IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v41y2020i13p2372-2399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Natalya Vinokurova
  • Rahul Kapoor

Abstract

Research Summary How can inventors in large firms navigate their organizations' innovation processes to commercialize breakthrough inventions? Using historical case studies of three breakthrough inventions at Xerox—office workstations, personal computers, and laser printers, we illustrate how inventors navigated multiple evaluation criteria across different organizational units to attract resources toward inventions. These criteria stemmed from Xerox's first successful breakthrough invention, the 914 copier and the specific objectives of the organizational units. We highlight two approaches deployed by Xerox inventors—searching across the organization for more favorable evaluation criteria and shaping the evaluation criteria to help attract resources. While searching leveraged the heterogeneity of evaluation criteria across the different organizational units, shaping required the presence of evaluative uncertainty with respect to the appropriate criteria for evaluating breakthrough inventions. Managerial Summary The challenges of commercializing breakthrough inventions in large firms have been studied extensively through a lens of managerial decision‐making and resource allocation. This perspective has characterized the innovation process in large firms as one in which inventors confine themselves to idea generation, leaving idea commercialization to other actors, subject to organizational inertia. We develop a complementary perspective of the innovation process in which inventors may navigate organizational inertia by going beyond idea generation to attracting resources toward commercializing their breakthrough inventions. By offering a novel account of how inventors at Xerox navigated multiple evaluation criteria to commercialize their inventions, the study sheds light on an important yet overlooked aspect of the innovation process in large firms that can facilitate the commercialization of breakthrough inventions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:41:y:2020:i:13:p:2372-2399
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.3209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.3209?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. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Rotemberg, Julio J & Saloner, Garth, 1994. "Benefits of Narrow Business Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1330-1349, December.
    4. Natalya Vinokurova, 2019. "Reshaping demand landscapes: How firms change customer preferences to better fit their products," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(13), pages 2107-2137, December.
    5. Kristof Coussement & Sebastian Fourné & Phillip H Kim & Reddi Kotha, 2019. "Taking Leaps of Faith: Evaluation Criteria and Resource Commitments for Early-stage Inventions," Post-Print hal-02114126, HAL.
    6. 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..
    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. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    9. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    10. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Clark, Kim B., 1994. "Capital-Budgeting Systems and Capabilities Investments in U.S. Companies after the Second World War," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 73-109, April.
    11. Christensen, Clayton M., 1993. "The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 531-588, January.
    12. Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Jesper B. Sørensen & Magali A. Fassiotto, 2011. "Organizations as Fonts of Entrepreneurship," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1322-1331, October.
    15. Rajshree Agarwal & Alfonso Gambardella & Daniel M. Olson, 2016. "Employee Mobility and Entrepreneurship A Virtual Special Issue [1]," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(13), pages 11-21, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Giovanni Gavetti & Constance E. Helfat & Luigi Marengo, 2017. "Searching, Shaping, and the Quest for Superior Performance," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 194-209, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Deborah Dougherty & Trudy Heller, 1994. "The Illegitimacy of Successful Product Innovation in Established Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 200-218, May.
    20. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    21. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    22. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    23. Gino Cattani & Roger L. M. Dunbar & Zur Shapira, 2017. "How Commitment to Craftsmanship Leads to Unique Value: Steinway & Sons’ Differentiation Strategy," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 13-38, March.
    24. Parhankangas, Annaleena & Ehrlich, Michael, 2014. "How entrepreneurs seduce business angels: An impression management approach," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 543-564.
    25. 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.
    26. Kim, Phillip H. & Kotha, Reddi & Fourné, Sebastian P.L. & Coussement, Kristof, 2019. "Taking leaps of faith: Evaluation criteria and resource commitments for early-stage inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1429-1444.
    27. Alva Taylor & Constance E. Helfat, 2009. "Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, and Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 718-739, August.
    28. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    29. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    30. Rangapriya (Priya) Kannan‐Narasimhan & Barbara S. Lawrence, 2018. "How innovators reframe resources in the strategy‐making process to gain innovation adoption," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 720-758, March.
    31. Constance E. Helfat, 1997. "Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of r&d," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 339-360, May.
    32. Michael H. Rothkopf, 1993. "20/30 Hindsight: Forecasting the Impact of Nonimpact Printers—An Update," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 93-96, October.
    33. William Ocasio, 1997. "Towards An Attention‐Based View Of The Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 187-206, July.
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. John Joseph & Alex J. Wilson, 2018. "The growth of the firm: An attention‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1779-1800, June.
    38. Andrew B. Hargadon & Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 484-500, August.
    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. Miehé, Lucas & Palmié, Maximilian & Oghazi, Pejvak, 2023. "Connection successfully established: How complementors use connectivity technologies to join existing ecosystems – Four archetype strategies from the mobility sector," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. Anne-Sophie Fernandez & Paul Chiambaretto & Mathieu Chauvet & Juliane Engsig, 2021. "Why do MNEs both make and coopete for innovation?," Post-Print hal-03514740, HAL.
    3. Weinzimmer, Laurence & Esken, Candace A. & Michel, Eric J. & McDowell, William C. & Mahto, Raj V., 2023. "The differential impact of strategic aggressiveness on firm performance: The role of firm size," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Natalia Wagner, 2023. "Inventive Activity for Climate Change Mitigation: An Insight into the Maritime Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Gwendolyn Lee & Janarthanan Nythruva, 2022. "A Mendelian perspective on strategic management: path-dependence and artificial selection in a search for sustainable energy," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(3), pages 95-105, September.
    6. Robin Mamrak, 2023. "Antitrust and (Foreign) Innovation: Evidence from the Xerox Case," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 396, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. Cillo, Paola & Priem, Richard L. & Verona, Gianmario & Zanella, Paola, 2021. "Consumer-CEO interaction as catalyst for business model innovation in established firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 241-253.
    8. Fernandez, Anne-Sophie & Chiambaretto, Paul & Chauvet, Mathieu & Engsig, Juliane, 2021. "Why do MNEs both make and coopete for innovation?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    9. Vivek Tandon & Puay Khoon Toh, 2022. "Who deviates? Technological opportunities, career concern, and inventor's distant search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 724-757, April.
    10. Arora, Ashish & Cohen, Wesley & Lee, Honggi & Sebastian, Divya, 2023. "Invention value, inventive capability and the large firm advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    11. Makridis, Christos A. & Han, Joo Hun, 2021. "Future of work and employee empowerment and satisfaction: Evidence from a decade of technological change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Saerom Lee & Felipe A. Csaszar, 2020. "Cognitive and Structural Antecedents of Innovation: A Large-Sample Study," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 71-97, June.
    4. Mary J. Benner, 2010. "Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 42-62, February.
    5. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    6. Xiao, Fenglong & Shen, Yinjie, 2024. "Wolves at the door to the unknown: Innovation search and hedge fund activism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Varshney, Mayank, 2023. "Learning-by-hiring: How do rival firms learn from focal firm's hiring," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    10. Rahul Kapoor & Daniel Wilde, 2023. "Peering into a crystal ball: Forecasting behavior and industry foresight," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 704-736, March.
    11. Tang Wang & Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2020. "Capability interactions and adaptation to demand‐side change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1595-1627, September.
    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. 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.
    14. Dongil D. Keum, 2020. "Cog in the wheel: Resource release and the scope of interdependencies in corporate adjustment activities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 175-197, February.
    15. Sarkar, Soumodip & Osiyevskyy, Oleksiy & Clegg, Stewart R., 2018. "Incumbent capability enhancement in response to radical innovations," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 353-365.
    16. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    17. Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Sascha G. & Walter, Achim, 2010. "Contingency Factors and the Technology-Performance-Relationship in Start-ups," EconStor Preprints 37082, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Klos, Christoph & Spieth, Patrick, 2021. "READY, STEADY, DIGITAL?! How foresight activities do (NOT) affect individual technological frames for managerial SENSEMAKING," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    19. Masoud Gholampour Rad, 2017. "Disruptive innovation in media industry ecosystem and need for improving managerial cognitive capabilities in polymediation era," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1352183-135, January.
    20. Frank Nagle & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant knowledge integration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 55-85, January.

    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:stratm:v:41:y:2020:i:13:p:2372-2399. 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    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.