Figure 1 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
Content may be subject to copyright.
Theoretical framework: dominant category and dominant design during the industry life cycle. During the industry life cycle, the number of categories will increase before the number of firms increases. The emergence of the dominant category occurs as the number of categories begins to decrease. This point in time marks the opening of the window of opportunity for entry, whereas the emergence of the dominant design marks the closing of the window of opportunity
Source publication
Determining the optimal time for firms to enter emerging industries has long been a key concern in strategy, yet scholars still struggle to create a theoretical foundation that can fully integrate the empirical findings within this area. We incorporate categorical dynamics into the theory of the industry life cycle to complement and enhance the pre...
Similar publications
Live data in physical memory can be acquired by live forensics but not by harddisk file-system analysis. Therefore, in case of forensic investigation, live forensics is widely used these days. But, existing live forensic methods, that use command line tools in live system, have many weaknesses; for instance, it is not easy to re-analyze and results...
Citations
... Similarly, Suarez et al. (2015) argue that the categories of future technologies emerge before the actual technologies. Investigating the factors that influence the timing for a market entry they have shown that dominant categories of new technologies emerge before the dominant design, and that this creates a window of opportunity for a successful market entry that starts with the emergence of the dominant category and ends with the emergence of the dominant design . ...
The individual and social imagination are at the nexus of the existing world and potential futures. Influenced by social practices, mental concepts, beliefs, and expectations that are rooted in the history of the social system and the contemporary zeitgeist, the human imagination draws upon actual experiences, as well as fictional concepts. These fictional concepts range from the idea of the nation-state and exaggerated beliefs in the contemporary technical abilities of humankind, like geoengineering to visions of the future including new technologies, products, services, as well as economic and social systems, typically associated with the genre science fiction. The articles in this special issue investigate, illustrate, and theorise how the human imagination, the arts,
architecture and design relate to innovation and social change. In the following the key theoretical concepts are introduced. This creates the backdrop for the subsequent overview of the studies that were selected for the special issues. The article finishes with an outlook and the discussion of potential further research avenues.
... Presently, the mechanism of diversity generation and change relies on intuitive and conceptual explanations based on researchers' insights. Some drivers of technological diversity dynamics, such as consensus on technology concepts Suarez et al., 2015), intra-industry competition (Anderson and Tushman, 1990), and increasing demand heterogeneity (Adner and Levintal, 2001), have been proposed; however, these are external factors that cannot explain endogenous diversity dynamics mechanisms. ...
... Technological diversity changes depending on which technology elements are explored (Carignani et al., 2019;Song et al., 2019). In general, technological diversity stagnates or diminishes as existing technologies deepen (Anderson and Tushman, 1990;Suarez et al., 2015), while technological diversity in existing industries increases with new combinations through recombination with related or new technologies (Wagner and Rosen, 2014;Carignani et al., 2019). If a dominant design is formed in an industry, technology pursues incremental innovation (Lin et al., 2021), which is a gradual innovation pattern that inherits and deepens the technology of direct ancestors (VI or VP). ...
... If a dominant design is formed in an industry, technology pursues incremental innovation (Lin et al., 2021), which is a gradual innovation pattern that inherits and deepens the technology of direct ancestors (VI or VP). However, when a dominant design is not formed, or a new dominant design needs to be created, technologies compete to produce the dominant design of the next era (Anderson and Tushman, 1990;Suarez et al., 2015). The dominant design is a technology that differs from existing technologies. ...
This study investigates the dynamics of diversity within photovoltaic technology by considering the spatial information of technological change. We introduce a phylogenetic tree methodology using an evolutionary perspective for validation at the level of technology genes and functional modules. Our findings show that the photovoltaic technology phylogenetic tree fully describes the technological and industrial histories of photovoltaics. Furthermore, the results imply that diversity is necessary for the evolutionary mechanism to operate and technology integration is the correct direction to pursue.
... Several studies have proposed models that describe the stages of technological development to provide an academic basis for a firm's strategy for technological innovation (Anderson and Tushman, 1990;Carignani et al., 2019;Gao et al., 2013;Suarez et al., 2015). The technology life cycle (TLC) model (Gao et al., 2013;Lee et al., 2017;Lin et al., 2021;Taylor and Taylor, 2012) is a representative model for describing the stages of technological development. ...
