Capabilities, technologies, and firm exit during industry shakeout: Evidence from the global solar photovoltaic industry

Research Summary: Explanations of entrants’ survival in an emerging industry are premised on pre‐entry capabilities or technology entry choices prior to the emergence of the dominant design. We consider how these drivers interact to strengthen or nullify firms’ pre‐entry advantage, and facilitate adaptation as the industry evolves. We also expand the treatment of exit by separating dissolution from acquisition, in which firms’ capabilities continue to be utilized in the industry. Studying a recent shakeout in the global solar photovoltaic industry, we find that pre‐entry capabilities and technology choices act in a complementary manner for some firms, thereby enhancing survival, and as buffers against exit for others. Nearly half of exits were via acquisitions, and technology choice at entry played an important role in determining how firms exited. Managerial Summary: New industries are often characterized by intense technology competition that culminates in a dominant technology followed by industry shakeout. Although prior research underscores the central role of technology choice and firm capabilities to survival, we do not actually know how firms with different capabilities and who have made competing technology choices survive an industry shakeout. In this article, we show how entrants’ capabilities and technology choices can act in a complementary manner for some firms, enhancing their chance of survival, and as buffers against failure for others. Moreover, we explain why some firms that do exit are acquired, when others are dissolved.

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

[2]  J. Heckman Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply , 1974 .

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

[4]  Robert S. Main,et al.  Managerial and Decision Economics , 1981 .

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

[6]  M. Peel,et al.  The liquidation/merger alternative some results for the UK corporate sector , 1989 .

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

[8]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

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

[10]  J. Brüderl,et al.  Organizational Mortality: The Liabilities of Newness and Adolescence. , 1990 .

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

[12]  Anne S. Miner Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition , 1993 .

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

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

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

[16]  Will Mitchell,et al.  The Dynamics of Evolving Markets: The Effects of Business Sales and Age on Dissolutions and Divestitures , 1994 .

[17]  Milton D. Rosenau,et al.  Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change , 1995 .

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

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

[20]  Michael Gort,et al.  The Evolution of Markets and Entry, Exit and Survival of Firms , 1996 .

[21]  Harbir Singh,et al.  Asset redeployment, acquisitions and corporate strategy in declining industries , 1997 .

[22]  Rajshree Agarwal Survival of Firms over the Product Life Cycle , 1997 .

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

[24]  J. Papastavrou,et al.  Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect Fdi Survival , 1998 .

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

[26]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U. S. , 2000 .

[27]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Product Sequencing: Co-Evolution of Knowledge, Capabilities and Products. , 2000 .

[28]  A. Stinchcombe Social Structure and Organizations , 2000, Political Organizations.

[29]  S. Winter,et al.  Introduction: The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities , 2001 .

[30]  T. Åstebro,et al.  More than a Dummy: The Probability of Failure, Survival and Acquisition of Firms in Financial Distress , 2001 .

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

[32]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history , 2002 .

[33]  Barry L. Bayus,et al.  The Market Evolution and Sales Takeoff of Product Innovations , 2002, Manag. Sci..

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

[35]  Michael Gort,et al.  Firm and Product Life Cycles and Firm Survival , 2002 .

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

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

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

[39]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Correcting for Endogeneity in Strategic Management Research , 2003 .

[40]  Keith D. Brouthers,et al.  Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choices and firm performance. , 2003 .

[41]  Viresh Dutta,et al.  Thin‐film solar cells: an overview , 2004 .

[42]  C. Ai,et al.  Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models , 2004 .

[43]  April Franco,et al.  KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER THROUGH INHERITANCE: SPIN- OUT GENERATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND SURVIVAL , 2004 .

[44]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Inter‐temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification , 2004 .

[45]  Thomas Lumley,et al.  An Introduction to Survival Analysis using Stata , 2005 .

[46]  Harbir Singh,et al.  Organizing for Innovation: Managing the Coordination-Autonomy Dilemma in Technology Acquisitions , 2006 .

[47]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Industry shakeouts and technological change , 2005 .

[48]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Entry by Spinoffs , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[49]  Johann Peter Murmann,et al.  Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change , 2006 .

[50]  Peter Thompson,et al.  Intra-Industry Spinoffs , 2006 .

[51]  Rajshree Agarwal,et al.  The Effect of the Innovative Environment on Exit of Entrepreneurial Firms , 2006 .

[52]  Travis Bradford,et al.  Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry , 2006 .

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

[54]  J. L. Bower,et al.  Strategy making as iterated processes of resource allocation , 2007 .

[55]  Barry L. Bayus,et al.  The Role of Pre-Entry Experience, Entry Timing and Product Technology Strategies in Explaining Firm Survival , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[56]  Barry L. Bayus,et al.  Creating Growth in New Markets: A Simultaneous Model of Firm Entry and Price , 2005 .

[57]  Glenn R. Carroll,et al.  Product Demography of De Novo and De Alio Firms in the Optical Disk Drive Industry, 1983-1999 , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[58]  Scott Shane,et al.  Handbook of technology and innovation management , 2008 .

