Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Management Technology and Innovation Management
by
Elizabeth J. Altman, Frank Nagle, Michael L. Tushman

Introduction

The goal of this annotated bibliography on technology and innovation is to organize and present the most important literature relevant to a scholar seeking to understand and advance the field. It includes articles that are highly cited and foundational pieces, as well as recent articles that help give the reader a sense of where the field is headed and where likely opportunities for future research lie. This article seeks to strike an equilibrium among the variety of perspectives that exist in technology and innovation literature, balancing new and old research as well as economic, organizational, and cross-disciplinary methodologies. The innovative process is broadly considered here, as well as the technologies that result from it, including business model innovation, service-level innovation, and product innovation, highlighting articles that utilize diverse levels of analysis. As technological advancements dramatically reduce information processing, storage, and communication costs and our world becomes more interconnected and networked, the innovation process itself is rapidly evolving. Scholars must root themselves in the literature of the past, but be flexible enough to incorporate such rapid changes into their models of innovation and technology. For this reason, the early sections of this bibliography present the Classical Works, from which other works derive. The discussion then turns to literature related to technology Change and Diffusion, an important part of the process through which the environments in which firms exist evolve. Next, the article explores technology and innovation Strategy, which drives the development of new technologies and helps dictate the organizational structure of firms and institutions. The article then focuses on technology and innovation Development, from which learning occurs, resulting in a shaping of strategy and organization. Then it focuses on Organizational Perspectives related to technology and innovation, which help to structure the development process and add context to strategic decision making. Finally, literature is presented related to technology and innovation Policy, which directly shapes the environment to which firms must react. Together, these six areas (classics, change/diffusion, strategy, development, organization, and policy) allow scholars to better understand the outcomes of the innovation processes that shape products and services, drive firm success, and influence society.

Reference Resources

There are a number of compilations that overview the state of the technology and innovation field as it was at the time of publication. Fagerberg, et al. 2005 explores the technology and innovation fields from a number of different disciplinary perspectives. Baum 2002 focuses on organizational topics but includes a variety of technology- and innovation-related chapters. Walsh and Brief 2007– is a yearly publication that summarizes and critiques the latest literature in multiple fields, including technology and innovation. Clegg, et al. 2006 includes both macro and micro analyses of organizations that are relevant to innovation.

  • Baum, Joel A. C., ed. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This volume includes contributions from fifty international scholars, each chapter following a standardized structure with five common elements. The authors discuss three levels of the organization for each topic: intraorganizational, organizational, and interorganizational. Topics covered include networks, ecology, and technology perspectives.

    Find this resource:

  • Clegg, Stuart R., Cynthia Hardy, Thomas B. Lawrence, and Walter R. Nord, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. 2d ed. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2006.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This updated version of a seminal work published ten years before contains thirty chapters. Providing an overview of research in organization studies, the editors use the metaphor of conversations to guide their selection and introduction of topics. The first section discusses theorizing in the field, while the second explores specific issues, many of which are related to innovation.

    Find this resource:

  • Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This handbook presents a collection of articles addressing the phenomenon of innovation from a variety of disciplines. The articles are intended to summarize the field and encompass the innovation process from innovation creation to the role of institutions and organizations in innovation to the importance of innovation for economic growth and competitiveness.

    Find this resource:

  • Walsh, James P., and Arthur P. Brief, eds. Academy of Management Annals. London: Routledge, 2007–.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    The AOM Annals are a yearly series of books featuring invited articles that summarize recent advances in multiple fields of management. The Annals are intended to not only review and critique existing literature but also to discuss areas for future study.

    Find this resource:

    Journals

    Because the study of technology and innovation crosses a variety of disciplines and fields, there are a wide variety of journals that publish research related to these topics. Below is a set of journals that regularly publish material relevant for technology and innovation researchers. The Academy of Management publishes two journals related to this topic, Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) and Academy of Management Review (AMR). The primary distinction between the two is that AMR contains more theoretical pieces, while AMJ publishes empirical research that utilizes a range of methods. Administrative Science Quarterly, Management Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal all publish both rigorous theoretical and empirical articles that contribute to a range of literatures. Research in Organizational Behavior focuses on organization studies and only accepts commissioned works. Research Policy addresses policy and management implications of technology and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change concentrates particularly on matters related to firm and industry change.

