IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v125y2017icp166-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The degree of technological innovation: A demand heterogeneity perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, I. Kim
  • Seidle, Russell

Abstract

A perennial question posed by work in the technology management domain is whether a firm should deploy a technology more advanced than its current one. While past research has provided us with a better understanding of the firm-level decision to invest in new technology, the degree of this advancement (relative to the technology inherent in existing company product offerings) remains a nascent phenomenon that the field has not fully addressed. Data on global flat panel display makers from 1995 through 2011 are analyzed to understand how competitive standing in distinct intra-industry technology segments affects a firm's degree of technological innovation. We adopt a demand heterogeneity perspective to develop hypotheses relating the degree to which more advanced technology is deployed to a firm's competitive share of a particular segment. Our findings demonstrate how segment share (a more refined unit of analysis than overall market share) encourages a firm to advance its technology and how intra-segment competition moderates this direct effect. The current study provides evidence that demand heterogeneity is operative not only at different stages of the technology life cycle, but also in different segments populated by users with divergent technological requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, I. Kim & Seidle, Russell, 2017. "The degree of technological innovation: A demand heterogeneity perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 166-177.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:125:y:2017:i:c:p:166-177
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516302773
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.019?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. Huisman, Kuno J. M. & Kort, Peter M., 2004. "Strategic technology adoption taking into account future technological improvements: A real options approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 705-728, December.
    2. William Boulding & Markus Christen, 2008. "Disentangling Pioneering Cost Advantages and Disadvantages," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 699-716, 07-08.
    3. Daniel A. Levinthal & Devavrat Purohit, 1989. "Durable Goods and Product Obsolescence," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 35-56.
    4. Dutta, Prajit K & Lach, Saul & Rustichini, Aldo, 1995. "Better Late Than Early: Vertical Differentiation in the Adoption of a New Technology," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 563-589, Winter.
    5. Ramon Caminal & Xavier Vives, 1996. "Why Market Shares Matter: An Information-Based Theory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(2), pages 221-239, Summer.
    6. Lee, Jeongsik & Kim, Byung-Cheol & Lim, Young-Mo, 2011. "Dynamic competition in technological investments: An empirical examination of the LCD panel industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 718-728.
    7. Tsai, Bi-Huei, 2013. "Predicting the diffusion of LCD TVs by incorporating price in the extended Gompertz model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 106-131.
    8. Hagedoorn, John, 1996. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Revisited," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(3), pages 883-896.
    9. I. Kim Wang & Hsiao‐shan Yang & Douglas J. Miller, 2015. "Collaboration in the Shadow of the Technology Frontier: Evidence from the Flat Panel Display Industry," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 456-469, October.
    10. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    11. David Roodman, 2009. "How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(1), pages 86-136, March.
    12. Geroski, P. A., 2000. "Models of technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 603-625, April.
    13. Raj Echambadi & James D. Hess, 2007. "Mean-Centering Does Not Alleviate Collinearity Problems in Moderated Multiple Regression Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 438-445, 05-06.
    14. John M. De Figueiredo & David J. Teece, 2008. "Mitigating Procurement Hazards in the Context of Innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 16, pages 343-365, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Klepper, Steven, 1997. "Industry Life Cycles," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 145-181.
    16. Khanna, Tarun, 1995. "Racing behavior technological evolution in the high-end computer industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 933-958, November.
    17. Stolpe, Michael, 2002. "Determinants of knowledge diffusion as evidenced in patent data: the case of liquid crystal display technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1181-1198, September.
    18. Nicholas, Tom, 2003. "Why Schumpeter was Right: Innovation, Market Power, and Creative Destruction in 1920s America," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(4), pages 1023-1058, December.
    19. Zemsky, Peter & Adner, Ron, 2003. "Disruptive Technologies and the Emergence of Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 3994, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Scherer, F. M., 2015. "First Mover Advantages and Optimal Patent Protection," Working Paper Series rwp14-053, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    21. Rahul Kapoor & Ron Adner, 2012. "What Firms Make vs. What They Know: How Firms' Production and Knowledge Boundaries Affect Competitive Advantage in the Face of Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1227-1248, October.
    22. Clayton M. Christensen & Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1998. "Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages 207-220, December.
    23. Karel Cool & Ingemar Dierickx, 1993. "Abstract," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 47-59, January.
    24. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    25. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    26. Hu, Mei-Chih, 2012. "Technological innovation capabilities in the thin film transistor-liquid crystal display industries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 541-555.
    27. Wu, Liang-Chuan & Li, Shu-Hsing & Ong, Chorng-Shyong & Pan, Chungteh, 2012. "Options in technology investment games: The real world TFT-LCD industry case," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(7), pages 1241-1253.
    28. Alice H. Amsden & Wan-wen Chu, 2003. "Beyond Late Development: Taiwan's Upgrading Policies," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011980, April.
    29. F. Scherer, 2015. "Erratum to: First mover advantages and optimal patent protection," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 742-742, August.
    30. F. Scherer, 2015. "First mover advantages and optimal patent protection," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 559-580, August.
    31. Henderson, Rebecca, 1995. "Of life cycles real and imaginary: The unexpectedly long old age of optical lithography," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 631-643, July.
    32. Michael J. Leiblein & Tammy L. Madsen, 2009. "Unbundling competitive heterogeneity: incentive structures and capability influences on technological innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 711-735, July.
    33. Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph, 2016. "Competing technologies, competing forces: The rise and fall of the floppy disk, 1971–2010," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 121-129.
    34. Josh Lerner, 1997. "An Empirical Exploration of a Technology Race," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(2), pages 228-247, Summer.
    35. Aron, Debra J & Lazear, Edward P, 1990. "The Introduction of New Products," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 421-426, May.
    36. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    37. Karel Cool & Dan Schendel, 1988. "Performance differences among strategic group members," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 207-223, May.
    38. Jennifer W. Spencer, 2003. "Firms' knowledge‐sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 217-233, March.
    39. Ron Adner & Daniel Snow, 2010. "Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1655-1675, October.
    40. Greg Linden & Jeffrey Hart & Stefanie Ann Lenway & Thomas Murtha, 1998. "Flying Geese as Moving Targets: Are Korea and Taiwan Catching up with Japan in Advanced Displays?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 11-34.
    41. 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.
    42. Marc Gruber & Ian C. MacMillan & James D. Thompson, 2008. "Look Before You Leap: Market Opportunity Identification in Emerging Technology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1652-1665, September.
    43. Majumdar, Sumit K. & Venkataraman, S., 1993. "New technology adoption in US telecommunications: The role of competitive pressures and firm-level inducements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(5-6), pages 521-536, November.
    44. Park, Douglas Y & Podolny, Joel M, 2000. "The Competitive Dynamics of Status and Niche Width: US Investment Banking, 1920-1949," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(3), pages 377-414, September.
    45. Tang, Jianmin, 2006. "Competition and innovation behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 68-82, February.
    46. Glenn Hoetker, 2005. "How much you know versus how well I know you: selecting a supplier for a technically innovative component," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 75-96, January.
    47. Guangliang Ye & Richard L. Priem & Abdullah A. Alshwer, 2012. "Achieving Demand-Side Synergy from Strategic Diversification: How Combining Mundane Assets Can Leverage Consumer Utilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 207-224, February.
    48. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    49. Ricardo Cabral & Michael J. Leiblein, 2001. "Adoption of a Process Innovation with Learning‐by‐Doing: Evidence from the Semiconductor Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 269-280, September.
    50. repec:bla:jindec:v:49:y:2001:i:3:p:269-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Yang, Yang & Jiang, Yan, 2023. "Does suppliers’ slack influence the relationship between buyers’ environmental orientation and green innovation?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    2. Chenxi Zhang & Shanyue Jin, 2022. "How Does an Environmental Information Disclosure of a Buyer’s Enterprise Affect Green Technological Innovations of Sellers’ Enterprise?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-25, November.
    3. Magistretti, Stefano & Dell'Era, Claudio & Verganti, Roberto, 2020. "Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Wang, I. Kim & Seidle, Russell, 2020. "Ambition in innovation: Vicarious learning in the nascent electric scooter market in Taiwan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    5. Shiying Hou & Liangrong Song, 2021. "Market Integration and Regional Green Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from China’s Province-Level Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Le, Duc Nha & Le Tuan, Loc & Dang Tuan, Minh Nguyen, 2019. "Smart-building management system: An Internet-of-Things (IoT) application business model in Vietnam," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 22-35.
    7. Cailou Jiang & Ying Zhang & Qun Zhao & Chong Wu, 2020. "The Impact of Purchase Subsidy on Enterprises’ R&D Efforts: Evidence from China’s New Energy Vehicle Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-10, February.

