IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i3p508-529.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological paradigms and complex technical systems--The case of Smart Homes

Author

Listed:
  • Peine, Alexander

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of technological paradigms in the context of complex technical systems. It presents a review of Thomas Kuhn's notion of scientific paradigms and their early adoption as technological paradigms. This review reveals that an important feature of scientific paradigms has not been fully utilized in the analysis of technological change--the distinction between a paradigm as an exemplar and as a shared group commitment. Using the case of Smart Homes, I advocate that this distinction is critical in understanding the dynamics of open technical systems where multiple industries jointly shape innovation. I discuss the implications with regard to both the concept of technological paradigms and innovation of complex technical systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Peine, Alexander, 2008. "Technological paradigms and complex technical systems--The case of Smart Homes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 508-529, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:3:p:508-529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(07)00244-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sahal, Devendra, 1985. "Technological guideposts and innovation avenues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 61-82, April.
    2. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Prencipe, Andrea & Tell, Fredrik, 2001. "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1373-1394, December.
    5. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    6. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Utterback, James M. & Suarez, Fernando F., 1993. "Innovation, competition, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1993. "In search of useful theory of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 108-108, April.
    9. Parayil, Govindan, 2003. "Mapping technological trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from modernization to globalization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 971-990, June.
    10. Nicholas Dew, 2006. "Incommensurate technological paradigms? Quarreling in the RFID industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(5), pages 785-810, October.
    11. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart, 2006. "Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, February.
    12. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Opportunities, Incentives and the Collective Patterns of Technological Change," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 4, pages 145-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Ufuah, Allan N & Utterback, James M, 1997. "Responding to Structural Industry Changes: A Technological Evolution Perspective," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 183-202.
    14. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    15. Stefano Brusoni & Andrea Prencipe, 2006. "Making Design Rules: A Multidomain Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 179-189, April.
    16. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    17. Clark, Kim B., 1985. "The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 235-251, October.
    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. Peine, Alexander & Rollwagen, Ingo & Neven, Louis, 2014. "The rise of the “innosumer”—Rethinking older technology users," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 199-214.
    2. Ehrenhard, Michel & Kijl, Bjorn & Nieuwenhuis, Lambert, 2014. "Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-315.
    3. Gilberto SERAVALLI, 2011. "Conflict, Contract, Leadership and Innovation: An Interdisciplinary View," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 1(6), pages 1-48, October.
    4. Lee, Chang-Yang, 2009. "Competition favors the prepared firm: Firms' R&D responses to competitive market pressure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 861-870, June.
    5. Peine & Ingo Rollwagen & Louis Neven, 2012. "Exploring new patterns of user involvement – baby boomers and the future of consumption," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 12-09, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Sep 2012.
    6. Suenaga, Keiichiro, 2019. "The emergence of technological paradigms: The case of heat engines," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-141.
    7. Borner, Kathrin & Berends, Hans & Deken, Fleur & Feldberg, Frans, 2023. "Another pathway to complementarity: How users and intermediaries identify and create new combinations in innovation ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    8. Hong, Areum & Nam, Changi & Kim, Seongcheol, 2020. "What will be the possible barriers to consumers’ adoption of smart home services?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2).
    9. Sam Solaimani & Harry Bouwman & Timo Itälä, 2015. "Networked enterprise business model alignment: A case study on smart living," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 871-887, August.
    10. Mirimoghadam, Mojdeh & Ghazinoory, Sepehr, 2017. "An institutional analysis of technological learning in Iran's oil and gas industry: Case study of south Pars gas field development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 262-274.
    11. V. L. Tambovtsev, 2019. "Institutions-technologies interaction and economic growth," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 20(2), pages 55-70, May.
    12. Andrey V. Misyura, 2019. "High-tech industrial company: A normative and a positive approach to the definition," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 88-107, September.
    13. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    14. Berg, S. & Wustmans, M. & Bröring, S., 2019. "Identifying first signals of emerging dominance in a technological innovation system: A novel approach based on patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 706-722.
    15. Alexander Peine, 2008. "Challenging incommensurability – What we can learn from Ludwik Fleck for the analysis of complex technical systems," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-21, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Oct 2008.
    16. Muscio, Alessandro & Nardone, Gianluca & Stasi, Antonio, 2012. "Perceived Technological Regimes: An Empirical Analysis of the Apulian Wine Industry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144969, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    17. Hong, Jihoon & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Daeho, 2016. "Strategic management of next-generation connected life: Focusing on smart key and car–home connectivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 11-20.
    18. Huang, Hung-Chun & Su, Hsin-Ning, 2019. "The innovative fulcrums of technological interdisciplinarity: An analysis of technology fields in patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 84, pages 59-70.
    19. Rice, John & Martin, Nigel, 2020. "Smart infrastructure technologies: Crowdsourcing future development and benefits for Australian communities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    20. Alina R. Kadyrova, 2015. "Approaches to Statistical Measurement of Advanced Technologies: A Comparative Study," HSE Working papers WP BRP 38/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    21. Jinkuk Kim & Jungsub Yoon & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2021. "Dominant design and evolution of technological trajectories: The case of tank technology, 1915–1998," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 661-676, April.
    22. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    23. Lechowski, Grzegorz & Krzywdzinski, Martin, 2022. "Emerging positions of German firms in the industrial internet of things: A global technological ecosystem perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 22(4), pages 666-683.

    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. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    2. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    3. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    4. Marie-Claude BELIS-BERGOUIGNAN, 2009. "An evolutionist analysis of sectoral dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. Alexander Peine, 2008. "Challenging incommensurability – What we can learn from Ludwik Fleck for the analysis of complex technical systems," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-21, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Oct 2008.
    6. 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.
    7. Huenteler, Joern & Ossenbrink, Jan & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "How a product’s design hierarchy shapes the evolution of technological knowledge—Evidence from patent-citation networks in wind power," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1195-1217.
    8. Carolina Castaldi & Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2009. "‘Chariots of fire’: the evolution of tank technology, 1915–1945," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 545-566, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    11. Papachristos, George & Papadonikolaki, Eleni & Morgan, Bethan, 2024. "Projects as a speciation and aggregation mechanism in transitions: Bridging project management and transitions research in the digitalization of UK architecture, engineering, and construction industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Xiaodan Yu, 2018. "Capabilities Accumulation and Development: What History Tells the Theory," LEM Papers Series 2018/27, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Ehrenfeld, Wilfried, 2012. "Towards a Theory of Climate Innovation - A Model Framework for Analyzing Drivers and Determinants," IWH Discussion Papers 1/2012, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    14. Hobday, Mike, 1998. "Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 689-710, February.
    15. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    16. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    17. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    18. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    19. Funk, Jeffery, 2009. "Components, systems and discontinuities: The case of magnetic recording and playback equipment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1192-1202, September.
    20. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.

    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:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:3:p:508-529. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.