    Classical Works

    This section includes foundational pieces from which most modern technology and innovation research has derived. These are books, chapters, and articles that are highly cited throughout the literature and derive strongly from disciplinary work (primarily economics), history, and empirical studies. The oldest piece cited here is Schumpeter 1942, the chapter on the process of “creative destruction” in the classic book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, which is mentioned in almost all research related to innovation processes. Burns and Stalker 1994 focuses on the management of innovation, particularly as firms’ environments change and they enter new fields. Arrow 1962 is a work related to how ideas differ from other goods. Chandler 1977 emphasizes the importance of management in industrial processes, Allen 1977 gathers empirical studies highlighting the structure of firms related to research and development (R&D) performance, and Utterback and Abernathy 1975 brings in consideration of production capabilities. Nelson and Winter 1982 criticizes neoclassical economics and presents an evolutionary theory of innovation, and Abernathy and Clark 1985 links innovation and competitive dynamics.

    • Abernathy, William J., and Kim B. Clark. “Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction.” Research Policy 14 (1985): 3–22.

      DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Abernathy and Clark develop a framework for analyzing the competitive implications of innovation by exploring two key dimensions: disruptiveness of a technology and its target market. Drawing on examples from the auto industry, they show that the innovations created by firms in an industry shape the way that industry moves.

      Find this resource:

    • Allen, Thomas J. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Allen’s seminal book aggregates a large number of empirical studies that focus on the structure of firm organizational systems and their impact on R&D performance. He covers a wide array of topics, including the importance of communication, goals of engineers, and dissemination of technological information within and outside the firm.

      Find this resource:

    • Arrow, Kenneth. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Edited by Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, 609–625. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Arrow’s formative work shows that not only is invention important and necessary, but ideas are different from all other goods. He emphasizes the difficulty in modeling innovation and the fact that free enterprise economies often underinvest in R&D and innovation because of appropriation ambiguity, riskiness, and ease of idea reuse.

      Find this resource:

    • Burns, Tom, and G. M. Stalker. The Management of Innovation. 3d rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

      DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198288787.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Burns and Stalker in their classic book on innovation management introduce the concepts of “mechanistic” systems, appropriate for management of stable conditions, and “organic” systems for unstable environments. They explore why firms do not adapt as they enter new fields and highlight the importance of politics and status in organizations. The first edition was published in 1961.

      Find this resource:

    • Chandler, Alfred D. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1977.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      In this Pulitzer Prize–winning book, Chandler, a business historian, focuses on the changing US production environment and the managers that ran these enterprises (particularly from the 1850s to the 1920s). The title reflects Chandler’s main theme that in some industries managers replaced Adam Smith’s invisible hand of market forces.

      Find this resource:

    • Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1982.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      With acknowledged intellectual debt to Schumpeter and Simon, Nelson and Winter endeavor to explain economic change by developing an evolutionary theory, based on notions from biology, that rejects some of the basic assumptions of neoclassical economics. Their work includes a focus on technological innovation and competitive dynamics.

      Find this resource:

    • Schumpeter, Joseph. “The Process of Creative Destruction.” In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. By Joseph Schumpeter, 81–86. New York: Harper & Row, 1942.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      In this chapter, Schumpeter presents his widely cited process of “creative destruction,” explaining “the evolutionary character of the capitalist process” and emphasizing how important an understanding of these dynamics is to comprehending economic life. This concept, highlighting the development of new goods, processes, markets, and organizations, is fundamental to most innovation research.

      Find this resource:

    • Utterback, James M., and William J. Abernathy. “A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation.” Omega 33 (1975): 639–656.

      DOI: 10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Utterback and Abernathy present ideas for an integrative theory addressing the relationship between a firm’s ability to innovate and its environment, its competitive strategy, and the production capabilities of the firm and its competitors.

      Find this resource:

    Change and Diffusion

    Innovations in technology tend to follow a pattern of relatively small changes and occasional discontinuities that see a restructuring of the industry. During these times, dominant designs and standards emerge as the new innovation is adopted by firms and individuals. In this section, we first explore the literature related to the Nature and Progress of Technology Change, and then survey literature on Innovation Diffusion.

    Nature and Progress of Technology Change

    The nature of how technology progresses has been widely studied, and multiple forces have been found to direct the trajectory of technology and innovation streams. Dosi 1982 explores the economic and political forces that shape such streams, while Tushman and Anderson 1986 investigates the effects of the resultant technological discontinuities on industry structure and organizational environments. Tripsas and Gavetti 2000 considers why firms fail to adjust to the introduction of such radical technologies, and Henderson and Clark 1990 examines architectural innovations, which lie between incremental and radical innovations. Romer 1990 makes the case that technology change and growth are the results of prior inputs into the economy, while Aghion, et al. 2005 explores the impacts of competition on innovation and the resulting technological change. Examining the importance of the entire innovation ecosystem, Adner 2012 emphasizes the significance of interdependencies when firms make strategic technology-related decisions.

    • Adner, Ron. The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation. London: Penguin, 2012.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This is a recent contribution to the genre of innovation books written for practitioners based on research by well-respected academics. Adner focuses on the importance of interdependencies for firms and their need to include consideration of their entire innovation ecosystem in their strategic planning.

