rønde, Thomas & Wagner, Marcus, 2015. "And the winner is—Acquired. Entrepreneurship as a contest yielding radical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 295-310.
    19. Joshua S. Gans, 2014. "Negotiating for the Market," NBER Working Papers 20559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2017. "Endogenous Appropriability," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 317-321, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology commercialization strategy; disruptive innovation;

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:60:y:2014:i:12:p:3103-3123. 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.