Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations

The success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment. How do the challenges faced by external innovators affect the focal firm's outcomes? To address this question we first characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence. We follow the flow of inputs and outputs in the ecosystem to distinguish between upstream components that are bundled by the focal firm, and downstream complements that are bundled by the firm's customers. We argue that the effect of external innovation challenges depends not only on their magnitude, but also on their location in the ecosystem relative to the focal firm - whereas greater innovation challenges in components enhances the benefits that accrue to technology leaders, greater innovation challenges in complements erodes these benefits. We further argue that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle. We explore these arguments in the context of the global semiconductor lithography industry from its emergence in 1962 to 2005 across nine distinct technology generations. We find strong support for our arguments.

[1]  M. Lieberman,et al.  Industry learning environments and the heterogeneity of firm performance , 2009 .

[2]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[3]  Jeffrey H. Dyer.  Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage : Evidence from the auto industry , 1996 .

[4]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .

[5]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability , 2004 .

[6]  O. Williamson,et al.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[7]  Allan Afuah.  How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? , 2000 .

[8]  Ron Adner,et al.  A demand‐based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage , 2006 .

[9]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

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

[11]  J. Dutton,et al.  Treating Progress Functions as a Managerial Opportunity , 1984 .

[12]  Robert A. Peterson,et al.  First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Research Propositions , 1992 .

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

[14]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[15]  Mary Tripsas.  UNRAVELING THE PROCESS OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION: COMPLEMENTARY ASSETS AND INCUMBENT SURVIVAL IN THE TYPESETTER INDUSTRY: UNRAVELING THE PROCESS OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION , 1997 .

[16]  G. Tellis,et al.  Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend? , 1993 .

[17]  Oscar Hauptman,et al.  Platform leadership , 2002 .

[18]  Giovanni Gavetti,et al.  Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging , 2000 .

[19]  Adam Brandenburger,et al.  Co-opetition : 1. a revolutionary mindset that combines competition and cooperation : 2. the game theory strategy that's changing the game of business , 1998 .

[20]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation , 1985 .

[21]  N. Rosenberg.  Factors affecting the diffusion of technology , 1972 .

[22]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Knowledge Specialization, Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More than They Make? , 2001 .

[23]  Mary Tripsas.  Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change , 2008 .

[24]  Ron Adner.  Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. , 2006, Harvard business review.

[25]  M. Lieberman.  The Learning Curve and Pricing in the Chemical Processing Industries , 1984 .

[26]  Brent Goldfarb,et al.  Diffusion of General Purpose Technologies: Understanding Patterns in the Electrification of US Manufacturing 1880-1930 , 2005 .

[27]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technology Integration: Making Critical Choices in a Dynamic World , 1997 .

[28]  Ramon Casadesus-Masanell,et al.  Wintel (A): Cooperation or Conflict , 2003 .

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

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

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

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

[33]  James F. Moore.  The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems , 1996 .

[34]  G. Stigler.  The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market , 1951, Journal of Political Economy.

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

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

[37]  Gordon E. Moore.  Lithography and the future of Moore's law , 1995, Advanced Lithography.

[38]  Stephan Billinger,et al.  Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From 'Make, Buy or Ally' to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture , 2005 .

[39]  Ron Adner,et al.  A DEMAND-BASED PERSPECTIVE ON TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLES , 2004 .

[40]  W. Mitchell.  Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value , 1991 .

[41]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[42]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Making Fast Strategic Decisions In High-Velocity Environments , 1989 .

[43]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930 , 1984 .

[44]  Fernando F. Suarez,et al.  The Role of Environmental Dynamics in Building a First Mover Advantage Theory , 2007 .

[45]  John Roberts,et al.  Uncertain Imitability : An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition , 2007 .

[46]  L. Argote.  Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge , 1999 .

[47]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

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

[49]  Sandeep Kapur,et al.  On Technological Expectations , 1992 .

[50]  Jan W. Rivkin.  Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[51]  M. Lieberman.  The learning curve, technology barriers to entry, and competitive survival in the chemical processing industries , 1989 .

[52]  G. Hoetker.  Do Modular Products Lead to Modular Organizations , 2006 .