... The dominant design model structures this stylized innovation pattern (Anderson and Tushman, 1990;Cecere et al., 2015;Kim et al., 2020;Koski and Kretschmer, 2007;Tushman and Murmann, 1998;Utterback and Abernathy, 1975). In addition, before the emergence of a dominant design, there was a conceptual consensus about dominant design, called the dominant category (Suarez et al., 2015). ...
... PLLC describes technology life cycle at a more microlevel than the generation as the product class ( Fig. 1). Thus, it is a microfoundation of macrolevel TLCs in paradigm scope such as dominant design model (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978;Anderson and Tushman, 1990;Tushman and Murmann, 1998;Utterback and Abernathy, 1975) and dominant category model (Suarez et al., 2015). In PLLC, a product is defined as a system of technologies (Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008;Saviotti and Metcalfe, 1984). ...
This study overcomes the limitations of the technology life cycle (TLC) model by deriving a product lineage within a phylogenetic tree to identify the product development trajectory and quantitatively measure innovativeness by measuring the average information content of the product's technical characteristics. The cyclical pattern of changes in the innovativeness in product lineage was modeled, referred to as the product lineage life cycle (PLLC) model. To verify the appropriateness of the proposed models, an empirical study was conducted using 11,013 mobile products introduced into the global market from 1995 to 2021. The results indicate that the PLLC model provides product-level technology life-cycle information, which can be used for specific product development strategies at the firm level. Moreover, product development strategies among firms were observed by constructing firm-level PLLCs into a phylogenetic tree; successful innovative firms accumulated high product innovativeness within their unique product lineages. The results of this study contribute to academic diversity by providing an alternative approach and a microfoundation to the majority of existing TLC research fields. This is expected to enable life-cycle analysis of detailed products, which can contribute to specific technology development strategies of firms for their products.
... In this study, we hypothesize that a broader shared framework than the dominant design may be established before the determination of the dominant design in the technological field, and subject this hypothesis to quantitative analysis. Additionally, this shared framework is examined using the dominant category concept proposed by Suarez et al. (2015). Finally, the study analyzes the relationship between this phenomenon and competition within the technological field. ...
... Suarez et al.'s (2015) dominant category concept is used to examine the broad shared framework, as mentioned previously. Suarez et al. (2015) argued that dominant categories emerge before the appearance of a dominant design. As noted in our review of the technology life cycle, dominant design decisions are considered to occur after the era of ferment. ...
... As noted in our review of the technology life cycle, dominant design decisions are considered to occur after the era of ferment. Suarez et al. (2015) argued that there may be more stages in this decision process by making a qualitative argument. This study follows Suarez et al. (2015) and examines the temporal changes in the "variance of topic vectors" and the number of organizations publishing patents in the technological field each year. ...
This study conducts a quantitative analysis of the relationship between mainstream formation and competition in technological fields. The process of determining the dominant design is crucial in analyzing mainstream formation within specific technological fields, and numerous studies have explored this process. The quantitative analysis conducted in this study indicates that, during the process in which the dominant design is determined, the dominant category, a broader framework than the dominant design, is also established. In this study, we use topic modeling analysis to examine the relationship between the convergence of research and development (R&D) trends among organizations and the number of organizations publishing patents in the computer graphics processing systems industry. Specifically, the number of organizations publishing patents in the industry increased when the degree of convergence among the R&D trends of each organization was relatively low, whereas it decreased when the degree of convergence among R&D trends of each organization was relatively high. Further, the change in the degree of convergence occurred before the change in the number of organizations. These observations suggest that the formation of a mainstream within the industry, which is associated with the convergence of R&D tendencies of specific organizations, affects the competitive environment within the industry.
... The market entry of innovative products significantly changes the competitive environment (Gerken, Moehrle, and Walter, 2015) and requires firms to improve their business, product, and process development (Taleb and Pheniqi, 2023). The timing of a new market entry is a strategic decision for firms, and its timeliness is crucial to forming a competitive advantage (Tatiana and Mikhail, 2020;Suarez, Grodal, and Gotsopoulos, 2015). ...
... The firms that ended up capturing the new market appeared just when the dominant design was about to emerge (Markides and Geroski, 2004). In the concept of a dominant category, firms that enter during the time window between the emergence of the dominant category and the emergence of a dominant design tend to perform better than firms that enter during other phases (Suarez, Grodal, and Gotsopoulos, 2015). A good time for market entry is when. ...
