Radical Innovation, Paradigm Shift and Incumbent’s Dilemma The Case of the Auto Industry
Radical innovations often upend the incumbents firms and even render them obsolete (Ansari & Krop, 2012; Benner, 2010), as these firms often have great difficulties in addressing the challenge posed by these innovations due to inertia (Ghemawat, 1991), tendencies to exploit existing competences (Levinthal & March, 1993; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008), organizational rigidity (Beonard-Barton, 1992), complacency and internal culture (Tellis, 2006), problems in the incentive system and resource allocation process (Christensen, 1997), and gap in the organizational capabilities required for embracing the new technology (Henderson, 2006; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). However, as radical innovations become increasingly frequent across industries, responding to this serious threat has become a strategic priority for many incumbent firms.
Research shows that incumbents survive or even prosper in the face of radical innovations by forging effective partnerships with challenger firms (Ansari & Krop, 2012), establishing a separate entity to fend off the threat (Christensen, 1997; Christensen, Raynor & McDonald, 2015), better evaluation and investment approach (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003), appropriately configuring organizational form and structure (Ansari & Krop, 2012), coupling their basic research function with applied research functions (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003), possessing downstream complementary assets critical for the commercialization of the new technology (Ansari & Krop, 2012; Hill & Rothaermel, 2003), and more importantly by possessing a high willingness to cannibalize their core business (Chandy and Tellis, 1998). Incumbents can also thrive or overcome the so-called incumbent’s curse by pioneering radical innovations by themselves (Chandy and Tellis, 2000).
Previous studies on radical innovations focus primarily on a single product (e.g., Chandy and Tellis, 1998, 2000), technological or business model innovation (Ansari & Krop, 2012; Christensen, 1997; Hill & Rothaermel, 2003). These innovations may have the potential to shrink the incumbents’ marketspace, e.g., Gemesis’ synthetic diamonds challenging the natural diamonds (McAdams and Reavis, 2008), EasyJet challenging mainstream airlines such as BA, Netflix challenging the traditional movie rental business (Leonhartdt, 2006), or displace the incumbent market leader, e.g., IBM PC and its clones destroyed minicomputer makers such as DEC, Wang, Apollo and so on. Yet, they do not often disrupt the entire industry. But in recent years, more industry-wide disruptions have occurs due to emerge of not a single radical innovation but an array of them simultaneously from within or outside of a particular industry. In this process, it is not just the incumbent market leader or a few incumbent firms but the entire value chain, ecosystem or industry get displaced, the so-called paradigm shift, e.g., GPS device by software companies such as Google and Waze, desktop computing by mobile devices, and the traditional auto industry centered around the internal combustion engine by peer-to-peer service provider (e.g., Uber), consumer electronics (e.g., Apple), battery-driven vehicle (e.g., Tesla), and software companies (e.g., Google, Amazon). When this happens, incumbents are not fighting against a particular firm or a few firms that have introduced radical innovations based on similar technologies, but an army of very diverse entrants that are disrupting the entire industries from various directions, some of which are from remote industries with vastly different organizational capabilities, mindset and business model. How incumbents of the existing ecosystem should best cope with the massive and dramatic industry-level disruption induced by multiple radical innovations along a number of fronts or paradigm shift has largely remained unexamined. In the face of paradigm shift, can the above mentioned strategies or tactics for incumbents to combat single radical innovation or firm be adequate to deal with the fundamental existential threat? If not, what should be the appropriate strategies for them to survive or even thrive in the advent of a paradigm shift? In this paper, we attempt to sketch out a research framework to investigate this important issue.
Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2015). The disruptor’s dilemma: Tivo and the U.S. television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829-1853.
Ansari, S., & Krop, P. (2012). Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics. Research Policy, 41, 1357-1374.
Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417.
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Coopetition: a revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation, the game theory strategy that’s changing the game of business. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246-258.
Deloitte Consulting LLP. (2016). The future of mobility. White Paper, Deloitte University Press.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147-162.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 92-101.
Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257-274.
Ghemawat, P. (1991). Market incumbency and technological inertia, Marketing Science, 10(spring), 161-171.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Markman, G.D., & Waldron, T.L. (2014). Small entrants and large incumbents: a framework of micro entry. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 179-197.
McKinsey & Company. (2015). Competing for the connected customer: perspectives on the opportunities created by car connectivity and automation. September, White Paper.
McKinney & Company. (2016). Automotive revolution – perspective towards 2030. January, White Paper.
Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers: New York, Harper Business Essentials.
Perez, C. (2009). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185-202.
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence, New York: Harper & Row.
Seidel, M., Loch, C. H., & Chahil, S. (2005). Quo Vadis, automotive industry? A vision of possible industry transformations. European Management Journal, 23(4), 439-449.
Suarez, F. F. (2004). Battles for technological dominance: an integrated framework. Research Policy, 33(2), 271-286.
Teece, D. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285-305.
Tellis, G. J. (2006). Disruptive technology or visionary leadership? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 34-38.
Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrate Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.
Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wareham, J., Fox, P., & Giner, J. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms: the author(s) authorize(s) the publication of the text in the journal;
2. The author(s) ensure(s) that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not in the process of evaluation by another journal;
3. The journal is not responsible for the views, ideas and concepts presented in articles, and these are the sole responsibility of the author(s);
4. The publishers reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt texts to meet with publication standards.
5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição NãoComercial 4.0 internacional, which allows the work to be shared with recognized authorship and initial publication in this journal.
6. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
7. Authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on a personal web page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate positive effects, as well as increase the impact and citations of the published work (see the effect of Free Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html• 8. Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.