      Find this resource:

    • Aghion, Philippe, Nick Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, and Peter Howitt. “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120.2 (2005): 701–728.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      The authors develop a model in which higher levels of competition discourage laggard firms from innovating, but encourage top firms to innovate more. Using patent data to empirically test their model, they find support for the inverted-U relationship and an increase in technological distance between leaders and followers as competition increases.

      Find this resource:

    • Dosi, Giovanni. “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories.” Research Policy 11 (1982): 147–162.

      DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Develops a framework based on technological streams (paradigms and trajectories) that explains the occurrence of continuous (incremental) and discontinuous (radical) innovation. The framework also helps to account for the cumulative nature of technological progress and the importance of economic factors and public institutions in shaping the trajectory of technological innovation.

      Find this resource:

    • Henderson, Rebecca M., and Kim B. Clark. “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35.1 (1990): 9–30.

      DOI: 10.2307/2393549Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Henderson and Clark explore a type of innovation that lies between the traditional incremental and radical innovations: architectural innovations. They demonstrate the empirical impact of these types of innovations, which change the architecture of a product without changing its components, by examining the semiconductor photolithographic industry.

      Find this resource:

    • Romer, Paul M. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98.5 (1990): S71–S102.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      The first article to make the case that technical change, and resultant economic growth, is a function of prior inputs into the economy rather than of exogenous shifts, as was commonly believed at the time. Romer concludes that countries do not devote the optimal amount of human capital to research.

      Find this resource:

    • Tripsas, Mary, and Giovanni Gavetti. “Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia: Evidence from Digital Imaging.” Strategic Management Journal 21.10–11 (2000): 1147–1161.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper contributes to the literature studying why firms fail to adapt to radically new technologies by analyzing how managerial cognition affects organizational learning and the accumulation of organizational capabilities. Tripsas and Gavetti present a case study of Polaroid as it struggled with the shift from analog to digital imaging.

      Find this resource:

    • Tushman, Michael L., and Philip Anderson. “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments.” Administrative Science Quarterly 31.3 (1986): 439–465.

      DOI: 10.2307/2392832Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Tushman and Anderson explore the cycle of technological evolution that consists of periods of incremental change punctuated by technological breakthroughs. Utilizing data from the computer, cement, and airline industries, they show that when breakthroughs are initiated by new firms, they tend to be competence-destroying, leading to industry turbulence.

      Find this resource:

    Innovation Diffusion

    Innovation diffusion studies explore the process through which products, services, and ideas are spread to, and adopted by, companies and customers. Originally published in 1962 and now in its fifth edition, Rogers 2003 is a highly cited book that establishes the classic adoption model of the S-curve, while Geroski 2000 explores a number of alternatives to the S-curve. Gort and Klepper 1982 and Katz and Shapiro 1986 study two key drivers of diffusion, the former focusing on the time path and historical sequence of technology and the latter on the importance of network externalities in technology adoption. Knowledge spillovers, which occur when there are positive social externalities to R&D research, are the topic of study for Griliches 1992 and Jaffe, et al. 1993, the former surveying the literature on R&D spillovers and the latter using patent citations to show a geographic influence in spillovers.

    • Geroski, Paul A. “Models of Technology Diffusion.” Research Policy 29.4–5 (2000): 603–625.

      DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00092-XSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This survey paper focuses on explanations of technology diffusion that are alternatives to the S-curve, including the probit model, the legitimation and competition model, and the information cascades model.

      Find this resource:

    • Gort, Michael, and Steven Klepper. “Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations.” Economic Journal 92.367 (1982): 630–653.

      DOI: 10.2307/2232554Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This is an empirical study that looks at how manufacturers decide what technologies to produce by tracking the production history of forty-six products. They find that the historical sequence, or time path, is a key determinant of the manner in which products diffuse.

      Find this resource:

    • Griliches, Zvi. “The Search for R&D Spillovers.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94 Suppl. (1992): S29–S47.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article overviews the work done in the field of R&D spillovers, with a particular focus on empirical studies. The author finds that, although many of the studies are flawed, in aggregate the results show that R&D spillovers are prevalent and important.

      Find this resource:

    • Jaffe, Adam B., Manuel Trajtenberg, and Rebecca Henderson. “Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108.3 (1993): 577–598.

      DOI: 10.2307/2118401Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      First work to discover empirical evidence of knowledge spillovers at the nation, state, and metropolitan levels. The authors utilize two cohorts of patents from 1975 and 1980 to compare the geographic location of citing patents with cited patents and control patents.

