Empirical study of the evolving PC technology system and the measurement of its performance divide

Maximizing the performance evolution of a technology system relies on optimizing investments in the appropriate sub-systems. This approach subsequently minimizes the impact of a sub-system that trails in technological performance and hinders systemic development, referred to as the reverse salient. In this paper, we developed a performance gap and a time gap measure to analyze reverse salience and applied this measurement technique to an empirical study of the personal computer (PC) technology systempsilas graphics processing unit (GPU) and PC game sub-systems with special focus on the systempsilas overall computational performance in game play. Our measurements of the temporal behavior of reverse salience with the above measures indicate that the PC game sub-system is the reverse salient, continuously trailing behind the technological performance of the GPU sub-system from 1996 through 2006. Additionally, our results highlight the fact that whereas the time gap measure reveals a fairly consistent three-year period of the PC game sub-system closing the performance differential to the GPU sub-system, the performance gap measure shows an increasing disparity between the sub-systems over the same period. We discuss our empirical findings by elaborating on possible underlying causes and by providing managerial implications.

[1]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation , 2002 .

[2]  Michael E. Raynor,et al.  The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth , 2003 .

[3]  Birgitte Andersen,et al.  The evolution of technological trajectories 1890-1990 , 1998 .

[4]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society , 1984 .

[5]  Garrett van Ryzin,et al.  An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic Industry , 1998 .

[6]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[7]  T. P. Hughes,et al.  Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. , 1985 .

[8]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .

[9]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

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

[11]  Riccardo Leoncini,et al.  The nature of long-run technological change: innovation, evolution and technological systems , 1998 .

[12]  Edward W. Constant,et al.  On the Diversity and Co-Evolution of Technological Multiples , 1978 .

[13]  Edwin R. Otto.  Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage , 1986 .

[14]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of organizations , 1996 .

[15]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  Technology as Problem-Solving Procedures and Technology as Input-Output Relations: Some Perspectives on the Theory of Production , 2006 .

[16]  R. V. Wyk.  Innovation: The attacker's advantage : Richard N. Foster 316 pages, £14.95 (London, Macmillan, 1986) , 1987 .

[17]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Systems Competition and Network Effects , 1994 .

[18]  Tsuyoshi Numagami,et al.  Dynamic interaction between strategy and technology , 1992 .

[19]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Perspectives on Technology. , 1978 .

[20]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  A Longitudinal Investigation of Personal Computers in Homes: Adoption Determinants and Emerging Challenges , 2001, MIS Q..

[21]  Kyoung-Joo Lee,et al.  Mobile music business in Japan and Korea: Copyright management institutions as a reverse salient , 2005, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[22]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process , 1940 .

[23]  B. Carlsson,et al.  On the nature, function and composition of technological systems , 1991 .

[24]  Karel Mulder,et al.  PVC plastic: a history of systems development and entrenchment , 2001 .

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

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

[27]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technological Paradigms and Trajectories , 2007 .

[28]  Kathryn Graziano.  The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[29]  Daniel Z. Levin,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND THE TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE: AN INVESTIGATION OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. , 1997 .

[30]  J. T. Wiebes,et al.  CO-EVOLUTION OF FIGS AND THEIR INSECT POLLINATORS , 1979 .

[31]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[32]  M. Heidegger.  The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays , 1977 .

[33]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility , 1985 .

[34]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[35]  L. Caporael.  College Students' Computer Use. , 1985 .

[36]  E. Dahmen,et al.  ‘Development Blocks’ in Industrial Economics , 1988 .

[37]  B. Zirger,et al.  A Model of New Product Development: An Empirical Test , 1990 .

[38]  Geoffrey A. Moore,et al.  Crossing the Chasm , 1991 .

[39]  Birgitte Andersen.  The hunt for S-shaped growth paths in technological innovation: a patent study* , 1999 .