IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v35y2024i2p719-740.html

Technology Counteroffensive Strategies: Toward an Ex Ante View of Technology Substitution

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan R. Furr

    (Strategy Area, INSEAD, 77300 Fontainebleau, France)

  • Daniel C. Snow

    (Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602)

Abstract

Although the canonical view of technology substitution describes the frequent failure of incumbent firms to adapt to new technologies, research suggests that firms adopt a variety of strategies when faced with a substitution. These include extending the incumbent technology, bridging to the new by creating hybrids of incumbent and threatening technology, and retreating to market niches in which incumbent technologies retain a competitive advantage. Because ex post views can depict such strategies as ineffectual in the face of inevitable substitution, we have a limited view of the impact of these strategies—whether, when, and how technology substitution occurs. In a study of technology substitution in the population of automobile carburetor manufacturers between 1979 and 1992, we find that these “technology counteroffensive” strategies effectively improved product performance, temporarily deferred technology substitution, and contributed to the continued survival of many firms. Significant firm outcome differences result from these strategies. The paper concludes by suggesting both a theory of technology hybrids and an ex ante theory of technology substitution as a complement to the dominant ex post view.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan R. Furr & Daniel C. Snow, 2024. "Technology Counteroffensive Strategies: Toward an Ex Ante View of Technology Substitution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 719-740, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:35:y:2024:i:2:p:719-740
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2018.12239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.12239
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2018.12239?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. 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.
    2. Nathan R. Furr, 2019. "Product Adaptation During New Industry Emergence: The Role of Start-Up Team Preentry Experience," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 1076-1096, September.
    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. Rahul Kapoor & Nathan R. Furr, 2015. "Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants' technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 416-436, March.
    5. Daniel A. Levinthal & Brian Wu, 2010. "Opportunity costs and non‐scale free capabilities: profit maximization, corporate scope, and profit margins," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 780-801, July.
    6. John Eklund & Rahul Kapoor, 2019. "Pursuing the New While Sustaining the Current: Incumbent Strategies and Firm Value During the Nascent Period of Industry Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 383-404, March.
    7. Mary J. Benner & Mary Tripsas, 2012. "The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 277-302, March.
    8. Nathan Furr & Rahul Kapoor, 2018. "Capabilities, technologies, and firm exit during industry shakeout: Evidence from the global solar photovoltaic industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 33-61, January.
    9. Henderson, Rebecca, 1995. "Of life cycles real and imaginary: The unexpectedly long old age of optical lithography," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 631-643, July.
    10. Harley, C. Knick, 1988. "Ocean Freight Rates and Productivity, 1740–1913: The Primacy of Mechanical Invention Reaffirmed," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 851-876, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Clark G. Gilbert, 2006. "Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 150-167, February.
    13. Mary J. Benner & Ram Ranganathan, 2013. "Divergent Reactions to Convergent Strategies: Investor Beliefs and Analyst Reactions During Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 378-394, April.
    14. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    15. Brian A. Jacob & Lars Lefgren, 2003. "Are Idle Hands the Devil's Workshop? Incapacitation, Concentration, and Juvenile Crime," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1560-1577, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    18. Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1995. "Dominant designs and the survival of firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 415-430.
    19. 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.
    20. Brian Jacob & Lars Lefgren & Enrico Moretti, 2007. "The Dynamics of Criminal Behavior: Evidence from Weather Shocks," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 42(3).
    21. 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..
    22. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2016. "Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 625-648, April.
    23. Alessio Cozzolino & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2018. "Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: Coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3053-3085, December.
    24. 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.
    25. Christoph H. Loch & Bernardo A. Huberman, 1999. "A Punctuated-Equilibrium Model of Technology Diffusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 160-177, February.
    26. Sanderson, Susan Walsh & Simons, Kenneth L., 2014. "Light emitting diodes and the lighting revolution: The emergence of a solid-state lighting industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1730-1746.
    27. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2000. "Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The Transformation of NCR in the Electronic Era," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1083-1103, October.
    31. H. Peyton Young, 2009. "Innovation Diffusion in Heterogeneous Populations: Contagion, Social Influence, and Social Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1899-1924, December.
    32. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    33. Sine, Wesley D. & David, Robert J., 2003. "Environmental jolts, institutional change, and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 185-207, February.
    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. Ruben Gaetani & Alexander T. Whalley, 2026. "Old Space, New Space: A Commercial Revolution in Innovation?," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 6, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2016. "Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 625-648, April.
    2. Alessio Cozzolino & Gianmario Verona, 2022. "Responding to Complementary-Asset Discontinuities: A Multilevel Adaptation Framework of Resources, Demand, and Ecosystems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 1990-2017, September.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Li, Xu, 2024. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120131, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Sunasir Dutta & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2025. "How Demand Shocks “Jumpstart” Technological Ecosystems and Commercialization: Evidence from the Global Electric Vehicle Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Xu Li, 2024. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 399-428, March.
    11. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    12. Gianluigi Giustiziero & Aseem Kaul & Brian Wu, 2019. "The Dynamics of Learning and Competition in Schumpeterian Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 668-693, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Rory M. McDonald & Ryan T. Allen, 2022. "A Spanner in the Works: Category-Spanning Entrants and Audience Valuation of Incumbents," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 190-209, September.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Shiva Agarwal & Rahul Kapoor, 2023. "Value Creation Tradeoff in Business Ecosystems: Leveraging Complementarities While Managing Interdependencies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1216-1242, May.
    18. Seojin Kim & Rajshree Agarwal & Brent Goldfarb, 2026. "Creating Radical Technologies and Competencies: Revisiting Interorganizational Dynamics in the Nascent Bionic Prosthetic Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 272-301, January.
    19. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2015. "Organizational Constraints to Adaptation: Intrafirm Asymmetry in the Locus of Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 218-238, February.
    20. 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.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:35:y:2024:i:2:p:719-740. 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.