      Find this resource:

    • Katz, Michael L., and Carl Shapiro. “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities.” Journal of Political Economy 94.4 (1986): 822–841.

      DOI: 10.1086/261409Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Katz and Shapiro identify the impacts of network externalities on technology adoption. They emphasize the importance of a sponsor firm and the heavy dependence of the results of competition on the property rights and investments of this sponsor.

      Find this resource:

    • Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      One of the fundamental works on innovation diffusions, it established the S-curve of adoption and the terminology of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. The first edition was published in 1962.

      Find this resource:

    Strategy

    This section focuses on literature associated with the links from technology and innovation to strategy, which can shape not only the growth of the firm, but also the evolution of industries and life cycles of technology. While many of the articles in this area focus on product innovation, their lessons can be applied to business model innovation (distribution, marketing, operations, etc.) and to service innovations (offerings that are more focused on customer interactions than products). We first consider the resource-based view of the firm and its relationship with dynamic capabilities for innovation (see Resource-Based View of the Firm and Dynamic Capabilities). Then we explore how aspects of competition, including the tension between incumbents and entrants as well as firm boundaries, shape and are shaped by technology and innovation strategy (see Incumbents, Entrants, and Firm Boundaries). We then highlight literature related to the Exploration and Exploitation paradigm, and close this section with literature focused on the connection between Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

    Resource-Based View of the Firm and Dynamic Capabilities

    The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm and dynamic capabilities are two related topic areas widely studied in the strategy field. We include these topics here, highlighting important relevant citations, because this research frequently includes discussions associated with innovation, and because technology and innovation research often benefits when researchers consider a resource-based perspective on firm behavior. The oldest work, Penrose 1995, is considered a classic in the strategy literature and the foundational piece related to RBV. Wernerfelt 1984 uses economic theory to analyze firms related to their resource position and strategic choices. Cohen and Levinthal 1990 is a formative work on “absorptive capacity,” which relates to how firms value, assimilate, and apply external information in innovation. Peteraf 1993 considers firm performance relative to resources. Teece, et al. 1997 made famous the concept of “dynamic capabilities” related to how path dependencies and an organization’s technology, organizational processes, and management all affect outcomes. Finally, Helfat and Peteraf 2003 builds on RBV and dynamic capabilities research by introducing a new concept of the capability lifecycle to explain firm heterogeneity.

    • Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35.1 (1990): 128–152.

      DOI: 10.2307/2393553Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article emphasizes the importance of valuing, assimilating, and applying external information in firm innovation, dubbed the firm’s absorptive capacity. The impact of path-dependence and adaptation reluctance play a crucial role in the model of firm investment in R&D developed for predicting firm reactions to technical change in an industry.

      Find this resource:

    • Helfat, Constance E., and Margaret A. Peteraf. “The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability Lifecycles.” Strategic Management Journal 24.10 (2003): 997–1010.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.332Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article contributes to the resource-based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities. It introduces the capability life cycle (CLC), which is a comprehensive approach to dynamic resource-based theory. By accounting for initial stages of capability life cycles and branching of capabilities, the CLC helps explain sources of firm heterogeneity.

      Find this resource:

    • Penrose, Edith. Theory of the Growth of the Firm. 3d rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

      DOI: 10.1093/0198289774.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This book, first published in 1959, remains a classic related to strategy, innovation, and entrepreneurship. It is considered by many scholars to be the seminal work on the resource-based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities. It is also central in discussions of the theory of the firm.

      Find this resource:

    • Peteraf, Margaret A. “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View.” Strategic Management Journal 14.3 (1993): 179–191.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250140303Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Peteraf contributes to research related to the resource-based view of the firm developing a model linking resources with firm performance. She highlights four conditions for a firm to achieve competitive advantage, including superior resources, ex post limits to competition, imperfect resource mobility, and ex ante limits to competition.

      Find this resource:

    • Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 18.7 (1997): 509–533.

      DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-ZSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      The dynamic capabilities framework evaluates how and why firms succeed and fail, particularly as related to rapid technological change. The authors emphasize path dependencies and find that success depends on a combination of technological, organizational, and managerial processes more than on activities that emphasize derailing competitors and discouraging new entrants.

      Find this resource:

    • Wernerfelt, Birger. “A Resource-Based View of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 5.2 (1984): 171–180.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250050207Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Wernerfelt uses economic theory to develop tools to analyze a firm’s resource position and evaluate strategic options. He contrasts looking at a firm from a resource-based versus a product perspective, defining “resource position barriers” and “resource-product matrices,” which are complementary to the “entry barriers” and “growth-share matrices” of the product perspective.

