Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging

There is empirical evidence that established firms often have difficulty adapting to radical technological change. Although prior work in the evolutionary tradition emphasizes the inertial forces associated with the local nature of learning processes, little theoretical attention has been devoted in this tradition to understanding how managerial cognition affects the adaptive intelligence of organizations. Through an in‐depth case study of the response of the Polaroid Corporation to the ongoing shift from analog to digital imaging, we expand upon this work by examining the relationship between managers' understanding of the world and the accumulation of organizational capabilities. The Polaroid story clearly illustrates the importance of managerial cognitive representations in directing search processes in a new learning environment, the evolutionary trajectory of organizational capabilities, and ultimately processes of organizational adaptation. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  J. Ruiz Moreno.  [Organizational learning]. , 2001, Revista de enfermeria.

[2]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search , 2000 .

[3]  L.B. Feffer.  Insisting on the impossible: the life of Edwin Land , 1999, IEEE Spectrum.

[4]  Stelios C. Zyglidopoulos,et al.  Initial Environmental Conditions and Technological Change , 1999 .

[5]  James N. Baron,et al.  Building the Iron Cage: Determinants of Managerial Intensity in the Early Years of Organizations , 1999 .

[6]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos , 1998 .

[7]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[8]  Mary Tripsas.  Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry , 1997 .

[9]  Margaret A. Peteraf,et al.  GETTING TO KNOW YOU: A THEORY OF STRATEGIC GROUP IDENTITY , 1997, Strategic Management Journal.

[10]  M. Sastry.  Problems and Paradoxes in a Model of Punctuated Organizational Change , 1997 .

[11]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation : The case of R&D , 1997 .

[12]  Tudor Rickards,et al.  Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies , 1997 .

[13]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[14]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Executive Succession, Strategic Reorientation and Performance Growth: A Longitudinal Study in the U.S. Cement Industry in Stable Environments , 1996 .

[15]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[16]  J. Porac,et al.  In Praise of Managerial Narrow-Mindedness , 1996 .

[17]  Roger L. M. Dunbar,et al.  A Frame for Deframing in Strategic Analysis , 1996 .

[18]  P. Sopp.  Cluster analysis. , 1996, Veterinary immunology and immunopathology.

[19]  H. Thomas,et al.  Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers , 1995 .

[20]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[21]  S. Winter,et al.  Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence , 1994 .

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

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

[24]  A. Huff,et al.  STRATEGIC GROUPS: A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE , 1993 .

[25]  P. Barr,et al.  Cognitive change, strategic action and organizational renewal , 1993 .

[26]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development: Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125 (Summer 1992) , 1992 .

[27]  Organizations , 1992, Restoration & Management Notes.

[28]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Resetting the Clock: The Dynamics of Organizational Change and Failure. , 1990 .

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

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

[31]  Warren Boeker,et al.  Organizational Origins: Entrepreneurial and Environmental Imprinting of the Time of Founding , 1988 .

[32]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance , 1986 .

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

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

[35]  D. Hambrick,et al.  Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers , 1984 .

[36]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Managerial Response to Changing Environments: Perspectives on Problem Sensing from Social Cognition. , 1982 .

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

[38]  Badiul Alam Majumdar,et al.  Innovations, product developments, and technology transfers: An empirical study of dynamic competitive advantage, the case of electronic calculators , 1982 .

[39]  Robert D. Miewald.  Administrative Science Quarterly , 1981 .

[40]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structuring of Organizations , 1979 .

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

[42]  R. Brandis.  The Limits of Organization , 1975 .

[43]  J. Kimberly,et al.  Environmental constraints and organizational structure: a comparative analysis of rehabilitation organizations. , 1975, Administrative science quarterly.

[44]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[45]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .