Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change

The concept of a dominant design has taken on a quasi-paradigmatic status in analyses of the link between technological and industrial dynamics. A review of the empirical literature reveals a variety of interpretations about some aspects of the phenomenon such as its underlying causal mechanisms and its level of analysis. To stimulate further progress in empirical research on dominant designs, we advocate a standardization of terminology by conceptualizing products as complex artifacts that evolve in the form of a nested hierarchy of technology cycles. Such a nested complex system perspective provides both unambiguous definitions of dominant designs (stable core components that can be stable interfaces) and inclusion of multiple levels of analysis (system, subsystems, components). We introduce the concept of an operational principle and offer a systematic definition of core and peripheral subsystems based on the concept of pleiotropy. We also discuss how the proposed terminological standardization can stimulate cumulative research on dominant designs.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[2]  D. North Competing Technologies , Increasing Returns , and Lock-In by Historical Events , 1994 .

[3]  Paul A. David,et al.  Technical Choice Innovation and Economic Growth: Essays on American and British Experience in the Nineteenth Century , 1975 .

[4]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network , 1995 .

[5]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  Technological guideposts and innovation avenues , 1993 .

[6]  H. Rao,et al.  The Demography of Corporations and Industries , 1999 .

[7]  G. Bradshaw,et al.  The airplane and the logic of invention , 1992 .

[8]  C. Freeman,et al.  The Economics of Industrial Innovation - 3rd Edition , 1997 .

[9]  Lee Altenberg,et al.  Genome Growth and the Evolution of the Genotype-Phenotype Map , 1995, Evolution and Biocomputation.

[10]  David A. Hounshell,et al.  From the American System to Mass Production 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States by David A. Hounshell (review) , 2023 .

[11]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[12]  Pier Paolo Saviotti,et al.  Systems theory and technological change , 1986 .

[13]  P. Saviotti,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGICAL OUTPUT , 1988 .

[14]  C. Freeman Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[15]  R. Henderson Of life cycles real and imaginary : the unexpectedly long old age of optical lithography , 1995 .

[16]  Daniel A. Levinthal The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change , 1998 .

[17]  Christopher Alexander Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[18]  Koen Frenken,et al.  Variety and niche creation in aircraft, helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers , 1999 .

[19]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems , 2019, The Sciences of the Artificial.

[20]  R. Langlois,et al.  Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries , 1992 .

[21]  C. Freeman Chemical Process Plant: Innovation and the World Market , 1968, National Institute Economic Review.

[22]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

[23]  Steven Klepper,et al.  The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry , 2002 .

[24]  S. Brusoni,et al.  Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations , 2001 .

[25]  C. Birchenhall,et al.  Is product life cycle theory a special case? Dominant designs and the emergence of market niches through coevolutionary-learning , 1998 .

[26]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1978 .

[27]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[28]  Mordecai Kurz The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. , 1962 .

[29]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[30]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure , 1993 .

[31]  D. Teece Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[32]  S. Klepper,et al.  Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations , 1982 .

[33]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[34]  Michael J. C. Martin On Kuhn, Popper and teaching technological innovation management , 1983 .

[35]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Innovation and technical change : A case study of the U.K. tractor industry, 1957 1977 , 1982 .

[36]  M. Cusumano,et al.  Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta , 1992, Business History Review.

[37]  R. Nelson,et al.  Government and technical progress : a cross-industry analysis , 1983 .

[38]  M. Tushman,et al.  On the Organizational Determinants of Technological Change: Towards a Sociology of Technological Evolution , 1992 .

[39]  S. Liebowitz,et al.  Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History , 1995 .

[40]  J. Metcalfe Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework , 1995 .

[41]  Nile W. Hatch,et al.  Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2001 .

[42]  W. Abernathy Innovation : Mapping the winds of creative destruction * , 2003 .

[43]  H. Simon The Sciences of the Artificial, (Third edition) , 1997 .

[44]  Anne S. Miner The Demography of Corporations and Industries , 2004 .

[45]  N. Rosenberg The Direction of Technological Change: Inducement Mechanisms and Focusing Devices , 1969, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[46]  I. Lakatos Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1976 .

[47]  R. G. Studer,et al.  Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1965 .