      Find this resource:

    Incumbents, Entrants, and Firm Boundaries

    Competition is an ever-present force that affects the decision-making process of firms and their innovative strategies. Christensen 1997 and Henderson 1993 study the responses of firms to disruptive innovations, the former focusing on why great firms can fail and the latter emphasizing an underinvestment in disruptive innovations and an entrenchment in incremental innovations. Farrell and Saloner 1985 explores the tendency of firms and industries to get stuck with inferior or obsolete standards. Klepper 1996 and Utterback and Suárez 1993 analyze the drivers of firm and industry change, the former focusing on the relationship between firm size and types of innovation and the latter positing that the evolution of technology within an industry drives competition. Santos and Eisenhardt 2005 develops a typology of firm boundaries which is important for understanding competition. Bresnahan and Greenstein 1999 and Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf 2007 study the impacts of the digital age on innovation; the former explores the drivers of competition in the computer industry, while the latter empirically studies the effects of illegal music downloads on album sales.

    • Bresnahan, Timothy F., and Shane Greenstein. “Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry.” Journal of Industrial Economics 47 (1999): 1–40.

      DOI: 10.1111/1467-6451.00088Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Bresnahan and Greenstein explore thirty years of market structure in the computer industry and find that an important driver of competition is not firms but changes in computer platforms. They find that the vertical disintegration in the computer industry led to far more technological competition than would have otherwise occurred.

      Find this resource:

    • Christensen, Clayton. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      In this book Christensen addresses why and how great firms can fail by laying out his framework of disruptive versus sustaining innovation. This book became a worldwide bestseller with broad appeal to practitioners, yet it remains an important work for scholars, as it is based on solid academic research.

      Find this resource:

    • Farrell, Joseph, and Garth Saloner. “Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation.” RAND Journal of Economics 16 (1985): 70–83.

      DOI: 10.2307/2555589Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Farrell and Saloner challenge the accepted notion that standardization always results in benefits to consumers and firms. Instead, their model suggests a number of cases exist where standardization leads to excess inertia, trapping an industry with inferior or obsolete standards. This inertia can be alleviated via communication of firms’ preferences.

      Find this resource:

    • Henderson, Rebecca. “Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry.” RAND Journal of Economics 24.2 (1993): 248–270.

      DOI: 10.2307/2555761Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Henderson attempts to reconcile neoclassical theory, in which firms focus on incremental innovation, with organizational theory, in which incumbents are less effective at exploiting radical innovations, to understand industry realignment in the face of radical technological change. Using data from a field study in the photolithographic alignment industry, she finds support for both theories.

      Find this resource:

    • Klepper, Steven. “Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle.” American Economic Review 86.3 (1996): 562–583.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Klepper’s model explains the importance of firm size in the decisions a firm makes regarding the product life cycle in technologically progressive industries. The model predicts that as firms grow, they focus more on process innovation at the expense of product innovation, a phenomena frequently seen in the technology industry.

      Find this resource:

    • Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, and Koleman S. Strumpf. “The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy 115.1 (2007): 1–42.

      DOI: 10.1086/511995Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Oberholzer and Strumpf perform an empirical analysis on a large data set of illegally downloaded music and data on music album sales. They find no evidence to support the commonly believed theory that illegal downloads led to the significant decline in album sales witnessed as music became more digitized.

      Find this resource:

    • Santos, Filipe M., and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. “Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization.” Organization Science 16.5 (2005): 491–508.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0152Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Organizational boundaries have been widely studied in economics, particularly in relation to transaction cost economics. Santos and Eisenhardt set out to provide a deeper understanding of organizational boundaries by developing a typology of boundaries: efficiency, power, competence, and identity. They compare their conceptions and outline their assumptions, arguments, benefits, and limitations.

      Find this resource:

    • Utterback, James, and Fernando Suárez. “Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure.” Research Policy 22 (1993): 1–21.

      DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)90030-LSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Utterback and Suárez argue that it is not only population ecology, the density of firms in an industry, which affects whether firms succeed or fail. Instead, they argue that the evolution of technology within an industry is the actual driver of industry competition, entry, and structure.

      Find this resource:

    Exploration and Exploitation

    Whether a firm should focus its efforts on exploring new innovations or exploiting its existing technologies has been well studied in the academic literature. Earlier works, such as March 1991 and Stuart and Podolny 1996, centered on how organizational formation affects the explore/exploit paradigm, with the former focusing on organizational learning and the latter emphasizing local search. Newer works focus on the effects of search behavior on new product introduction (Katila and Ahuja 2002) and the impacts of exploration and exploitation during alliance formation (Lavie and Rosenkopf 2006). More recently, Rosenkopf and McGrath 2011 explores the multidimensional implications of novelty on firm innovation.

    • Katila, Riitta, and Gautam Ahuja. “Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction.” Academy of Management Journal 45.6 (2002): 1183–1194.

