|
|
|
| Appropriability Strategy, Technology Flexibility and the Emergence of Dominant Designs：A Comparative Case Study |
| Li Dongmei1,Liu Weiqi2,3,Song Zhihong2 |
| (1.School of Mathematical Sciences, Shanxi University;2.Institute of Management and Decision, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, China;3.Faculty of Finance and Banking, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030006, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Based on the firmlevel and technologylevel perspectives, the article takes the comparative case study on BD vs. HD DVD in the compact disc industry and Android vs. iOS in mobile operating system industry and investigates how technology sponsors’ appropriability strategy affects the emergence of dominant designs. The case analyses show that, on the one hand, the more open strategy by technology sponsors may attract more component providers which contributes to enlarging the size and diversity of standard alliances, thereby increases the likelihood of the emergence of dominant designs; on the other hand, encouraging component providers to participate in the development and commercialization of technology standard may also contribute to the improvements on technology standard, which in turn may attract more component providers. The selfreinforcing effects between size and diversity of standard alliances may eventually lead to the emergence of dominant designs; technology flexibility may not only be influenced by appropriability strategy, but also by the inherent characteristics of technology specifications established by technology sponsors in standard development process. The higher level of technology flexibility means more revisions and improvements, which may compensate for the initial design shortcomings with specific technology standard.
|
|
Received: 24 January 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] GARUD R, KUMARASWAMY A. Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: an exploration of sun microcosmic open systems strategy[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14(5): 351-369.[2] SRINIVASAN R, LILIEN G L, RANGASWAMY A. The emergence of dominant designs[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2006,70(2):1-17.[3] HARGRAVE T J, VAN DE VEN A H. A collective action model of institutional innovation[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2006,31(4): 864-888.[4] 李冬梅, 宋志红. 网络模式、标准联盟与主导设计的产生[J]. 科学学研究, 2017, 35(3) :111-120.[5] WADE J. Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: an empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1995,16(Summer):111-133.[6] VANHAVERBEKEW, NOORDERHAVEN N G. Competition between alliance blocks: the case of the RISC microprocessor technology[J]. Organization Studies, 2001, 22(1):1-30.[7] AXELROD R, MITCHELL W, THOMAS R E, et al. Coalition formation in standard-setting alliances[J]. Management Science, 1995,41(9): 1493-1508.[8] GALLAGHER S R. The battle of the blue laser DVDs: the significance of corporate strategy in standards battles[J]. Technovation, 2012,32(2): 90–98.[9] SCHILLING M A. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002,45(2): 387-398.[10] SUAREZ F F, GRODAL S, GOTSOPOULOS A. Perfect timing? dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(3):437-448.[11] GAWER A. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework[J].Research Policy, 2014, 43(7):1239-1249.[12] ARTHUR W B. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events[J]. The Economic Journal, 1989,99(394):116-131.[13] SUAREZ F F. Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework[J].Research Policy, 2004,33(2):271-286.[14] WEST J. How open is open enough? melding proprietary and open source platform strategies[J]. Research Policy,2003 ,32(7): 1259-1285.[15] TEECE D J. Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assests[J]. California Management Review, 1998, 40(3):55-79.[16] LAURSEN K, SALTER A J. The paradox of openness: appropriability, external search and collaboration[J]. Research Policy, 2014,43(5): 867-878. [17] GARUD R, KUMARASWAMY A. Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of sun microsystems and JAVA[J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45(1): 196-214.[18] LICHTENTHALER U.Licensing technology to shape standards: examining the influence of the industry context[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2012 (79): 851-861.[19] THOMKE S. The role of flexibility in the development of new products: an empirical study[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1): 105-119.[20] VAN DEN ENDE J, VAN DE KAA G, UIJL D S, et al.The paradox of standard flexibility: the effects of co-evolution between standard and interorganizational network[J]. Organization Studies, 2012, 33 (5-6) :705-736.[21] SOH P-H. Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010,31(4): 438-461.[22] YIN R K.Case study research：design and methods [M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.[23] COZZARIN B P, LEE W, KOO B. Sony′s redemption: the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD standards war[J]. Prometheus, 2012, 30(4): 377-394.[24] GRENWEDEL E. Blu-rays copy-protection advantage[EB/OL].http://www.nxtbook. com/ nxtbooks/questex/hom070807/index.php?startpage=10.[25] Singin' the Blus [J]. The Economist, 2005, 377(8451): 67-68.[26] DOUCET E, BOIVIN C. HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray: the end of a battle[J]. Journal of Business Case Studies, 2009,5(3):11-16.[27] CAMPBELL-KELLY M, GARCIA-SWARTZ D, LAM R, et al. Economic and business perspectives on smartphones as multi-sided platforms[J]. Telecommunications Policy, 2015, 39(8):717-734.[28] DUTTA A, PUVVALA A, ROY R, et al. Technology diffusion: shift happens——the case of iOS and android handsets[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2017,118(5):28-43.[29] LEE C, LEE D, HWANG J. Platform openness and the productivity of content providers: a meta-frontier analysis[J]. Telecommunications Policy, 2015, 39(7):553-562. |
|
|
|
