IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technology Frames: The Art of Perspective and Interpretation in Strategy

Author

Abstract

In this paper, I bring together the literatures of the economics of innovation, corporate strategy and managerial and organizational cognition to explore how and why companies come to different conclusions and strategies for technology when presented with essentially very similar situations and information. Building on the work of Orlikowski and Gash (1994) on technological frames, I seek to explore the role of the technology frame of key senior managers in defining corporate strategy with respect to technology. To provide an empirical basis for the study, I take the case of the 6 leading US vertically integrated oil companies involved in the exploration and production of petroleum during the period 1984 to 1997. The analysis considers two key salients for the technology frame which are operationalised for the six companies based on their R&D expenditures, patents, publications and contrasted with their operational performance measures. These salients reflect respectively adaptational mapping (whereby signals in the environment prompt adaptation) and formational mapping (whereby experience and path-dependency influence interpretation) within the technology frame. The findings indicate support for the proposed approach to proxying technology frames on the two key points of salience for the upstream petroleum industry, and the paper concludes with a short discussion of future lines of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia Acha, 2004. "Technology Frames: The Art of Perspective and Interpretation in Strategy," SPRU Working Paper Series 109, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. C. Marlene Fiol & Anne Sigismund Huff, 1992. "Maps For Managers: Where Are We? Where Do We Go From Here?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 267-285, May.
    3. Sarah Kaplan & Fiona Murray & Rebecca Henderson, 2003. "Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 203-233, April.
    4. S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    5. Finch, John H. & Macmillan, Fiona E. & Simpson, Graeme S., 2002. "On the diffusion of probabilistic investment appraisal and decision-making procedures in the UK's upstream oil and gas industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 969-988, August.
    6. Marjorie A. Lyles & Charles R. Schwenk, 1992. "Top Management, Strategy And Organizational Knowledge Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 155-174, March.
    7. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    8. Adelaide Wilcox King & Carl P. Zeithaml, 2001. "Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 75-99, January.
    9. Edward H. Bowman & Constance E. Helfat, 2001. "Does corporate strategy matter?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 1-23, January.
    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. Karin Olesen, 2014. "Technological Frames," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    2. Michael G. Jacobides, 2007. "The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 455-477, June.
    3. V. Acha & S. Brusoni, 2008. "The Changing Governance Of Knowledge In Avionics," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1-2), pages 43-57.

    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. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Sheen S. Levine & Mark Bernard & Rosemarie Nagel, 2018. "Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behaviour," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 527-527, February.
    4. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2015. "Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 831-850, June.
    5. Pettus, Michael L. & Kor, Yasemin Y. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2007. "A Theory of Change in Turbulent Environments: The Sequencing of Dynamic Capabilities Following Industry Deregulation," Working Papers 07-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    6. Iman Seoudi & Matthias Huehn & Bo Carlsson, 2008. "Penrose Revisited: A Re-Appraisal of the Resource Perspective," Working Papers 14, The German University in Cairo, Faculty of Management Technology.
    7. Maria Rosa De Giacomo & Raimund Bleischwitz, 2020. "Business models for environmental sustainability: Contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3352-3369, December.
    8. Koichi Nakagawa & Yoichi Matsumoto, 2015. "Issue selection flexibility and strategic rigidity: Lessons from Sharp's crisis," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-24, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    9. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M. & Vanhaverbeke, W.P.M., 2004. "The evolution of alliance capabilities," Working Papers 04.20, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    10. Lisa Balzarin & Francesco Zirpoli, 2022. "Facing technological change: addressing competence shift in a routines and identity perspective," Working Papers 03, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    11. Budhaditya Gupta & Tarun Khanna, 2019. "A Recombination-Based Internationalization Model: Evidence from Narayana Health’s Journey from India to the Cayman Islands," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 405-425, March.
    12. Florian Ellsaesser & Eric W. K. Tsang & Jochen Runde, 2014. "Models of causal inference: Imperfect but applicable is better than perfect but inapplicable," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(10), pages 1541-1551, October.
    13. Foss, Nicolai J. & Pedersen, Torben, 2001. "The MNC as a Knowledge Structure: The Roles of Knowledge Sources and Organizational Instruments for Knowledge Creation and Transfer," Working Papers 12-2001, Copenhagen Business School, Department of International Economics and Management.
    14. Caldart, Adrian & Ricart, Joan E., 2003. "Corporate strategy revisited: A view from complexity theory," IESE Research Papers D/528, IESE Business School.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Colombo, Massimo G. & Rabbiosi, Larissa, 2014. "Technological similarity, post-acquisition R&D reorganization, and innovation performance in horizontal acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1039-1054.
    18. Rebecca Henderson, 2021. "Innovation in the 21st Century: Architectural Change, Purpose, and the Challenges of Our Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5479-5488, September.
    19. M. Lourdes Sosa, 2014. "Corporate Structure, Indirect Bankruptcy Costs, and the Advantage of De Novo Firms: The Case of Gene Therapy Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 850-867, June.
    20. Nicholas S. Argyres & Alfredo De Massis & Nicolai J. Foss & Federico Frattini & Geoffrey Jones & Brian S. Silverman, 2020. "History‐informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 343-368, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology frames; upstream petroleum; technology strategy; adaptational mapping; formational mapping;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:109. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.