IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v11y2000i3p304-319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Report: Disruptive Technologies—Explaining Entry in Next Generation Information Technology Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Barrie R. Nault

    (Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210)

  • Mark B. Vandenbosch

    (Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7)

Abstract

The most difficult challenge facing a market leader is maintaining its leading position. This is especially true in information technology and telecommunications industries, where multiple product generations and rapid technological evolution continually test the ability of the incumbent to stay ahead of potential entrants. In these industries, an incumbent often protects its position by launching prematurely to retain its leadership. Entry, however, happens relatively frequently. We identify conditions under which an entrant will launch a next generation product thereby preventing the incumbent from employing a protection strategy. We define a capabilities advantage as the ability to develop and launch a next generation product at a lower cost than a competitor, and a product with a greater market response is one with greater profit flows. Using these definitions, we find that an incumbent with a capabilities advantage in one next generation product can be overtaken by an entrant with a capabilities advantage in another next generation product only if the entrant's capabilities advantage is in a disruptive technology that yields a product with a greater market response. This can occur even though both next generation products are available to both firms. We also show that the competition may require the launching firm to lose money at the margin on the next generation product.

Suggested Citation

  • Barrie R. Nault & Mark B. Vandenbosch, 2000. "Research Report: Disruptive Technologies—Explaining Entry in Next Generation Information Technology Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 304-319, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:11:y:2000:i:3:p:304-319
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.11.3.304.12208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.3.304.12208
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.11.3.304.12208?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. A. Michael Spence, 1979. "Investment Strategy and Growth in a New Market," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
    2. Barrie R. Nault & Mark B. Vandenbosch, 1996. "Eating Your Own Lunch: Protection Through Preemption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 342-358, June.
    3. Dixit, Avinash, 1980. "The Role of Investment in Entry-Deterrence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(357), pages 95-106, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1504-1511, December.
    6. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    7. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405.
    8. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1987. "R&D Rivalry with Licensing or Imitation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 402-420, June.
    9. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    10. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    11. Kenneth L. Judd, 1985. "Credible Spatial Preemption," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 153-166, Summer.
    12. S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
    13. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1514-1514, December.
    14. Mark B. Vandenbosch & Charles B. Weinberg, 1995. "Product and Price Competition in a Two-Dimensional Vertical Differentiation Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 224-249.
    15. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1985. "Innovation and Industry Evolution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(1), pages 81-99.
    16. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1983. "Capital as a commitment: Strategic investment to deter mobility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 227-250, December.
    17. Pankaj Ghemawat, 1991. "Market Incumbency and Technological Inertia," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 161-171.
    18. B. Curtis Eaton & Richard G. Lipsey, 1980. "Exit Barriers are Entry Barriers: The Durability of Capital as a Barrier to Entry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 721-729, Autumn.
    19. A. Michael Spence, 1977. "Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 534-544, Autumn.
    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. Xu, Xiaobo & Zhang, Weiyong & Li, Ling, 2016. "The impact of technology type and life cycle on IT productivity variance: A contingency theoretical perspective," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1193-1204.
    2. Kim, Hyung Jin & Kim, Inchan & Lee, Hogeun, 2016. "Third-party mobile app developers’ continued participation in platform-centric ecosystems: An empirical investigation of two different mechanisms," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 44-59.

    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. Zeng Lian & Jie Zheng, 2021. "A Dynamic Model of Cournot Competition for an Oligopolistic Market," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Drew Fudenberg, 2015. "Tirole's Industrial Regulation and Organization Legacy in Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(3), pages 771-800, July.
    3. Fine, Charles H., 1989. "Developments in manufacturing technology and economic evaluation models," Working papers 3012-89., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Milliou, Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2011. "Timing of technology adoption and product market competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 513-523, September.
    5. Michael Waldman, 1983. "Limited Collusion and Entry Deterence," UCLA Economics Working Papers 306, UCLA Department of Economics.
    6. Huberts, N.F.D. & Dawid, H. & Huisman, K.J.M. & Kort, P.M., 2019. "Entry deterrence by timing rather than overinvestment in a strategic real options framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 165-185.
    7. Michael Waldman, 1987. "Noncooperative Entry Deterrence, Uncertainty, and the Free Rider Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(2), pages 301-310.
    8. Robin Boadway & Jean-François Tremblay, 2003. "Public Economics and Startup Entrepreneurs," CESifo Working Paper Series 877, CESifo.
    9. Xavier Martinez-Giralt & Barros Pedro Pita, 2005. "Bargaining and idle public sector capacity in health care," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8.
    10. Michael Waldman, 1987. "Underinvestment in Entry Deterrence: When and Why," UCLA Economics Working Papers 456, UCLA Department of Economics.
    11. Pedro Barros & Xavier Martinez-Giralt, 2005. "Negotiation Advantages of Professional Associations in Health Care," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 191-204, June.
    12. Rupayan Pal & Vinay Ramani, 2017. "Will a matchmaker invite her potential rival in?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 806-819, December.
    13. Miettinen, Topi & Perea, Andrés, 2015. "Commitment in alternating offers bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 12-18.
    14. Prajit K. Dutta & Saul Lach & Aldo Rustichini, 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, December.
    15. Catherine Matraves & Laura Rondi, 2007. "Product Differentiation, Industry Concentration and Market Share Turbulence," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 37-57.
    16. Zhixi Wan & Brian Wu, 2017. "When Suppliers Climb the Value Chain: A Theory of Value Distribution in Vertical Relationships," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 477-496, February.
    17. Fershtman, C. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1993. "Capital accumulation and entry deterrence : A clarifying note," Other publications TiSEM 8c7c65ba-40e5-42a4-96af-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Klette, Tor Jakob & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 363-387, April.
    19. Bergman, Mats A., 1998. "Endogenous Timing of Investments Yields Modified Stackelberg Outcomes," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 272, Stockholm School of Economics.
    20. Jensen, Richard & Showalter, Dean, 2004. "Strategic debt and patent races," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 887-915, September.

    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:inm:orisre:v:11:y:2000:i:3:p:304-319. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.