      DOI: 10.2307/3069433Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This study focuses on new product introduction as a function of search behavior. The authors break search into two dimensions, depth and scope. They find that both affect a firm’s ability to create new products both individually and interactively.

      Find this resource:

    • Lavie, Dovev, and Lorie Rosenkopf. “Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation.” Academy of Management Journal 49.4 (2006): 797–818.

      DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083085Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Focusing on alliance formation decision making, the authors contribute to organizational learning research related to why and how firms balance tendencies to explore and exploit. They distinguish domains in which exploring and exploiting may be pursued, and find that firms strive to balance exploring and exploiting across domains and over time.

      Find this resource:

    • March, James G. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2.1 (1991): 71–87.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      March applies the explore/exploit framework to organizational learning to examine resource allocation within the organization. Using two models of organizational learning, one emphasizing mutual learning and the other competitive advantage, March discusses the downsides of focusing on the short-term benefits from exploitation rather than the long-term benefits from exploration.

      Find this resource:

    • Rosenkopf, Lori, and Patia McGrath. “Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research.” Organization Science 22.5 (2011): 1297–1311.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0637Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Rosenkopf and McGrath point out that novelty is an important construct in organizational learning, strategic change, and innovation research, yet is generally considered to be unidimensional. They propose a multidimensional conceptualization, and discuss how this might be used by researchers to study firm trade-offs related to novelty.

      Find this resource:

    • Stuart, Toby E., and Joel M. Podolny. “Local Search and the Evolution of Technological Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 17 (1996): 21–38.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250171004Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Stuart and Podolny build a network-analytic model for understanding how firms’ local search evolves and effects their technological development. They demonstrate the efficacy of the model by applying it to a data set on strategic partnering in the Japanese semiconductor industry.

      Find this resource:

    Innovation and Entrepreneurship

    Innovation is a key driver of entrepreneurship, and how well a young firm innovates is often related to whether or not it survives in the market. Aldrich and Fiol 1994 and Shane 2000 both explore entrepreneurial firms in their earliest stages, with the former focusing on the creation of new industries and the latter emphasizing the importance of the knowledge entrepreneurs obtain before they start a new venture. Saxenian 1994 addresses the important cultural and organizational differences between the entrepreneurial communities surrounding Massachusetts’ Route 128 and California’s Silicon Valley and how they impact economic success in the two regions. Gans and Stern 2003 studies the problems of appropriability of new ideas, and Murray 2004 investigates the importance of academic inventors in entrepreneurial companies. Kortum and Lerner 2000 uses an empirical study to better understand the impact of venture capital on innovation, while Navis and Glynn 2010 explores consumer impressions of new industries.

    • Aldrich, Howard E., and C. Marlene Fiol. “Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation.” Academy of Management Review 19.4 (1994): 645–670.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Aldrich and Fiol examine the possible strategies founders in new industries can use to overcome a lack of cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy that can lead to a reshaping of institutional environments.

      Find this resource:

    • Gans, Joshua S., and Scott Stern. “The Product Market and the Market for ‘Ideas’: Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs.” Research Policy 32 (2003): 333–350.

      DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00103-8Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      The authors construct a framework for understanding the impact of appropriability of an idea and the complementarity of incumbents on the strategic commercialization prospects for technology start-ups.

      Find this resource:

    • Kortum, Samuel S., and Josh Lerner. “Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation.” RAND Journal of Economics 31.4 (2000): 674–692.

      DOI: 10.2307/2696354Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Kortum and Lerner use an empirical study on the influence of venture capital on patents and find that increases in venture capital in an industry lead to significantly higher patenting rates.

      Find this resource:

    • Murray, Fiona. “The Role of Academic Inventors in Entrepreneurial Firms: Sharing the Laboratory Life.” Research Policy 33.4 (2004): 643–659.

      DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.013Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to show that it is not only the human capital that academic inventors bring to an entrepreneurial firm based on their research, but it is also a local and cosmopolitan network of scientists in that community.

      Find this resource:

    • Navis, Chad, and Mary Ann Glynn. “How New Market Categories Emerge: Temporal Dynamics of Legitimacy, Identity, and Entrepreneurship in Satellite Radio, 1990–2005.” Administrative Science Quarterly 55.3 (2010): 439–471.

      DOI: 10.2189/asqu.2010.55.3.439Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper uses mixed methods to investigate identity and legitimacy dynamics in the emergence of the new market category of satellite radio. The authors find that over time, as the market category became legitimized, both firms’ and audiences’ attention shifted from the category as a whole to individual member firms.

      Find this resource:

    • Saxenian, AnnaLee. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Utilizing ethnographic research methods, Saxenian conducted more than 160 interviews with entrepreneurs, industry leaders, executives, and representatives of local business associations, governments, and universities in Silicon Valley and Route 128. In this book, she compares the two regions highlighting the differences that influence the economic success of their firms.

