IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v34y2024i4d10.1007_s00191-024-00878-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological speciation: Navigating new needs through trial and error – A rifle case study

Author

Listed:
  • Jiyong Kim

    (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, Seoul National University)

  • Jungsub Yoon

    (Sejong National Research Complex)

  • Jeong-Dong Lee

    (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, Seoul National University)

Abstract

Technological speciation is a crucial concept for understanding the emergence of new technologies, describing how existing technologies adapt to novel application domains in response to emerging market needs. Prior research has primarily utilized case-centered qualitative approaches. While some quantitative studies have been conducted, they have not fully captured the complexity of technological speciation, with the methodologies used for observation also falling short. This study aims to enhance previous discussions by rigorously validating the process of technological speciation, focusing on Levinthal (1998) through empirical evidence, and uncovering the managerial strategic implications observable in the speciation process of emerging technologies. This study emphasizes products as intermediaries between markets and technologies, developing indicators based on the similarity between antecedent and descendant technologies, considering the path dependency of technology, and applying these to actual product data. It hypothesizes that significant changes at the inception of these indicators mark the beginning of technological speciation. Analysis reveals that new technologies emerge through an adaptive process, systematically addressing needs through trial and error, with shifts in needs serving as the catalyst. This aligns with detailed discussions in existing qualitative studies on the technological speciation process. This study proposes an analytical method for examining technological speciation by exploring the interaction between markets and technologies from an evolutionary perspective, using product data as a mediator. Additionally, the study highlights the importance for companies aiming to enter new markets of accurately identifying new needs, exploring adjacent technologies, and adopting iterative, small-scale productization strategies to navigate the adaptation process effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiyong Kim & Jungsub Yoon & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2024. "Technological speciation: Navigating new needs through trial and error – A rifle case study," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 927-952, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:34:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s00191-024-00878-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2?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. Frenken, Koen & Saviotti, Paolo P. & Trommetter, Michel, 1999. "Variety and niche creation in aircraft, helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 469-488, June.
    2. Jeong, Dawoon & Lee, Jeong-Dong, 2024. "Where and how does a product evolve? Product innovation pattern in product lineage," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Gino Cattani & Franco Malerba, 2021. "Evolutionary Approaches to Innovation, the Firm, and the Dynamics of Industries," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 0, pages 265-289, December.
    4. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    5. Hoyoon Lee & Dawoon Jeong & Jeong-Dong Lee, 2023. "Drivers of institutional evolution: phylogenetic inertia and ecological pressure," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 279-308, April.
    6. Nelson, Richard R., 2008. "Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and error learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 78-89, July.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    8. Malhotra, Abhishek & Zhang, Huiting & Beuse, Martin & Schmidt, Tobias, 2021. "How do new use environments influence a technology's knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of lithium-ion battery technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    9. 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.
    10. Pierpaolo Andriani & Gino Cattani, 2022. "Functional diversification and exaptation: the emergence of new drug uses in the pharma industry [What is not a real option: considering boundaries for the application of real options to business s," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(5), pages 1177-1201.
    11. 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.
    12. Mokyr, Joel, 1990. "Punctuated Equilibria and Technological Progress," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 350-354, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    15. David Audretsch, 2004. "Sustaining Innovation and Growth: Public Policy Support for Entrepreneurship," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 167-191.
    16. Giuseppe Carignani & Gino Cattani & Giusi Zaina, 2019. "Evolutionary chimeras: a Woesian perspective of radical innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(3), pages 511-528.
    17. Gino Cattani, 2006. "Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(2), pages 285-318, April.
    18. Levinthal, Daniel A, 1998. "The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 217-247, June.
    19. Saviotti, P. P. & Metcalfe, J. S., 1984. "A theoretical approach to the construction of technological output indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 141-151, June.
    20. Coombs, Rod & Hull, Richard, 1998. "'Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 237-253, July.
    21. Cédric Schneider & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2010. "On young highly innovative companies: why they matter and how (not) to policy support them," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 969-1007, August.
    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. 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.
    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. Koen Frenken & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2004. "Entropy statistics as a framework to analyse technological evolution," Chapters, in: John Foster & Werner Hölzl (ed.), Applied Evolutionary Economics and Complex Systems, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. 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.
    5. Ashish Sood & Gerard J. Tellis, 2011. "Demystifying Disruption: A New Model for Understanding and Predicting Disruptive Technologies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 339-354, 03-04.
    6. 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.
    7. Sanderson, Susan Walsh & Simons, Kenneth L., 2014. "Light emitting diodes and the lighting revolution: The emergence of a solid-state lighting industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1730-1746.
    8. 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.
    9. Frenken, Koen & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "Scaling trajectories in civil aircraft (1913-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 331-348, March.
    10. Raja Roy & MB Sarkar, 2016. "Knowledge, firm boundaries, and innovation: Mitigating the incumbent's curse during radical technological change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 835-854, May.
    11. Tommaso Ciarli & Karolina Safarzynska, 2020. "Sustainability and Industrial Challenge: The Hindering Role of Complexity," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-18, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    15. Martinelli, Arianna, 2012. "An emerging paradigm or just another trajectory? Understanding the nature of technological changes using engineering heuristics in the telecommunications switching industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 414-429.
    16. Dario Guarascio & Mario Pianta & Francesco Bogliacino, 2017. "Export, R&D and New Products: A Model and a Test on European Industries," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 393-432, Springer.
    17. Sidney G. Winter & Gino Cattani & Alex Dorsch, 2007. "The Value of Moderate Obsession: Insights from a New Model of Organizational Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 403-419, June.
    18. Dijk, Marc & Orsato, Renato J. & Kemp, René, 2015. "Towards a regime-based typology of market evolution," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 276-289.
    19. Yoon, Jungsub & Lee, Jeong-Dong & Hwang, Seogwon, 2022. "Episodic change: A new approach to identifying industrial transition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    20. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Path dependency; Product phylogenetic tree; Technological speciation; Trial and error;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:spr:joevec:v:34:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s00191-024-00878-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.