INCUMBENT SURVIVAL DURING MARKET FUSION IN MATURED INDUSTRIES: THE INFLUENCE OF COMPONENT AND ARCHITECTURAL CAPABILITIES ON THE SURVIVAL OF U.S. MACHINE TOOL MANUFACTURERS DURING 1975–1995

We investigate the effects of technological capabilities on firms’ survival chances during market-fusing technological change. Our context is the matured U.S. machine tool industry. During the period of our study, 1975 through 1995, a drastic shift in demand conditions prompted the buyers of machine tools to demand more versatile products to improve their productivity. The advent of microprocessors enabled manufacturers to meet these demands by combining the functions of previously distinctive products. As a result, market segments fused and machine tool manufacturers in once disparate product categories came into direct competition with one another. We propose that incumbents with broader component and architectural capabilities will be better able to adapt to and hence survive market-fusing technological change. Our results, based on a panel data set of U.S. machine tool incumbents, support the value of broad component capabilities but reveal no adaptive advantage of architectural capabilities.

[1]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and market Concepts in Technological Evolution : Research Policy , 1985 .

[2]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[4]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Measuring competence?: exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research , 1994 .

[5]  Peter Schrag,et al.  The decline of the WASP , 1971 .

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

[7]  David C. Mowery,et al.  VERTICAL SPECIALIZATION AND INDUSTRY STRUCTURE IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES , 2004 .

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

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

[10]  Andrea Prencipe,et al.  Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system , 2000 .

[11]  D. Schendel,et al.  Strategic responses to technological threats , 1976 .

[12]  W. Steeds,et al.  A history of machine tools, 1700-1910 , 1969 .

[13]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

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

[15]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[16]  H. Rao,et al.  The Demography of Corporations and Industries , 1999 .

[17]  M. Iansiti,et al.  Firm Asymmetries and Sequential R&D: Theory and Evidence from the Mainframe Computer Industry , 1997 .

[18]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave , 1995 .

[19]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  CUSTOMER POWER, STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, AND THE FAILURE OF LEADING FIRMS , 1996 .

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

[21]  Walter G. Vincenti,et al.  What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History , 1990 .

[22]  P. Kleindorfer.  Management of Productivity and Technology in Manufacturing , 1985 .

[23]  A.Carl Kotchian.  The commercial aircraft industry , 1967 .

[24]  Yusuf Altintas,et al.  Manufacturing Automation: Metal Cutting Mechanics, Machine Tool Vibrations, and CNC Design , 2000 .

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

[26]  D. L. Marples,et al.  THE DECISIONS OF ENGINEERING DESIGN , 1961, IRE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[27]  B. Payne,et al.  Machine tool industry , 1985 .