... Market spaces-particularly new, emerging market spaces-accommodate different interpretations about what attributes are required for membership in a category (Kennedy et al., 2010;Suarez et al., 2015). In the SE, different audiences disagree about who may operate on an SE platform (Bucher et al., 2018;Carnabuci, Operti, & Kovács, 2015;Kennedy et al., 2010;Montauti, 2019;Vaskelainen & Munzel, 2018). ...
... A market category refers to a "socially constructed partition" (Grodal et al., 2015, p. 429) around a certain type of product or service, typically identified by a unique semantic label. The market category in which an entrepreneurial venture is situated matters because it influences, among others, the degree to which audiences will attend to the venture (e.g., Pontikes & Barnett, 2017) and with whom they will primarily compare the entrepreneurial venture Suarez et al., 2015). Moreover, categories are often also infused with certain values; for instance, categories like socially responsible investments or plant-based meat alternatives do not merely cluster similar offerings but are also closely associated with prosocial values like responsibility, fairness, or solidarity (Arjaliès & Durand, 2019;Georgallis & Lee, 2020). ...
... Research on the interplay between category dynamics and entrepreneurial ventures' audience support, particularly in market categories that emerge around new technological offerings (Navis & Glynn, 2010;Pontikes & Barnett, 2017;Suarez et al., 2015;Wry et al., 2011), documents that market categories often exhibit substantial variation in their salience-defined as the degree to which a category receives collective attention from the general public. 4 Indeed, exploratory accounts highlight how a category's salience often changes in nonlinear and idiosyncratic ways over time (Hsu & Grodal, 2021;Logue & Grimes, 2022). ...
... 4 Indeed, exploratory accounts highlight how a category's salience often changes in nonlinear and idiosyncratic ways over time (Hsu & Grodal, 2021;Logue & Grimes, 2022). Among others, a market category may become more or less salient in the eyes of the general public-or specific audiences-due to the emergence or decline of other categories that directly compete for consumer attention with the focal category Suarez et al., 2015), due to changes in other categories that influence the focal category's perceived meaning and appeal (Hsu & Grodal, 2021;Lounsbury & Rao, 2004), due to shifts in audiences' norms, values, beliefs, and aspirations (Soublière & Lockwood, 2022), or certain high-profile events that generate attention to the category (Pontikes & Barnett, 2017;Soublière & Gehman, 2020). Our subsequent theorizing is agnostic about the drivers that lead to changes in a market category's salience and rather focuses on how different levels of category salience will shape the effectiveness of social impact and innovativeness frames. ...
Research Summary
How do new entrepreneurial ventures effectively deploy linguistic frames to attract customer demand? Drawing on framing and categories research, we develop and test theory about how category dynamics shape the effectiveness of two commonly observed frames—social impact framing and innovativeness framing—in the context of prosocial categories. We test our predictions by tracking entrepreneurial ventures in the market category for massive open online courses over the category's first 10 years of existence (2012–2021). Our fixed‐effects models show that higher levels of category salience increase the effectiveness of a social impact framing but decrease the effectiveness of an innovativeness framing; conversely, higher levels of category crowdedness decrease the effectiveness of a social impact framing but increase the effectiveness of an innovativeness framing.
Managerial Summary
This research explores how startups can strategically frame themselves to attract customers. We specifically compare the effectiveness of a “social impact framing” (emphasizing the startup's benefits to society) versus an “innovativeness framing” (emphasizing innovativeness) under different market conditions. Our longitudinal study finds that startups benefit most from a social impact framing when their market attracts a lot of attention or has low competition. While an innovativeness framing can backfire under such conditions, it effectively helps to attract customers in a market that receives little attention or exhibits fierce competition. Entrepreneurs and managers can leverage our insights to more effectively tailor their framing strategies to their market environment and ultimately gain more customer traction.
... However, a large number of citations does not necessarily mean that a mature field is growing. Since fields are born building on previously established fields (Suarez et al., 2015), growth from an established field can at the same time indicate that a nascent field is being created from a more established one. While our data do not allow us to definitely exclude one or the other possibility, we argue that our measure-the growth rate of academic citations-is likely to capture academic field emergence. ...