[48]  Koen Frenken,et al.  Interdependencies, Nearly-Decomposability and Adaptation , 1999 .

[49]  P. Saviotti Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy , 1996 .

[50]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Strange bedfellows in the personal computer industry: technology alliances between IBM and Apple , 2001 .

[51]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technological Evolution, System Architecture and the Obsolescence of Firm Capabilities , 1995 .

[52]  Arantxa Etxeverria The Origins of Order , 1993 .

[53]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[54]  Christopher Alexander,et al.  Notes on the synthesis of form harvard university press , 1968 .

[55]  John Metcalfe,et al.  A theoretical approach to the construction of technological output indicators , 1984 .

[56]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[57]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms , 1995 .

[58]  Donald E. Hatfield,et al.  Facing the uncertain environment from technological discontinuities: hedging as a technology strategy , 2001 .

[59]  J. Islas,et al.  The Gas Turbine , 1999 .

[60]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[61]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Co-evolution of Industry Structure, Technology and Supporting Institutions, and the Making of Comparative Advantage , 1995 .

[62]  E. Hippel,et al.  Customers As Innovators: A New Way to Create Value , 2002 .

[63]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[64]  P. David,et al.  Technical choice innovation and economic growth , 1975 .

[65]  Johann Peter Murmann,et al.  Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organization Outcomes. , 1998 .

[66]  R. C. O. Matthews,et al.  DARWINISM AND ECONOMIC CHANGE , 1984 .

[67]  A.Carl Kotchian The commercial aircraft industry , 1967 .

[68]  David C. Mowery,et al.  The commercialization of RISC: Strategies for the creation of dominant designs , 1994 .

[69]  J. Launer Darwin's dangerous idea. , 2002, QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians.

[70]  W. Bean Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy , 1961 .

[71]  Henry Chesbrough Arrested Development: The Experience of European Hard Disk Drive Firms in Comparison with Us and Japanese Firms , 1999 .

[72]  R. Cowan Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in , 1990, The Journal of Economic History.

[73]  Walter G. Vincenti,et al.  The Scope for Social Impact in Engineering Outcomes: A Diagrammatic Aid to Analysis , 1991 .

[74]  Suresh Kotha,et al.  Dominant Designs and Population Dynamics in Telecommunications Services: Founding and Failure of Facsimile Transmission Service Organizations, 1965-1992 , 1995 .

[75]  H. Simon,et al.  Near decomposability and the speed of evolution , 2002 .

[76]  S. Klepper Industry Life Cycles , 1997 .

[77]  Koen Frenken,et al.  Fitness landscapes, heuristics and technological paradigms: A critique on random search models in evolutionary economics , 2001 .

[78]  P. David Clio and the Economics of QWERTY , 1985 .

[79]  M. Hobday,et al.  Innovation in Complex Systems Industries: the Case of Flight Simulation , 1995 .

[80]  G. Dosi Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[81]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[82]  Lee Altenberg,et al.  Evolving better representations through selective genome growth , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[83]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  Optimal search on a technology landscape , 2000 .

[84]  S. Klepper Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle , 1996 .

[85]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries , 1998 .

[86]  T. Dublin,et al.  Research policy , 2021, The Routledge Handbook of Gender and EU Politics.

[87]  M. Cusumano,et al.  Technological Pioneering and Competitive Advantage: The Birth of the VCR Industry , 1987 .

[88]  James B. Wade Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: An empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market , 1995 .

[89]  M. Kenney,et al.  Venture capital and the birth of the local area networking industry , 2000 .

[90]  Melissa A. Schilling Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

[91]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Responding to Structural Industry Changes: A Technological Evolution Perspective , 1997 .

[92]  S. Wheelwright,et al.  The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution * , 2003 .

[93]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[94]  W. Abernathy,et al.  The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock t o Znnovation in the Automobile Industry , 1978 .

[95]  Atul Nerkar,et al.  On the Complexity of Technological Evolution: Exploring Coevolution within and across Hierarchical Levels in Optical Disc Technology , 1999 .

[96]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[97]  D. Jorgenson The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. , 1963 .

[98]  S. Sanderson,et al.  Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman , 1995 .

[99]  Fernando F. Suarez Battles for Technological Dominance: An Integrative Framework , 2004 .