IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v16y2005i1p52-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Frank T. Rothaermel

    (College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-0520)

  • Charles W. L. Hill

    (Department of Management and Organization, Business School, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-3200)

Abstract

We suggest that the type of complementary assets (generic versus specialized) needed to commercialize a new technology is critical in determining the industry- and firm-level performance implications of a competence-destroying technological discontinuity. At the industry level, we hypothesize that incumbent industry performance declines if the new technology can be commercialized through generic complementary assets, whereas incumbent industry performance improves if the new technology can be commercialized through specialized complementary assets. At the firm level, we posit that an incumbent firm's financial strength has a stronger positive impact on firm performance in the postdiscontinuity time period if the new technology can be commercialized through generic complementary assets. We hypothesize, however, that an incumbent firm's R&D capability has a stronger positive impact on firm performance in the postdiscontinuity time period if the new technology can be commercialized through specialized complementary assets. Drawing on multi-industry, time series, and panel data over a 26-year period to analyze pre- and postdiscontinuity industry and firm performance, we find broad support for our theoretical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank T. Rothaermel & Charles W. L. Hill, 2005. "Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 52-70, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:52-70
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0100
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1040.0100?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. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. 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..
    3. 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..
    4. Hausman, Jerry A & Taylor, William E, 1981. "Panel Data and Unobservable Individual Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1377-1398, November.
    5. Lerner, Josh & Merges, Robert P, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    6. Ron Sanchez, 1995. "Strategic flexibility in product competition," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 135-159.
    7. Lerner, Josh & Shane, Hilary & Tsai, Alexander, 2003. "Do equity financing cycles matter? evidence from biotechnology alliances," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 411-446, March.
    8. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    9. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    10. Josh Lerner & Robert P. Merges, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    11. Caves, Richard E., 1989. "Mergers, takeovers, and economic efficiency : Foresight vs. hindsight," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 151-174, March.
    12. Hagedoorn, John, 2002. "Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 477-492, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Rothaermel, Frank T., 2001. "Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1235-1251, October.
    15. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    16. Ben-David, Dan & Papell, David H., 1995. "The great wars, the great crash, and steady state growth: Some new evidence about an old stylized fact," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 453-475, December.
    17. Constance E. Helfat, 1994. "Evolutionary Trajectories in Petroleum Firm R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(12), pages 1720-1747, December.
    18. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    19. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    20. Vogelsang, Timothy J., 1997. "Wald-Type Tests for Detecting Breaks in the Trend Function of a Dynamic Time Series," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(6), pages 818-848, December.
    21. L.G. Thomas, 1996. "The Two Faces of Competition: Dynamic Resourcefulness and the Hypercompetitive Shift," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 221-242, June.
    22. Ben-David, D. & Papell, D.H., 1995. "The Great War, The Great Crash and Steady State Growth: Some New Evidence an Old Stylized Fact," Papers 36-95, Tel Aviv - the Sackler Institute of Economic Studies.
    23. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    24. Constance E. Helfat, 1997. "Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of r&d," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 339-360, May.
    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. Schön, Benjamin & Pyka, Andreas, 2013. "The success factors of technology-sourcing through mergers & acquisitions: An intuitive meta-analysis," FZID Discussion Papers 78-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    2. Rothaermel, Frank T., 2001. "Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1235-1251, October.
    3. Carolin Haeussler & Matthew J. Higgins, 2012. "Explaining Preferences for Control Rights in Strategic Alliances: A Property Rights and Capabilities Perspective Approach," NBER Working Papers 18364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Garcia-Canal, Esteban & Valdes-Llaneza, Ana & Sanchez-Lorda, Pablo, 2008. "Technological flows and choice of joint ventures in technology alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 97-114, February.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. 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.
    7. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hottenrott, Hanna, 2012. "Collaborative R&D as a strategy to attenuate financing constraints," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-049, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Haeussler, Carolin & Patzelt, Holger & Zahra, Shaker A., 2012. "Strategic alliances and product development in high technology new firms: The moderating effect of technological capabilities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 217-233.
    9. Hermosilla, Manuel & Wu, Yufei, 2018. "Market size and innovation: The intermediary role of technology licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 980-991.
    10. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    11. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    12. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    13. Hussinger, Katrin & Wastyn, Annelies, 2011. "In search for the not-invented-here syndrome: The role of knowledge sources and firm success," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-048, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    15. Gino Cattani, 2005. "Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance: A Study on the Evolution of Fiber Optics, 1970–1995," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 563-580, December.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Un, C. Annique & Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro, 2008. "Do subsidiaries of foreign MNEs invest more in R&D than domestic firms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1812-1828, December.
    19. Björn Michaelis & Shalini Rogbeer & Lars Schweizer & Zafer Özleblebici, 2021. "Clarifying the boundary conditions of value creation within dynamic capabilities framework: a grafting approach," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1797-1820, August.
    20. 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.

    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:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:1:p:52-70. 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.