IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000122/011811.html

Innovación e incumbent failure: Una ilustración usando la industria de las telecomunicaciones en Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Hernán Herrera Echeverry

Abstract

Se realiza un análisis de los determinantes del incumbent failure que surgen de la interdependencia competitiva. Se utiliza herramientas proporcionadas por la teoría de juegos (backward induction y el análisis de estrategias conjuntas en juegos de senalización) para determinar los incentivos de una firma establecida a invertir en una innovación. Para efectos de dar ilustración a la argumentación desarrollada se utiliza el caso de Telecom y la entrada de la telefonía móvil celular a Colombia. Se concluye que la participación en el mercado existente y la magnitud esperada de la demanda que permanecerá tecnología antigua, son barreras para que una firma establecida decida invertir en una innovación. La probabilidad de que una firma establecida invierta en la innovación es inversa a la probabilidad de éxito del entrante, al monto de dicha inversión y a la magnitud de los beneficios que la firma establecida obtendría con su producto actual, si el entrante tiene éxito. ***** This paper provides an analysis of the determinants of the Incumbent failure arising from the interdependence competitive. It is used tools provided by game theory (backward induction and analysis of joint strategies in games of signaling) for determining the incentives to invest in innovation for an incumbent firm. For illustration purposes, the case of Telecom and the entry of mobile cellular in Colombia is used. We conclude that participation in the existing market and the expected magnitude of demand that will remain old technology, are barriers to set a firm decides to invest in innovation. The probability of an incumbent firm to invest in innovation is inverse to the likelihood of success of the entrant, the amount of such investment and the magnitude of the benefits that would accrue from the firm established its current product, if the entrant is successful.

Suggested Citation

  • Hernán Herrera Echeverry, 2008. "Innovación e incumbent failure: Una ilustración usando la industria de las telecomunicaciones en Colombia," Documentos de Trabajo de Valor Público 11811, Universidad EAFIT.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000122:011811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.eafit.edu.co/bitstream/handle/10784/2691/2008_19_Hernan_Herrera.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pankaj Ghemawat, 1991. "Market Incumbency and Technological Inertia," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 161-171.
    2. Cooper, Arnold C. & Schendel, Dan, 1976. "Strategic responses to technological threats," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-69, February.
    3. Michael Conlin & Vrinda Kadiyali, 2006. "Entry‐Deterring Capacity in the Texas Lodging Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 167-185, March.
    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. Lee, Joon Mahn & Kim, Jongsoo & Bae, Joonhyung, 2020. "Founder CEOs and innovation: Evidence from CEO sudden deaths in public firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    2. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    3. Nils Grashof, 2020. "Sinking or swimming in the cluster labour pool? A firm-specific analysis of the effect of specialized labour," Jena Economics Research Papers 2020-006, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Maria Giuseppina Bruna & Luc Frédéric Ducray & Nathalie Montargot, 2017. "Décrypter les ambiguïtés de la société post-moderne pour penser la morphologie de l'entreprise de demain. Une illustration réticulaire," Post-Print hal-01867619, HAL.
    5. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    6. Godart, Frédéric & Pistilli, Luca, 2024. "The multifaceted concept of disruption: A typology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Pistorius, C. W. I. & Utterback, J. M., 1997. "Multi-mode interaction among technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 67-84, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Gatignon, Aline & Gatignon, Hubert, 2010. "Erin Anderson and the Path Breaking Work of TCE in New Areas of Business Research: Transaction Costs in Action," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 232-247.
    10. Elie Ofek & Miklos Sarvary, 2003. "R&D, Marketing, and the Success of Next-Generation Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 355-370, July.
    11. Markus Reisinger & Jens Schmidt & Nils Stieglitz, 2021. "How Complementors Benefit from Taking Competition to the System Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5106-5123, August.
    12. Grove, Nico & Baumann, Oliver, 2011. "Bitpipe vs. service: Why do pure service providers outperform fully integrated operators?," 8th ITS Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, Taipei 2011: Convergence in the Digital Age 52308, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    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. Rahul Kapoor & Ron Adner, 2012. "What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms' Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1227-1248, October.
    15. Clayton M. Christensen & Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1998. "Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages 207-220, December.
    16. Evens Salies, 2012. "Product Innovation when Consumers have Switching Costs," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 31, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    18. Negassi, S., 2004. "R&D co-operation and innovation a microeconometric study on French firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 365-384, April.
    19. Barrie R. Nault & Mark B. Vandenbosch, 2000. "Research Report: Disruptive Technologies—Explaining Entry in Next Generation Information Technology Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 304-319, September.
    20. Andrea Fosfuri & Marco S. Giarratana & Alessandra Luzzi, 2008. "The Penguin Has Entered the Building: The Commercialization of Open Source Software Products," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 292-305, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law

    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:col:000122:011811. 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: Valor Público EAFIT - Centro de estudios e incidencia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cieafco.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.