IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v55y2018i7p1166-1202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpacking the Disruption Process: New Technology, Business Models, and Incumbent Adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Alessio Cozzolino
  • Gianmario Verona
  • Frank T. Rothaermel

Abstract

Despite the growing importance of digital transformation and the notion of disruptive innovation, strategy literature still lacks a more complete picture of how incumbent organizations adapt their business models after disruptions. This research sheds light on this important process by analyzing a major Italian news media publisher reacting to the advent of the internet and the emergence of new business models by entrants into the industry (1995–2017). We specifically examine: (1) the drivers and impeding factors of business model adaptation; (2) how incumbents change strategies to cope with different components of the disruption process; and (3) how a closed business model can be renewed to develop an open, platform‐based business model to seize external opportunities, incur lower costs, and fend off disruptors. This study contributes to the burgeoning literature on disruption, business models, and platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessio Cozzolino & Gianmario Verona & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2018. "Unpacking the Disruption Process: New Technology, Business Models, and Incumbent Adaptation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1166-1202, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:55:y:2018:i:7:p:1166-1202
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.12352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12352
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.12352?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. Sydney Finkelstein & Jerayr Haleblian, 2002. "Understanding Acquisition Performance: The Role of Transfer Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 36-47, February.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Robert M. Grant & Charles Baden‐Fuller, 2004. "A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 61-84, January.
    5. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    6. Andrew H. Van de Ven & Marshall Scott Poole, 1990. "Methods for Studying Innovation Development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 313-335, August.
    7. 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..
    8. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    9. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    10. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1993. "Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 351-369, July.
    13. George P. Huber & Danial J. Power, 1985. "Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 171-180, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Christoph Zott & Raphael Amit, 2007. "Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 181-199, April.
    16. Geoffrey G. Parker & Marshall W. Van Alstyne, 2005. "Two-Sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(10), pages 1494-1504, October.
    17. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    18. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    21. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    22. 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.
    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. Robert Seamans & Feng Zhu, 2014. "Responses to Entry in Multi-Sided Markets: The Impact of Craigslist on Local Newspapers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(2), pages 476-493, 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. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    2. Van Dyck, Marc & Lüttgens, Dirk & Diener, Kathleen & Piller, Frank & Pollok, Patrick, 2024. "From product to platform: How incumbents' assumptions and choices shape their platform strategy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    3. 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.
    4. Yuan, Chun & Xue, Doudou & He, Xin, 2021. "A balancing strategy for ambidextrous learning, dynamic capabilities, and business model design, the opposite moderating effects of environmental dynamism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Hallberg, Niklas L. & Brattström, Anna, 2019. "Concealing or revealing? Alternative paths to profiting from innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-174.
    6. Jinhyo Joseph Yun & Xiaofei Zhao & KyungBae Park & Lei Shi, 2020. "Sustainability Condition of Open Innovation: Dynamic Growth of Alibaba from SME to Large Enterprise," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Oana Buliga & Christian W. Scheiner & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2016. "Business model innovation and organizational resilience: towards an integrated conceptual framework," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(6), pages 647-670, August.
    8. Alessio Cozzolino & Gianmario Verona, 2024. "Decision tree for adaptation after radical changes: linking dynamic capabilities, ambidexterity, and strategic alliances," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(3), pages 745-769, September.
    9. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    10. Jens Foerderer, 2020. "Interfirm Exchange and Innovation in Platform Ecosystems: Evidence from Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4772-4787, October.
    11. Yuliya Snihur & Christoph Zott & Raphael (Raffi) Amit, 2021. "Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 22-38, March.
    12. Joost Rietveld & J. P. Eggers, 2018. "Demand Heterogeneity in Platform Markets: Implications for Complementors," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 304-322, April.
    13. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    14. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    15. Elizabeth J. Altman & Frank Nagle & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Innovating Without Information Constraints: Organizations, Communities, and Innovation When Information Costs Approach Zero," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-043, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    16. Jeroen Struben & Brandon H. Lee & Christopher B. Bingham, 2020. "Collective Action Problems and Resource Allocation During Market Formation," Post-Print hal-02927584, HAL.
    17. Cinzia Battistella & Gianluca Murgia & Fabio Nonino, 2021. "Free-driven web-based business models," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 445-486, June.
    18. Joel West & Jason Dedrick, 2000. "Innovation and Control in Standards Architectures: The Rise and Fall of Japan's PC-98," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 197-216, June.
    19. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    20. Jens Foerderer & Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Armin Heinzl, 2018. "Does Platform Owner’s Entry Crowd Out Innovation? Evidence from Google Photos," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 444-460, June.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jomstd:v:55:y:2018:i:7:p:1166-1202. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    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.