Dominant Designs, Innovation Shocks and the Follower's Dilemma

A dominant design is thought to usher in a period of intense competition based on cost, causing an often-fierce industry shakeout. We aim to challenge the foundations of the dominant design literature, and develop new insights about the evolution of competition. We argue that strategic repositioning and elevated exit rates are often observed long before the emergence of a dominant design, and that a key cause is the introduction of a particular product for which demand is unexpectedly high (an ‘innovation shock.’) This introduction creates a dilemma for followers, which we suggest is resolved based on followers’ comparative adjustment costs. We test implications of these ideas on data from the early U.S. auto industry, treating Ford’s Model T as the innovation shock.

[1]  Beverly Rae Kimes,et al.  Standard catalog of American cars, 1805-1942 , 1985 .

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

[3]  Anand Swaminathan,et al.  Racing and Back-Pedalling into the Future: New Product Introduction and Organizational Mortality in the US Bicycle Industry, 1880-1918 , 2000 .

[4]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Size (and competition) among organizations: modeling scale‐based selection among automobile producers in four major countries, 1885–1981 , 2003 .

[5]  David J. Teece,et al.  Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm , 1982 .

[6]  D. Knoke :The Red Queen among Organizations: How Competitiveness Evolves , 2009 .

[7]  Steven Klepper,et al.  The Evolution of New Industries and the Determinants of Market Structure , 1990 .

[8]  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 .

[9]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  The fates of De Novo and De Alio producers in the American Automobile Industry 1885–1981 , 2007 .

[10]  Donald E. Hatfield,et al.  Doomed from the start: what is the value of selecting a future dominant design? , 1999 .

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

[12]  P. Ghemawat Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy , 1991 .

[13]  B. Hattingh The competitive advantage , 2007 .

[14]  Arthur J. Kuhn,et al.  GM passes Ford, 1918-1938 : designing the General Motors performance-control system , 1990 .

[15]  Constantinos C. Markides,et al.  Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets , 2005 .

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

[17]  R. Rumelt Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm , 1984 .

[18]  R. Caves,et al.  THE IMPERFECT MARKET FOR TECHNOLOGY LICENSES , 2009 .

[19]  Emin M. Dinlersoz,et al.  The Industry Life-Cycle of the Size Distribution of Firms , 2009 .

[20]  Mark J. Roberts,et al.  Patterns of Firm Entry and Exit in U.S. Manufacturing Industries , 1988 .

[21]  Boyan Jovanovic,et al.  The Life Cycle of a Competitive Industry , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  H. Ju,et al.  Competitive Strategy , 2012 .

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

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

[25]  James D. Thompson Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[26]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  Innovation, Modularity, and Vertical Deintegration: Evidence from the Early U.S. Auto Industry , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[27]  Steven Klepper,et al.  PRE-ENTRY EXPERIENCE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE U.S. AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY , 2004 .

[28]  W. Dugger The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1987 .

[29]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[30]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  Envy, Comparison Costs, and the Economic Theory of the Firm , 2006 .

[31]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Organizations in industry : strategy, structure, and selection , 1995 .

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

[33]  J. R. Moore,et al.  The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .

[34]  Karel Cool,et al.  Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage , 1989 .

[35]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[36]  Nick Baldwin The World Guide to Automobile Manufacturers , 1987 .

[37]  B. Silverman,et al.  Why Firms Want to Organize Efficiently and what Keeps Them from Doing So: Inappropriate Governance, Performance, and Adaptation in a Deregulated Industry , 2003 .

[38]  Stanislav D. Dobrev,et al.  Dynamics of Niche Width and Resource Partitioning1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[40]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[41]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view , 1998 .

[42]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  Does Transaction Misalignment Matter for Firm Survival at All Stages of the Industry Life Cycle? , 2007, Manag. Sci..

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

[44]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in Populations of Organizations , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[46]  Brian S. Silverman,et al.  Churn, Baby, Churn: Strategic Dynamics Among Dominant and Fringe Firms in a Segmented Industry , 2006, Manag. Sci..

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

[48]  M. Gordon,et al.  PUBLICATION RECORDS AND TENURE DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1996 .

[49]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Too Much of a Good Thing? Product Proliferation and Organizational Failure , 2001 .

[50]  James M. Utterback,et al.  A dynamic model of process and product innovation , 1975 .

[51]  Stephen E. Thomsen,et al.  Scale and scope: the dynamics of industrial capitalism , 1992 .

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

[53]  Tai-Young Kim,et al.  The Evolution of Organizational Niches: U.S. Automobile Manufacturers, 1885–1981 , 2002 .

[54]  W. Mitchell Whether and When? Probability and Timing of Incumbents' Entry into Emerging Industrial Subfields , 1989 .

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

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

[57]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Resetting the Clock: The Dynamics of Organizational Change and Failure. , 1990 .

[58]  J. Barney Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy , 1986 .

[59]  Lyda S. Bigelow,et al.  Transaction Costs, Industry Experience and Make-or-Buy Decisions in the Population of Early U.S. Auto Firms , 2008 .

[60]  J. Nickerson Why firms want to organize efficiently and what keeps them from doing so: Evidence from the for-hire trucking industry , 2001 .

[61]  R. Lamb,et al.  Competitive strategic management , 1984 .

[62]  O. Williamson The economic institutions of capitalism , 1985 .

[63]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly , 2002 .

[64]  Tai-Young Kim,et al.  Shifting Gears, Shifting Niches: Organizational Inertia and Change in the Evolution of the U.S. Automobile Industry, 1885-1981 , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[65]  Frank Ernest Hill,et al.  Ford : the times, the man, the company , 1954 .

[66]  Tai-Young Kim,et al.  Positioning among Organizations in a Population: Moves between Market Segments and the Evolution of Industry Structure , 2006 .

[67]  M. Hannan,et al.  Structural Inertia and Organizational Change , 1984 .

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

[69]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Contractual Commitments, Bargaining Power, and Governance Inseparability: Incorporating History Into Transaction Cost Theory , 1999 .

[70]  R. Grant Contemporary Strategy Analysis , 2005 .

[71]  R. Grant Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .