Determining reverse salient types and evolutionary dynamics of technology systems with performance disparities

Technological system evolution is marked by the uneven evolution of constituent sub-systems. Subsequently, system evolution is hampered by the resulting state of unevenness, or reverse salience, which results from the presence of the sub-system that delivers the lowest level of performance with respect to other sub-systems, namely, the reverse salient. In this paper, we develop absolute and proportional performance gap measures of reverse salience and, in turn, derive a typology of reverse salients that distinguishes alternative dynamics of change in the evolving system. We subsequently demonstrate the applicability of the measures and the typology through an illustrative empirical study of the PC (personal computer) technological system that functions as a gaming platform. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that patterns of temporal dynamics can be distinguished with the measurement of reverse salience, and that distinct paths of technological system evolution can be identified as different types of reverse salients emerge over time.

[1]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility , 1985 .

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

[3]  Harold A. Linstone,et al.  Technological forecasting and social change , 2011 .

[4]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? , 2007 .

[5]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technology Success and Failure , 1998 .

[6]  T. P. Hughes.  Networks of power : electrification in Western society, 1880-1930 , 1984 .

[7]  Birgitte Andersen.  The hunt for S-shaped growth paths in technological innovation: a patent study* , 1999 .

[8]  Kyoung-Joo Lee,et al.  Mobile music business in Japan and Korea: Copyright management institutions as a reverse salient , 2005, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

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

[10]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  Edwin R. Otto.  Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage , 1986 .

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

[13]  Walter G. Vincenti,et al.  The Retractable Airplane Landing Gear and the Northrop “Anomaly”: Variation-Selection and the Shaping of Technology , 1994, Technology and Culture.

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

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

[16]  J. Dutton,et al.  The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis , 1986 .

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

[18]  Ludwig von Bertalanffy,et al.  General System Theory , 1969 .

[19]  K. Clark,et al.  Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction☆ , 1993 .

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

[21]  Alex M. Andrew.  General Systems Theory: Ideas and Applications , 2003 .

[22]  Johann Peter Murmann,et al.  Dominant Designs, Technological Cycles and Organizational Outcomes , 2002 .

[23]  G. A. P. Hardstone,et al.  Capabilities, Structures and Strategies Re-Examined: Incumbent Firms and the Emergence of Complex Product Systems (CoPS) in Mature Industries , 2004, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[24]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society , 1984 .

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

[26]  Ellen H.M. Moors,et al.  Technology strategies for sustainable metals production systems: a case study of primary aluminium production in The Netherlands and Norway , 2006 .

[27]  S. Winter,et al.  In search of useful theory of innovation , 1993 .

[28]  Herbert A. Strauss,et al.  Notes to Contributors , 2009, Design Issues.

[29]  R. V. Wyk.  Innovation: The attacker's advantage : Richard N. Foster 316 pages, £14.95 (London, Macmillan, 1986) , 1987 .

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

[31]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  The Innovation impact model: a tool t0 study the impact of technological change , 1992 .

[32]  Alan Pilkington,et al.  The fit and misfit of technological capability: Responses to vehicle emission regulation in the US , 1998 .

[33]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Competing with New Product Technologies: A Process Model of Strategy , 2000 .

[34]  J. C. Fisher,et al.  A simple substitution model of technological change , 1971 .

[35]  Koen Frenken,et al.  Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change , 2005 .

[36]  F. den Hond,et al.  The similarity and heterogeneity theses in studying innovation: Evidence from the end-of-vehicle case , 1998 .

[37]  Philip J. Vergragt,et al.  TECHNOLOGY CHOICES FOR SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION: TRANSITIONS IN METAL MAKING , 2002 .

[38]  Sungjoo Lee,et al.  Patterns of technological innovation and evolution in the energy sector: A patent-based approach , 2013 .

[39]  Koshy Mathew.  Games of War , 1983 .

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

[41]  Emilio Esposito,et al.  Technological Evolution of Personal Computers and Market Implications , 1998 .

[42]  Debbie Harrison,et al.  Path Dependence, Agency and Technological Evolution , 2002, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[43]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .

[44]  Willow A. Sheremata.  Competing Through Innovation in Network Markets: Strategies for Challengers , 2004 .

[45]  Clayton M. Christensen.  EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY S‐CURVE. PART II: ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGIES , 1992 .

[46]  Simon J. Bennett,et al.  A structured and qualitative systems approach to analysing hydrogen transitions: Key changes and actor mapping , 2007 .

[47]  S. Zahra,et al.  Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance , 1993 .

[48]  M. Hitt,et al.  The new competitive landscape , 1995 .

[49]  Ozgur Dedehayir,et al.  Dynamics of reverse salience as technological performance gap: An empirical study of the personal computer technology system , 2008 .

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

[51]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technological Paradigms and Trajectories , 2007 .

[52]  Kathryn Graziano.  The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[53]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[54]  R. Westrum.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems , 1989 .

[55]  Clayton M. Christensen.  EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY S‐CURVE. PART I: COMPONENT TECHNOLOGIES , 1992 .

[56]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Perspectives on Technology. , 1978 .

[57]  Steven Poole,et al.  Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution , 2004 .

[58]  Ludwig von Bertalanffy,et al.  General system theory, New York (George Braziller) 1969. , 1969 .