IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kob/dpaper/204.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dilemma between new and existing technologies: Separation and coexistence of old and new technologies in the Television Development Division of Sony Corporation

Author

Listed:
  • Atsushi Osanai

    (Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration (RIEB), Kobe University, Japan)

Abstract

Regarding R&D management for long-term coexistence of new and existing businesses within a company in technological transition, development of high technology introduces conflict between existing low and medium technologies (LMT). One solution, organizational separation of old and new technologies, can render the technological resources of separated R&D groups mutually inaccessible, thereby possibly necessitating duplication of investment costs. That situation might be prevented by brief coexistence of separate groups during a transition period. Nevertheless, existing businesses based on LMT often retain large markets despite the success of new businesses. In the television business described herein, a technological shift began in the late 1990s to replace conventional CRT televisions with flat panel displays (FPD), including LCDs and plasma display panels (PDPs). Today, despite great interest in FPD televisions, global shipments in 2006 included 130 million CRT televisions and 46 million FPD televisions. Varying unit prices prevent a simple comparison, but CRT televisions constitute a large, fiercely competitive market. Continued coexistence of old and new businesses demands the contradictory conditions of independence of the two R&D groups while using mutual resources. Sony's case has revealed a single technical development division serving both old and new R&D groups, providing similar new technology for product development while co-ordinating these divisions' interests. The technical development division integrates technological and product development to integrate developed technologies into downstream product development. This integration process, so-called integration of old and new R&D technologies, incorporates lower divisions' technology and expertise into technological development, thereby enabling multiple downstream product development groups to acquire technology and expertise through technology that is integrated with that of other product divisions. The process' implications include the following. New businesses use existing business technology; existing businesses can incorporate new technology.Viewing technological changes as diversification, existing and new businesses can increase opportunities through co-operation.

Suggested Citation

  • Atsushi Osanai, 2007. "Dilemma between new and existing technologies: Separation and coexistence of old and new technologies in the Television Development Division of Sony Corporation," Discussion Paper Series 204, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kob:dpaper:204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/academic/ra/dp/English/dp204.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2007
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kentaro Nobeoka & Michael A. Cusumano, 1997. "Multiproject Strategy And Sales Growth: The Benefits Of Rapid Design Transfer In New Product Development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 169-186, March.
    2. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    3. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    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. Anthony Goerzen & Paul W. Beamish, 2007. "The Penrose effect: “Excess” expatriates in multinational enterprises," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 221-239, March.
    2. Molero, Jose & Buesa, Mikel, 1996. "Patterns of technological change among Spanish innovative firms: the case of the Madrid region," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 647-663, June.
    3. Soh, Pek Hooi, 1966- & Roberts, Edward Baer. & International Center for Research on the Management of Technology., 1998. "Learning by knowing through social capital : a missling link to research capability," Working papers 175-98, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Herrmann, Roland & Schröck, Rebecca, 2011. "Determinanten des Innovationserfolgs: eine Analyse mit Scannerdaten für den deutschen Joghurtmarkt," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 60(03), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    6. Symeonidis, George, 2001. "Price Competition, Innovation and Profitability: Theory and UK Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 2816, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Cécile Fonrouge & Cécile Ayerbe, 2005. "Les transitions entre innovations : études de cas et proposition d'une grille d'interprétation," Post-Print halshs-00696111, HAL.
    8. Park, Walter G., 1997. "A note on innovation and patent protection: Intertemporal imitation-risk smoothing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 185-189, February.
    9. Colombo, Massimo G. & Garrone, Paola, 1998. "Common carriers' entry into multimedia services," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 77-105, March.
    10. Salvacruz, Joseph C., 1996. "Competitiveness Of The United States And The Asean In The International Agricultural Market," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(1), pages 1-9, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Orsatti, Gianluca & Pezzoni, Michele & Quatraro, Francesco, 2017. "Where Do Green Technologies Come From? Inventor Teams’ Recombinant Capabilities and the Creation of New Knowledge," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201711, University of Turin.
    13. Inyoung Park & Jieon Lee & Jungwoo Nam & Yuri Jo & Daeho Lee, 2022. "Which networking strategy improves ICT startup companies' technical efficiency?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 2434-2443, September.
    14. Kumar, Nagesh & Saqib, Mohammed, 1996. "Firm size, opportunities for adaptation and in-house R & D activity in developing countries: the case of Indian manufacturing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 713-722, August.
    15. Petrakis, Panagiotis E. & Kostis, Pantelis C. & Valsamis, Dionysis G., 2015. "Innovation and competitiveness: Culture as a long-term strategic instrument during the European Great Recession," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1436-1438.
    16. Cappetta, Rossella & Cillo, Paola & Ponti, Anna, 2006. "Convergent designs in fine fashion: An evolutionary model for stylistic innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1273-1290, November.
    17. Misbah Haque & Imran Ali, 2016. "Uncertain Environment and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Organizational Innovation," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(9), pages 124-124, September.
    18. S. Luckraz, 2008. "Process Spillovers and Growth," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 315-335, November.
    19. Valérie Revest & Alessandro Sapio, 2012. "Financing technology-based small firms in Europe: what do we know?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 179-205, July.
    20. Gopinath Munisamy & Pick Daniel & Li Yonghai, 2003. "Concentration and Innovation in the U.S. Food Industries," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, August.

    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:kob:dpaper:204. 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: Office of Promoting Research Collaboration, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rikobjp.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.