[59]  Daniel C. Snow,et al.  'Old' Technology Responses to 'New' Technology Threats: Demand Heterogeneity and Graceful Technology Retreats , 2009 .

[60]  H. Görg,et al.  Foreign Acquisition, Plant Survival, and Employment Growth , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[61]  Rajshree Agarwal,et al.  Performance Differentials between Diversifying Entrants and Entrepreneurial Start-Ups: A Complexity Approach , 2007 .

[62]  Widener ANNETTA FORTUNE UNPACKING FIRM EXIT AT THE FIRM AND INDUSTRY LEVELS: THE ADAPTATION AND SELECTION OF FIRM CAPABILITIES , 2010 .

[63]  D. Teece Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation , 2010 .

[64]  Linus Dahlander,et al.  Progressing to the Center: Coordinating Project Work , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[65]  Tobias S. Schmidt,et al.  Shedding light on solar technologies—A techno-economic assessment and its policy implications , 2011 .

[66]  Robert Margolis,et al.  2010 Solar Technologies Market Report (Book) , 2011 .

[67]  S. Manigart,et al.  Firm exit after distress: differentiating between bankruptcy, voluntary liquidation and M&A , 2011 .

[68]  Ashish Arora,et al.  Cash-Out or Flameout! Opportunity Cost and Entrepreneurial Strategy: Theory, and Evidence from the Information Security Industry , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[69]  Antoaneta P. Petkova,et al.  Reputation and Decision Making Under Ambiguity: A Study of US Venture Capital Firms' Investments in the Emerging Clean Energy Sector , 2011 .

[70]  Glenn Hoetker,et al.  Configuration of Value Chain Activities: The Effect of Pre-Entry Capabilities, Transaction Hazards, and Industry Evolution on Decisions to Internalize , 2012 .

[71]  Rajshree Agarwal,et al.  Growing pains: Pre-entry experience and the challenge of transition to incumbency† , 2012 .

[72]  O. Marsili,et al.  Going, going, gone: exit forms and the innovative capabilities of firms , 2012 .

[73]  Fabrice Cavarretta,et al.  Who Changes Course? The Role of Domain Knowledge and Novel Framing in Making Technology Changes , 2012 .

[74]  J. Nickerson,et al.  Dominant Designs, Innovation Shocks and the Follower's Dilemma , 2013 .

[75]  C. Breyer,et al.  Global overview on grid‐parity , 2013 .

[76]  Henrich R. Greve,et al.  Greener Pastures: Outside Options and Strategic Alliance Withdrawal , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[77]  Stine Grodal,et al.  Perfect Timing? Dominant Category, Dominant Design, and the Window of Opportunity for Firm Entry , 2015 .

[78]  Brian Wu,et al.  Opportunity costs, industry dynamics, and corporate diversification: Evidence from the cardiovascular medical device industry, 1976–2004 , 2013 .

[79]  Ajay Bhaskarabhatla,et al.  Latent Submarket Dynamics and Industry Evolution: Lessons from the U.S. Laser Industry , 2013 .

[80]  Jeroen G. Kuilman,et al.  Industrial and Corporate Change , 2013 .

[81]  R. Kapoor,et al.  Decoding the Adaptability–Rigidity Puzzle: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Incumbents’ Pursuit of Gene Therapy and Monoclonal Antibodies , 2014 .

[82]  Michelle Rogan Executive Departures Without Client Losses: The Role of Multiplex Ties in Exchange Partner Retention , 2014 .

[83]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Complementary Assets as Pipes and Prisms: Innovation Incentives and Trajectory Choices , 2012 .

[84]  C. Varum,et al.  Economic slowdowns, hazard rates and foreign ownership , 2014 .

[85]  J. Eggers Competing technologies and industry evolution: The benefits of making mistakes in the flat panel display industry: Competing Technologies and Industry Evolution , 2014 .

[86]  Daniel C. Snow,et al.  Intergenerational Hybrids: Spillbacks, Spillforwards, and Adapting to Technology Discontinuities , 2015, Organ. Sci..

[87]  Mahka Moeen,et al.  Incubation of an Industry: Heterogeneous Knowledge Bases and Modes of Value Capture , 2015 .

[88]  Dawn R. DeTienne,et al.  Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test , 2015 .

[89]  Nathan R. Furr,et al.  Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants' technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry , 2015 .

[90]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Integrative Capabilities, Vertical Integration, and Innovation Over Successive Technology Lifecycles , 2016, Organ. Sci..

[91]  Ron Adner,et al.  Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐curves , 2016 .

[92]  Matthew Semadeni,et al.  Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research , 2016 .

[93]  M. Lieberman,et al.  Entry, exit, and the potential for resource redeployment , 2017 .

[94]  Mahka Moeen,et al.  Entry into Nascent Industries: Disentangling a Firm's Capability Portfolio at the Time of Investment Versus Market Entry: Entry into Nascent Industries , 2017 .