IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v102y2016icp160-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The non-disruptive emergence of an ecosystem for 3D Printing — Insights from the hearing aid industry's transition 1989–2008

Author

Listed:
  • Sandström, Christian G.

Abstract

3D Printing technologies have received extensive attention in recent years, but empirical investigations of how this technology is used for manufacturing are still sparse. More knowledge is also needed regarding how 3D Printing affects the competitive dynamics between firms. This article explores how 3D Printing has been adopted for manufacturing and discusses under what conditions it might influence competition in different industries. Drawing upon data from the global hearing aid industry's adoption of 3D Printing during the period 1989–2008, this paper describes some of the benefits of using the technology, while also pointing out challenges firms encounter in making this transition. The study shows that early adopters were exposed to more technological uncertainty related to choosing printers. All firms encountered operational challenges as 3D Printing required new skill sets, but the technology had little impact on the competitive dynamics of this industry. Drawing upon literature on technological discontinuities, platforms and ecosystems, the paper illustrates and explains why the technology was not disruptive and also discusses how these findings apply to other industries where 3D Printing is currently gaining momentum.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandström, Christian G., 2016. "The non-disruptive emergence of an ecosystem for 3D Printing — Insights from the hearing aid industry's transition 1989–2008," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 160-168.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:102:y:2016:i:c:p:160-168
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515002681
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.09.006?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
    ---><---

    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. Peter Lotz, 1998. "The Pardox Of High R&D And Industry Stability: Technology And Structural Dynamics In The Global Hearing Instrument Industry," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 113-137.
    2. Berman, Barry, 2012. "3-D printing: The new industrial revolution," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 155-162.
    3. Allan Afuah, 2000. "How much do your co‐opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 397-404, March.
    4. Afuah, Allan N. & Bahram, Nik, 1995. "The hypercube of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 51-76, January.
    5. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    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. Kristina McElheran, 2015. "Do Market Leaders Lead in Business Process Innovation? The Case(s) of E-business Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1197-1216, June.
    2. Afuah, Allan, 2004. "Does a focal firm's technology entry timing depend on the impact of the technology on co-opetitors?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1231-1246, October.
    3. Sandström, Christian, 2015. "Adopting 3D Printing for manufacturing - The case of the hearing aid industry," Ratio Working Papers 262, The Ratio Institute.
    4. Liang Chen & Pengxiang Zhang & Sali Li & Scott F. Turner, 2022. "Growing pains: The effect of generational product innovation on mobile games performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 792-821, April.
    5. Pinar Ozcan & Douglas Hannah, 2020. "Social Origins of Great Strategies Advertising Suppliers to Realize Disruptive Social Media Technology," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 193-217, September.
    6. Hubert Gatignon & Michael L. Tushman & Wendy Smith & Philip Anderson, 2002. "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1103-1122, September.
    7. Kaufman, Allen & Tucci, Christopher L. & Brumer, Mark, 2003. "Can creative destruction be destroyed? Military IR&D and destruction along the value-added chain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1537-1554, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Kwak, Kiho & Kim, Wonjoon & Park, Kyungbae, 2018. "Complementary multiplatforms in the growing innovation ecosystem: Evidence from 3D printing technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 192-207.
    10. Lorenzo Ciapetti, 2011. "Technological Change, Knowledge Integration and Adaptive Processes: The Mechatronic Evolution of the Reggio Emilia District," Chapters, in: Paul L. Robertson & David Jacobson (ed.), Knowledge Transfer and Technology Diffusion, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Dwibedy, Punyashlok, 2022. "Informal competition and product innovation decisions of new ventures and incumbents across developing and transitioning countries," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    12. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua Krieger & Abhishek Nagaraj, 2024. "Old Moats for New Models: Openness, Control, and Competition in Generative AI," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 4, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster & Hielke Buddelmeyer, 2008. "Innovation, Technological Conditions and New Firm Survival," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(267), pages 434-448, December.
    14. Ayman Altuwaim & Abdulelah AlTasan & Abdulmohsen Almohsen, 2023. "Success Criteria for Applying Construction Technologies in Residential Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    15. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    16. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jong-Chan Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2015. "Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 841-871, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Sher, Mikhail M. & Kim, Seung-Lae & Banerjee, Avijit & Paz, Michael T., 2018. "A supply chain coordination mechanism for common items subject to failure in the electronics, defense, and medical industries," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 164-173.
    19. Nadia Loukil & Ouidad Yousfi, 2022. "Do CEO’s traits matter in innovation outcomes?," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 375-403, September.
    20. 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.

    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:tefoso:v:102:y:2016:i:c:p:160-168. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.