Winning the standards race:: Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods

In markets that have forces encouraging the adoption of a dominant design, the size of a technology's installed base and the availability of complementary goods may be the most important factors determining its success or failure. This article examines the path dependent nature of technology trajectories, and the self-reinforcing effects of installed base and complementary goods. The article posits that firms can greatly influence their installed base and the availability of complementary goods through their distribution, alliance and marketing strategies. Both theory and examples are used to demonstrate how firms can manage the dynamics of technology selection in their favor.

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

[2]  R. England.  Three Reasons for Investing Now in Fossil Fuel Conservation: Technological Lock-In, Institutional Inertia, and Oil Wars , 1994 .

[3]  R. Reed,et al.  Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 1990 .

[4]  Luk N. Van Wassenhove,et al.  Behind the Learning Curve: Linking Learning Activities to Waste Reduction , 2000 .

[5]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Beyond business process redesign: redefining Baxter's business network. , 1992, Sloan management review.

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

[7]  R. Garud,et al.  Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy , 1993 .

[8]  Eppen Gd,et al.  Bundling--new products, new markets, low risk. , 1991 .

[9]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  Patterns of Technological Innovation , 1984 .

[10]  F. Lévy.  Adaptation in the Production Process , 1965 .

[11]  Louis E. Yelle.  THE LEARNING CURVE: HISTORICAL REVIEW AND COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY , 1979 .

[12]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[13]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

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

[15]  Jay Pil Choi,et al.  Network Externality, Compatibility Choice, and Planned Obsolescence , 1994 .

[16]  Raghu Garud,et al.  CHARGING COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS IN NETWORK INDUSTRIES: AN EXPLORATION OF SUM MICROSYSTEMS' OPEN , 1993 .

[17]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Empirical studies of innovation and market structure , 1989 .

[18]  R. Garud,et al.  Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution , 1997 .

[19]  G. Hall,et al.  The experience curve from the economist's perspective , 1985 .

[20]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[21]  M. Thum,et al.  Network externalities, technological progress, and the competition of market contracts , 1994 .

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

[23]  Joseph Farrell,et al.  Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation , 1985 .

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

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

[26]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Product Introduction with Network Externalities , 1992 .

[27]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

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