Prior studies show that access to academic knowledge plays a crucial role in new venture financing. We extend this research by shifting the focus from the access to academic knowledge to the developmental state of the academic field, where the academic knowledge is generated. Using natural language processing (NLP), we clustered peer-reviewed academic knowledge from Scopus into various fields. We then analyzed a sample of 341 new biotech ventures from Crunchbase to determine if increased past activity by (1) academics and (2) early-stage venture investors in a particular academic field is associated with the early-stage equity financing of new ventures associated with that field. We found that new ventures associated with academic fields for which academic activity has grown in the past receive more early-stage equity capital. However, contrary to our expectations, we also revealed that when a particular academic field shows greater early-stage venture investments in the past, the amount of early-stage equity capital received by subsequent ventures associated with the same academic field decreases. This suggests that while emerging academic fields signal the presence of business opportunities with high reward potential, past increase in the number of investments by peer early-stage investors associated with a particular academic field signals the opposite.
... Su arez and Utterback (1995) found that flexibility comes at high costs when investments have been approached systemically. This is due to the underlying risk of a directional change during the emergence of a dominant design Su arez et al., 2015;Su arez & Utterback, 1995). These findings can be supported in converging technology systems when looking at firms that develop knowledge in components embedding specialized knowledge only: there is no evidence of firms in a steady systemic technology strategy that remains in specialized knowledge only. ...
Novel technology systems, such as “fiber optics” and “printed electronics,” increasingly emerge at the interface of hitherto unrelated technology areas. As such, new technology systems often arise through technology convergence, characterized by integrating technology components and knowledge from different technology systems, resulting in a novel system architecture. This phenomenon is of utmost societal relevancy but simultaneously poses tremendous challenges for firms' technology strategies. Firms must not only cope with unrelated knowledge rooted in hitherto different technologies but also have to decide deliberately how systemic (i.e., complete technology system) versus focused (i.e., single component of the technology system) their engagement in technology development in the converging technology system ought to be. In addition, firms need to decide strategically to what extent to develop specialized or design knowledge. Extant concepts of technology strategy fall short of capturing this complexity inherent in converging technology systems. Therefore, to address how technology strategies co‐evolve along with the emergence of new technology systems, this study adds a systems perspective to technology strategy by developing the concept of technology system coverage . This novel dimension of technology strategy is formed by the scope (i.e., focused vs. systemic coverage of the technology system) and type of technological knowledge (i.e., specialized or design knowledge) . We empirically apply this novel angle of technology strategy to the convergence field of printed electronics. Based on a longitudinal set of 828 patents over 30 years, 74 relevant corporate actors are identified. The underlying taxonomy enables us to reveal four technology strategies and develop five propositions. The results indicate that all firms build design knowledge over time, whereas not all firms build specialized knowledge, no matter what technology strategy is pursued. In sum, this work advances literature by understanding technology strategy in emerging complex technology systems, introducing a systems perspective.
... At the firm level, designing value co-creation arrangements effectively in nascent markets requires entrepreneurs to engage in parallel play and interweave actions to learn and adapt (McDonald and Eisenhardt, 2019). During the race to define a dominant design amid industrial emergence (Agarwal et al., 2002;Anderson and Tushman, 1990;Suarez et al., 2015;Utterback and Abernathy, 1975), firms attract various actors by building ecosystems to enlist their support for the firms' preferred technology standard (Soh, 2009;Klepper and Simons, 2000;Moeen and Agarwal, 2017). ...
In light of the scattered nature of extant ecosystem literature, we seek to (1) identify the intellectual structure and theoretical roots of ecosystem literature within the broader field of innovation, and (2) take stock of how ecosystem research enriches and extends the innovation literature. Based on a bibliometric analysis of innovation and management journals over the past 30 years, we identify three lineages of ecosystem research within the "umbrella" of innovation studies. The first lineage finds its theoretical roots in the literature of product and architecture innovation. The second follows the lineage of open innovation and innovation strategy. The third adopts the traditions of regional innovation and entrepreneurship. Further, we offer an extended-boundary model that features two sets of synopses, explicating ecosystems' contributions to the field of innovation. The first set demonstrates how the ecosystem concept extends the three lineages with its unique attributes from a meta-organisational perspective, i.e., consumption-side synergies, boundary spanning and self-organisation. The second indicates how the concept may be repositioned on the foundational economic theories, i.e., Schumpe-terian Innovation and Transaction Cost Economics, and advance how it may integrate the two schools and extend their research implications vis-à-vis profiting from, organising for, and outcomes of innovation. We contribute by organising the fragmented ecosystem literature into an integrative framework, forging stronger links with traditional innovation theories, and offering a cumulative theoretical basis for this promising concept to further flourish in the field of innovation studies.
