IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technology Frames: The Art of Perspective and Interpretation in Strategy

Author

Abstract

In this paper, I bring together the literatures of the economics of innovation, corporate strategy and managerial and organizational cognition to explore how and why companies come to different conclusions and strategies for technology when presented with essentially very similar situations and information. Building on the work of Orlikowski and Gash (1994) on technological frames, I seek to explore the role of the technology frame of key senior managers in defining corporate strategy with respect to technology. To provide an empirical basis for the study, I take the case of the 6 leading US vertically integrated oil companies involved in the exploration and production of petroleum during the period 1984 to 1997. The analysis considers two key salients for the technology frame which are operationalised for the six companies based on their R&D expenditures, patents, publications and contrasted with their operational performance measures. These salients reflect respectively adaptational mapping (whereby signals in the environment prompt adaptation) and formational mapping (whereby experience and path-dependency influence interpretation) within the technology frame. The findings indicate support for the proposed approach to proxying technology frames on the two key points of salience for the upstream petroleum industry, and the paper concludes with a short discussion of future lines of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia Acha, 2004. "Technology Frames: The Art of Perspective and Interpretation in Strategy," SPRU Working Paper Series 109, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. C. Marlene Fiol & Anne Sigismund Huff, 1992. "Maps For Managers: Where Are We? Where Do We Go From Here?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 267-285, May.
    3. Sarah Kaplan & Fiona Murray & Rebecca Henderson, 2003. "Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 203-233, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Finch, John H. & Macmillan, Fiona E. & Simpson, Graeme S., 2002. "On the diffusion of probabilistic investment appraisal and decision-making procedures in the UK's upstream oil and gas industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 969-988, August.
    6. Marjorie A. Lyles & Charles R. Schwenk, 1992. "Top Management, Strategy And Organizational Knowledge Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 155-174, March.
    7. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    8. Adelaide Wilcox King & Carl P. Zeithaml, 2001. "Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 75-99, January.
    9. Edward H. Bowman & Constance E. Helfat, 2001. "Does corporate strategy matter?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 1-23, January.
    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. Karin Olesen, 2014. "Technological Frames," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    2. Michael G. Jacobides, 2007. "The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 455-477, June.
    3. V. Acha & S. Brusoni, 2008. "The Changing Governance Of Knowledge In Avionics," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1-2), pages 43-57.

    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. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    2. Foss, Nicolai J. & Mazzelli, Ambra, 2025. "Bringing managers and management back into strategy: Interfaces and dynamic managerial capabilities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Sheen S. Levine & Mark Bernard & Rosemarie Nagel, 2018. "Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behaviour," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 527-527, February.
    5. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2015. "Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 831-850, June.
    6. Iman Seoudi & Matthias Huehn & Bo Carlsson, 2008. "Penrose Revisited: A Re-Appraisal of the Resource Perspective," Working Papers 14, The German University in Cairo, Faculty of Management Technology.
    7. Godart, Frédéric & Pistilli, Luca, 2024. "The multifaceted concept of disruption: A typology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Xin Liang, 2024. "CEO cognitive competencies in managing turnaround: Complexity and focus," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 49(4), pages 636-656, November.
    9. Heimeriks, K. & Duysters, G.M. & Vanhaverbeke, W.P.M., 2004. "The evolution of alliance capabilities," Working Papers 04.20, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    10. Budhaditya Gupta & Tarun Khanna, 2019. "A Recombination-Based Internationalization Model: Evidence from Narayana Health’s Journey from India to the Cayman Islands," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 405-425, March.
    11. Foss, Nicolai J. & Pedersen, Torben, 2001. "The MNC as a Knowledge Structure: The Roles of Knowledge Sources and Organizational Instruments for Knowledge Creation and Transfer," Working Papers 12-2001, Copenhagen Business School, Department of International Economics and Management.
    12. Caldart, Adrian & Ricart, Joan E., 2003. "Corporate strategy revisited: A view from complexity theory," IESE Research Papers D/528, IESE Business School.
    13. Nicholas S. Argyres & Alfredo De Massis & Nicolai J. Foss & Federico Frattini & Geoffrey Jones & Brian S. Silverman, 2020. "History‐informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 343-368, March.
    14. Nicolaï Foss & Nils Stieglitz, 2012. "Modern Resource-based Theory(ies)," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Alva Taylor & Constance E. Helfat, 2009. "Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, and Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 718-739, August.
    16. Ioannis Ioannou, 2014. "When Do Spinouts Enhance Parent Firm Performance? Evidence from the U.S. Automobile Industry, 1890–1986," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 529-551, April.
    17. Sharma, Sunil, 2015. "Relevance of Resource Based View Themes for Capability Evolution," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-30, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    18. Carlo Salvato & Roberto Vassolo, 2018. "The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1728-1752, June.
    19. Ding, Waverly, 2010. "The Impact of Founder Professional Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt9728v4sv, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    20. Andreea N. Kiss & Pamela S. Barr, 2015. "New venture strategic adaptation: The interplay of belief structures and industry context," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(8), pages 1245-1263, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology frames; upstream petroleum; technology strategy; adaptational mapping; formational mapping;
    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:109. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.