    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. Kim Wang, 2017. "Technology Deployment By Late Movers," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(04), pages 1-25, May.
    2. Wang, I. Kim & Qian, Lihong & Lehrer, Mark, 2017. "From technology race to technology marathon: A behavioral explanation of technology advancement," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 187-197.
    3. 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.
    4. Uzunca, Bilgehan & Sharapov, Dmitry & Tee, Richard, 2022. "Governance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    5. Thomas Grebel, 2011. "Innovation and Health," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14375.
    6. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal & Sonali K. Shah, 2020. "Building Industries by Building Knowledge: Uncertainty Reduction over Industry Milestones," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 218-244, September.
    7. Rietveld, G.J. & Eggers, J.P., 2016. "Demand Heterogeneity and the Adoption of Platform Complements," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2016-003-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. Pierre Barbaroux & Victor Santos Paulino, 2022. "Why do motives matter? A demand-based view of the dynamics of a complex products and systems (CoPS) industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1175-1204, September.
    9. Joost Rietveld & J. P. Eggers, 2018. "Demand Heterogeneity in Platform Markets: Implications for Complementors," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 304-322, April.
    10. Juliao-Rossi, Jorge & Forero-Pineda, Clemente & Losada-Otalora, Mauricio & Peña-García, Nathalie, 2020. "Trajectories of innovation: A new approach to studying innovation performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 322-333.
    11. Malerba, Franco, 2007. "Innovation and the dynamics and evolution of industries: Progress and challenges," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 675-699, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Yang Pan & Peng Huang & Anandasivam Gopal, 2019. "Storm Clouds on the Horizon? New Entry Threats and R&D Investments in the U.S. IT Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 540-562, June.
    14. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    15. Tavassoli, Sam, 2015. "Innovation determinants over industry life cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 18-32.
    16. repec:use:tkiwps:1818 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Rajshree Agarwal & Barry L. Bayus, 2002. "The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1024-1041, August.
    18. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca & Boronat-Moll, Carles, 2012. "Process innovation objectives and management complementarities: patterns, drivers, co-adoption and performance effects," MERIT Working Papers 2012-051, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Baxter, David & Trott, Paul & Ellwood, Paul, 2023. "Reconceptualising innovation failure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    20. Wang, Pengfei, 2019. "Price space and product demography: Evidence from the workstation industry, 1980–1996," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    21. Constance E. Helfat & Miguel A. Campo-Rembado, 2016. "Integrative Capabilities, Vertical Integration, and Innovation Over Successive Technology Lifecycles," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 249-264, April.

    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:125:y:2017:i:c:p:166-177. 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.