IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v48y2002i9p1103-1122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Hubert Gatignon

    (INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France)

  • Michael L. Tushman

    (Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall, Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Wendy Smith

    (Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall, Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Philip Anderson

    (INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France)

Abstract

We take a structural approach to assessing innovation. We develop a comprehensive set of measures to assess an innovation's locus, type, and characteristics. We find that the concepts of competence destroying and competence enhancing are composed of two distinct constructs that, although correlated, separately characterize an innovation: new competence acquisition and competence enhancement/destruction. We develop scales to measure these constructs and show that new competence acquisition and competence enhancing/destroying are different from other innovation characteristics including core/peripheral and incremental/radical, as well as architectural and generational innovation types. We show that innovations can be evaluated distinctively on these various dimensions with generally small correlations between them. We estimate the impact these different innovation characteristics and types have on time to introduction and perceived commercial success. Our results indicate the importance of taking a structural approach to describing innovations and to the differential importance of innovation locus, type, and characteristics on innovation outcomes. Our results also raise intriguing questions regarding the locus of competence acquisition (internal vs. external) and both innovation outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:48:y:2002:i:9:p:1103-1122
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1103.174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1103.174
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1103.174?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. 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.
    2. Chesbrough, Henry W, 1999. "The Organizational Impact of Technological Change: A Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 8(3), pages 447-485, September.
    3. Rosenkopf, Lori & Tushman, Michael L, 1998. "The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 311-346, June.
    4. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    5. John E. Ettlie & William P. Bridges & Robert D. O'Keefe, 1984. "Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 682-695, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Sull, Donald N., 1999. "The Dynamics of Standing Still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the Radial Revolution," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 430-464, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Iansiti, Marco & Khanna, Tarun, 1995. "Technological Evolution, System Architecture and the Obsolescence of Firm Capabilities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 333-361.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Richard R. Nelson, 1995. "Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 48-90, March.
    15. Fariborz Damanpour, 1996. "Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 693-716, May.
    16. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    17. Anderson, Philip & Tushman, Michael L, 2001. "Organizational Environments and Industry Exit: The Effects of Uncertainty, Munificence and Complexity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 675-711, September.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2016. "Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 625-648, April.
    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. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    7. 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.
    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. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Roberts, Edward B., 2003. "Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1569-1588, October.
    10. Angel Sevil & Alfonso Cruz & Tomas Reyes & Roberto Vassolo, 2022. "When Being Large Is Not an Advantage: How Innovation Impacts the Sustainability of Firm Performance in Natural Resource Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Li, Xu, 2024. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120131, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Joshua S. Gans & Michael Kearney & Erin L. Scott & Scott Stern, 2021. "Choosing Technology: An Entrepreneurial Strategy Approach," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 39-53, March.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Puay Khoon Toh & Taekyu Kim, 2013. "Why Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? A Competition-Based View of How Technological Uncertainty Affects a Firm’s Technological Specialization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1236, August.
    16. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    17. 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.
    18. Rebecca Henderson & Sarah Kaplan, 2005. "Inertia and Incentives: Bridging Organizational Economics and Organizational Theory," NBER Working Papers 11849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Marco Iansiti, 2000. "How the Incumbent Can Win: Managing Technological Transitions in the Semiconductor Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 169-185, February.
    20. M. Lourdes Sosa, 2014. "Corporate Structure, Indirect Bankruptcy Costs, and the Advantage of De Novo Firms: The Case of Gene Therapy Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 850-867, June.

    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:ormnsc:v:48:y:2002:i:9:p:1103-1122. 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.