Technological integration for imitation deterrence of new entrants: evidence from the Japanese digital imaging industry in 1990–2014

References

• Ansari, S. S., & Krop, P. (2012). Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics. Research Policy, 41(8), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur, B. W. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Argyres, N., Bigelow, L., & Nickerson, J. A. (2015). Dominant designs, innovation shocks, and the follower’s dilemma. Strategic Management Journal, 36(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C. Y., Clark , K. B. (2006). Complex Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology. In Braha, D., Minai, A.A., Bar-Yam, Y., (Eds.), Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering Systems (pp. 175, 205). New York Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baldwin, C. Y. (2023). Design Rules: Past and Future. Industrial and Corporate Change, 32(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barney, J., Ketchen, D. J., & Wright, M. (2021). Resource-based theory and the value creation framework. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1936–1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211021655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barney, J., & Wright, P. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner; examining the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199821)37:1<31::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-W
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. J., & Tripsas, M. (2012). The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: The evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management Journal, 33(3), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergek, A., Berggren, C., Magnusson, T., & Hobday, M. (2013). Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation? Research Policy, 42(6-7), 1210–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, J. (2023). How incumbent firms respond to emerging technologies: Comparing supplyside and demand-side effects. California Management Review, 66(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256231199263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 597–621. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, N., & Galvin, P. (2018). When do product architectures mirror organisational architectures? The combined role of product complexity and the rate of technological change. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(9), 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1437259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardeal, N., & Antonio, N. (2012). Valuable, rare, inimitable resources and organization (VRIO) resources or valuable, rare, inimitable resources (VRI) capabilities: What leads to competitive advantage? African Journal of Business Management, 6(37), 10159–10170. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM12.295
   Google Scholar
• Chen, M. J., Michel, J. G., & Lin, W. (2021). Worlds apart? Connecting competitive dynamics and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1820–1840. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211000422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. W., & Kusunoki, K. (2001). The modularity trap: Innovation, technology phase shifts, and the resulting limits of virtual organizations. In I. Nonaka & D. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilization (pp. 202–230). Sage Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199603)17:3<197::AID-SMJ804>3.0.CO;2-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1990). The power of product integrity. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 107–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D., & Roy, R. R. (2008). The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation. Management Science, 54(5), 939–955. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fixson, S. K., & Park, J. (2008). The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy, 37(8), 1296–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furr, N., & Eisenhardt, K. (2021). Strategy and uncertainty: Resource-based view, strategy creation view, and the hybrid between them. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1915–1935. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211011760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huenteler, J., Ossenbrink, J., Schmidt, T. S., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2016). How a product’s design hierarchy shapes the evolution of technological knowledge—Evidence from patent-citation networks in wind power. Research Policy, 45(6), 1195–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, H., & Song, J. (2017). Innovation and recurring shifts in industrial leadership: Three phases of change and persistence in the camera industry. Research Policy, 46(2), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karim, S., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Path-dependent and path-breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the U.S. medical sector, 1978–1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1061–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1061::AID-SMJ116>3.0.CO;2-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, C., & Groen, J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson, T., Lindström, G., & Berggren, C. (2003). Architectural or modular innovation? Managing discontinuous product development in response to challenging environmental performance targets. International Journal of Innovation Management, 07(01), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919603000714
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson, T., & Werner, V. (2022). Conceptualisations of incumbent firms in sustainability transitions: Insights from organisation theory and a systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(2), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahmood, T., & Mubarik, M. S. (2020). Balancing innovation and exploitation in the fourth industrial revolution: Role of intellectual capital and technology absorptive capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meissner, D., Burton, N., Galvin, P., Sarpong, D., & Bach, N. (2021). Understanding cross border innovation activities: The linkages between innovation modes, product architecture and firm boundaries. Journal of Business Research, 128, 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. (2002). The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697::AID-SMJ909>3.0.CO;2-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/258154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pil, F. K., & Cohen, S. K. (2006). Modularity: Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22528166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popadiuk, S., & Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.03.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothaermel, F. T., & Hill, C. W. (2005). Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organization Science, 16(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/259392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organizational design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1147–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1147::AID-SMJ128>3.0.CO;2-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utterback, J. (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, B., Wan, Z., & Levinthal, D. A. (2014). Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9), 1257–1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajac, E. J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Blind spots in industry and competitor analysis: Implications of interfirm (mis)perceptions for strategic decisions. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/258606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar