IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v27y2016i4p846-872.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Susan K. Cohen

    (Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260)

  • Sean T. Hsu

    (Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, California 92834)

  • Kristina B. Dahlin

    (School of Management and Business, King’s College London, London SE1 9NH, United Kingdom)

Abstract

The academic literature on technology battles has grown rapidly since the 1970s, tracking the ever-expanding role of information and communication technologies in our daily lives. An intriguing thread in this literature pertains to the influence of social networks on standards setting processes. While scholars acknowledge networks’ importance, their relevance to sponsors’ efforts to diffuse their technologies and establish them as de facto standards have been neglected. We theorize that sponsors choose alliance partners according to their location in the networks that connect potential adopters and that the network position that enhances a partner’s attractiveness depends on a technology’s stage of development. We hypothesize that sponsors of technologies that are early in their development and unproven commercially choose partners to create multiple points of contact between previous and potential adopters, called wide bridges. These redundant ties can foster the broad acceptance of a new technology that is essential to drive its diffusion. Sponsors of technologies in later stages of their development, with a commercial track record, can rely on a sparser network of ties to activate peer-to-peer diffusion. In line with our predictions, we found that during the battle to establish a 2G wireless standard in the U.S. market, Qualcomm, sponsor of the unproven CDMA (code division multiple access) technology, formed alliances that conformed to a wide-bridge pattern, while Ericsson, sponsor of the proven TDMA (time division multiple access) technology, formed alliances consistent with a peer-to-peer pattern of diffusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan K. Cohen & Sean T. Hsu & Kristina B. Dahlin, 2016. "With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 846-872, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:27:y:2016:i:4:p:846-872
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1063
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2016.1063?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. Raghuram Iyengar & Christophe Van den Bulte & Jae Young Lee, 2015. "Social Contagion in New Product Trial and Repeat," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 408-429, May.
    2. Simon den Uijl & Henk J. de Vries, 2013. "Pushing technological progress by strategic manoeuvring: the triumph of Blu-ray over HD-DVD," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(8), pages 1361-1384, November.
    3. Raghuram Iyengar & Christophe Van den Bulte & Thomas W. Valente, 2011. "Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 195-212, 03-04.
    4. Timothy Simcoe, 2012. "Standard Setting Committees: Consensus Governance for Shared Technology Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 305-336, February.
    5. 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..
    6. Delcamp, Henry & Leiponen, Aija, 2014. "Innovating standards through informal consortia: The case of wireless telecommunications," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 36-47.
    7. 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.
    8. Rosenkopf, Lori & Tushman, Michael L, 1998. "The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 311-346, June.
    9. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    10. 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.
    11. James Wade, 1995. "Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: An empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 111-133.
    12. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    13. Daniel Birke, 2009. "The Economics Of Networks: A Survey Of The Empirical Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 762-793, September.
    14. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    15. Oriana Bandiera & Imran Rasul, 2006. "Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 869-902, October.
    16. Tilson, David & Lyytinen, Kalle, 0. "The 3G transition: Changes in the US wireless industry," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(10-11), pages 569-586, November.
    17. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Roberts, Edward B., 2003. "Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1569-1588, October.
    18. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    19. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    20. Nicholas Economides & Evangelos Katsamakas, 2006. "Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1057-1071, July.
    21. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    22. Robert MacNeil, 2013. "Seeding an Energy Technology Revolution in the United States: Re-conceptualising the Nature of Innovation in 'Liberal-Market Economies'," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 64-88, February.
    23. Shobha S. Das & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 2000. "Competing with New Product Technologies: A Process Model of Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(10), pages 1300-1316, October.
    24. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    25. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    26. Henry Delcamp & Aija Leiponen, 2014. "Innovating standards through informal consortia: The case of wireless telecommunications," Post-Print hal-01111055, HAL.
    27. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1994. "Systems Competition and Network Effects," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 93-115, Spring.
    28. 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.
    29. Lori Rosenkopf & Giovanna Padula, 2008. "Investigating the Microstructure of Network Evolution: Alliance Formation in the Mobile Communications Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 669-687, October.
    30. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    31. Anindya Ghosh & Lori Rosenkopf, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Shrouded in Structure: Challenges and Opportunities for a Friction-Based View of Network Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 622-631, April.
    32. Gurneeta Vasudeva & Elizabeth A. Alexander & Stephen L. Jones, 2015. "Institutional Logics and Interorganizational Learning in Technological Arenas: Evidence from Standard-Setting Organizations in the Mobile Handset Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 830-846, June.
    33. Robert E. Kraut & Ronald E. Rice & Colleen Cool & Robert S. Fish, 1998. "Varieties of Social Influence: The Role of Utility and Norms in the Success of a New Communication Medium," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 437-453, August.
    34. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    35. Marx, Matt & Hsu, David H., 2015. "Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1815-1826.
    36. 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.
    37. Henrich R. Greve, 2009. "Bigger and safer: the diffusion of competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 1-23, January.
    38. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Explaining Rare Events in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 693-715, July.
    39. Colombo, Massimo G. & Grilli, Luca & Piva, Evila, 2006. "In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1166-1199, October.
    40. Denisa Mindruta, 2013. "Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach," Post-Print hal-00818682, HAL.
    41. Denisa Mindruta, 2013. "Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 644-665, June.
    42. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    43. Theoharakis, Vasilis & Vakratsas, Demetrios & Wong, Veronica, 2007. "Market-level information and the diffusion of competing technologies: An exploratory analysis of the LAN industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 742-757, June.
    44. Corey M. Angst & Ritu Agarwal & V. Sambamurthy & Ken Kelley, 2010. "Social Contagion and Information Technology Diffusion: The Adoption of Electronic Medical Records in U.S. Hospitals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1219-1241, August.
    45. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    46. Pek‐Hooi Soh, 2010. "Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 438-461, April.
    47. Duncan J. Watts & Peter Sheridan Dodds, 2007. "Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(4), pages 441-458, May.
    48. Catherine Tucker, 2008. "Identifying Formal and Informal Influence in Technology Adoption with Network Externalities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(12), pages 2024-2038, December.
    49. Eocman Lee & Jeho Lee & Jongseok Lee, 2006. "Reconsideration of the Winner-Take-All Hypothesis: Complex Networks and Local Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1838-1848, December.
    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. Chaturvedi, Tuhin & Prescott, John E., 2020. "Dynamic Fit In An Era Of Ferment: Product Design Realignment And The Survival-Enhancing Role Of Alliances And Acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    2. Tommy Pan Fang & Andy Wu & David R. Clough, 2021. "Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 233-272, February.
    3. Romasanta, Angelo K.S. & van der Sijde, Peter & de Esch, Iwan J.P., 2022. "Absorbing knowledge from an emerging field: The role of interfacing by proponents in big pharma," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Gerges-Yammine, Rand & Ter Wal, Anne L.J., 2023. "Firm exit from open multiparty alliances: The role of social influence, uncertainty, and interfirm imitation in collective technology development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).

    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. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    2. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    3. Tommy Pan Fang & Andy Wu & David R. Clough, 2021. "Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 233-272, February.
    4. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    5. Deng, Xin & Li, Qian Cher & Mateut, Simona, 2022. "Participation in setting technology standards and the implied cost of equity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    6. Raven, Michael & Blind, Knut, 2017. "The characteristics and impacts of scientific publications in biotechnology research referenced in standards," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 167-179.
    7. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    8. Sillanpää, Antti & Laamanen, Tomi, 2009. "Positive and negative feedback effects in competition for dominance of network business systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 871-884, June.
    9. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    10. Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Fuentelsaz, Lucio & Gómez, Jaime & Palomas, Sergio, 2016. "Interdependences in the intrafirm diffusion of technological innovations: Confronting the rational and social accounts of diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 951-963.
    12. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal & Sonali K. Shah, 2020. "Building Industries by Building Knowledge: Uncertainty Reduction over Industry Milestones," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 218-244, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Liangjie Zhao & Wenqi Duan, 2014. "Simulating the Evolution of Market Shares: The Effects of Customer Learning and Local Network Externalities," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(1), pages 53-70, January.
    17. Brem, Alexander & Nylund, Petra A. & Schuster, Gerd, 2016. "Innovation and de facto standardization: The influence of dominant design on innovative performance, radical innovation, and process innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 79-88.
    18. 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.
    19. Saeed Khanagha & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari & Sotirios Paroutis & Luciano Oviedo, 2022. "Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of Cisco and fog computing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 476-506, March.
    20. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.

    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:27:y:2016:i:4:p:846-872. 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.