      Find this resource:

    • Shane, Scott. “Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.” Organization Science 11.4 (2000): 448–469.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article presents the results of case studies on eight groups of entrepreneurs who exploited a single invention. Shane shows that the prior information of the entrepreneurs, especially about opportunities, is an important influence on the success and direction of entrepreneurial ventures.

      Find this resource:

    Development

    This section highlights literature related to the innovation development process, which determines innovation mechanisms and outcomes. We do not address the product development literature here, since it is a separate literature in its own right and is more aptly placed with the operations literature. We break the literature in this section into Open and Distributed Innovation (a key mechanism for the development of new innovations and technologies), Social and Institutional Construction of Technology (key forces that shape the trajectory of technology and innovation development), and Intellectual Property Development and Incentives (through which individual and firm motivations can be altered and shaped).

    Open and Distributed Innovation

    Long an important approach for developing technology and new innovations, open and distributed innovation has gained a great deal of prominence over the past decade due to its increasing feasibility, a result of the diffusion of the Internet. One of the earliest articles in this area, von Hippel 1986 stresses the insight that lead users can offer into the future demands of customers. Lerner and Tirole 2002 and von Hippel and von Krogh 2003 explore the basics of open-source software; the former uses case studies to understand the economics of open-source, and the latter describes the history of open-source and calls for a private-collective model. Von Krogh, et al. 2003 investigates aspects of open-source community joining and specialization, while O’Mahony 2003 surveys the variety of licensing agreements used by such communities. Benkler 2006 discusses legal and policy implications of the tension between this new method of production and existing methods, and Baldwin and von Hippel 2011 compares the economic viability of these methods. Boudreau, et al. 2011 studies the newly popular phenomena of innovation contests.

    • Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Eric von Hippel. “Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation.” Organization Science 22.6 (2011): 1399–1417.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0618Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Baldwin and von Hippel compare the economic viability of traditional producer innovation with that of single-user and open collaboration innovation. They find that the architecture, design, and communication costs are lower for single-user and open collaboration innovation in many areas and are likely to replace producer innovation in some industries.

      Find this resource:

    • Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Benkler’s book explores the impact of the construction of information via social and networked means and the clash of this new method of production with the established order of society. It discusses legal and policy decisions that are shaping the future of this environment.

      Find this resource:

    • Boudreau, Kevin J., Nicola Lacetera, and Karim R. Lakhani. “Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests.” Management Science 57 (2011): 843–863.

      DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Using data from software innovation contests, the authors find that for low-uncertainty problems, a higher number of contestants leads to a reduction in effort by most contestants, but for high-uncertainty problems, more contestants leads to a higher likelihood of obtaining an extreme value solution.

      Find this resource:

    • Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole. “Some Simple Economics of Open Source.” Journal of Industrial Economics 50.2 (2002): 197–234.

      DOI: 10.1111/1467-6451.00174Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Lerner and Tirole explore the variety of reasons people participate in open-source projects, all of which are counter to traditional wage-based economic models. They perform case studies of four open-source projects to better understand how economic incentive theory can be applied to the open-source world.

      Find this resource:

    • O’Mahony, Siobhán. “Guarding the Commons: How Community-Managed Software Projects Protect Their Work.” Research Policy 32.7 (2003): 1179–1198.

      DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00048-9Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      O’Mahony explores the variety of licensing arrangements that exist in the open-source community. She finds that the legal tactics open-source projects use allow the work to be open and free while still governed under stringent rules for intellectual property rights.

      Find this resource:

    • von Hippel, Eric. “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts.” Management Science 32 (1986): 791–805.

      DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Von Hippel discusses the importance of lead users, whose present needs tend to predict the future needs of the general user. Such users can be identified and tapped for marketing research to help decide what the next generation of a product should be, effectively anticipating what the market will demand.

      Find this resource:

    • von Hippel, Eric, and Georg von Krogh. “Open Source Software and the ‘Private-Collective’ Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science.” Organization Science 14.2 (2003): 209–223.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Von Hippel and von Krogh describe the history and characteristics of open-source software development projects to introduce researchers to this innovation approach. They propose a private-collective model that combines pieces of the private investment model and the collective action model to stimulate further research in this area.

      Find this resource:

    • von Krogh, Georg, Sebastian Spaeth, and Karim R. Lakhani. “Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open Source Software Innovation: A Case Study.” Research Policy 32.7 (2003): 1217–1241.

      DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00050-7Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article explores the process by which people join an existing open-source community. The empirical data from an open-source project shows that a new participant generally starts with a joining script, faces contribution barriers, specializes, and offers feature gifts upon joining.

      Find this resource:

    Social and Institutional Construction of Technology

    The papers in this section focus primarily on technology development and how various factors impact development efforts. Barley 1990 focuses on the relationship between organizational structure and technology adoption. Rao 1994 considers the formation of reputation and how it impacted organizational survival in the American auto industry of the early 1900s. Van de Ven, et al. 1999, aimed both at academics and innovation managers, suggests that innovation processes should be studied using nonlinear dynamics because innovation is neither linear nor random. Stuart 2000 studies interorganizational alliances and explores how characteristics of alliance partners affect firm performance. Finally, Kaplan and Tripsas 2008 looks at cognitive dynamics related to technology change and investigates how these factors affect organizations.

    • Barley, Stephen R. “The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles of Networks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35.1 (1990): 61–103.

      DOI: 10.2307/2393551Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article emphasizes the impact of organizational structure on how technologies are adopted as well as the reverse effect, the impact of technology adoption on organizational structure, particularly a firm’s social networks. Barley demonstrates his theories via a case study of the adoption of new computerized imaging technology in two radiology departments.

      Find this resource:

    • Kaplan, Sarah, and Mary Tripsas. “Thinking about Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change.” Research Policy 37 (2008): 790–805.

      DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.002Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Kaplan and Tripsas note that the technology life cycle literature neglects cognitive factors. They develop a model of technology evolution considering cognitive dynamics across organizations and investigate how we understand why technologies evolve in a particular way, suggesting that technological frames are important to understanding technology evolution.

      Find this resource:

    • Rao, Hayagreeva. “The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and Survival of Organizations in the American Auto Industry: 1895–1912.” Strategic Management Journal 15 (1994): 29–44.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250150904Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Rao uses data on certification contests from the American auto industry from 1895 to 1912 to investigate the effect of social identity on organizational survival. He looks at reputation as the outcome of legitimation processes and thus as a socially constructed entity, and shows that reputation influences the survival of these organizations.

      Find this resource:

    • Stuart, Toby E. “Interorganizational Alliances and the Performance of Firms: A Study of Growth and Innovation Rates in a High-Technology Industry.” Strategic Management Journal 21 (2000): 791–811.

      DOI: 10.1002/1097-0266(200008)21:8%3C791::AID-SMJ121%3E3.0.CO;2-KSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Stuart contributes to research on alliances concerned with firm performance by focusing on characteristics of alliance partners and how those characteristics interact to create value. He notes the signaling value of alliances for young and small firms that use relationships with bigger established firms to build credibility.

      Find this resource:

    • Van de Ven, Andrew H., Douglas E. Polley, Raghu Garud, and Sankaran Venkataraman. The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      The authors assert that the innovation process is neither linear and sequential nor random. Rather, they explain, it can be studied using nonlinear dynamics. They use data from large-scale longitudinal studies conducted by the Minnesota Innovation Research Program, which included over thirty researchers studying fourteen innovation processes.

      Find this resource:

    Intellectual Property Development and Incentives

    The development and focus of technological innovation is heavily influenced by intellectual property and the appropriability of new innovations as well as the incentive schemes that result from intellectual property (IP) policies. Aghion and Tirole 1994 and Anton and Yao 1994 both model interactions between players in the innovation space, with the former emphasizing the importance of integrating innovative efforts between the research unit and the customer and the latter focusing on the ability of an inventor to obtain payment when there are no property rights in place. Gallini and Scotchmer 2002 summarizes the variety of IP systems in the United States to determine the best for encouraging innovation, while Azoulay, et al. 2011 empirically explores the impact such incentive systems have on creative outputs. Hall, et al. 2005 looks at how patents and patent citations affect firm value.

    • Aghion, Philippe, and Jean Tirole. “The Management of Innovation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 109.4 (1994): 1185–1209.

      DOI: 10.2307/2118360Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This modeling paper explores the influence of property rights and bargaining on innovation and finds that innovative research will be integrated between a research unit and customer if capital requirements are greater than intellectual requirements, if the customer has more ex ante bargaining power, or if the customer is wealthy.

      Find this resource:

    • Anton, James J., and Dennis A. Yao. “Expropriation and Inventions: Appropriable Rents in the Absence of Property Rights.” American Economic Review 84.1 (1994): 190–209.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Anton and Yao find that the most profitable strategy for a financially weak inventor with an invention that is easily imitable and unprotected by IP is to reveal the invention to one firm and threaten to reveal it to another if the first expropriates the invention without paying appropriately.

      Find this resource:

    • Azoulay, Pierre, Joshua Graff Zivin, and Gustavo Manso. “Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences.” RAND Journal of Economics 42.3 (2011): 527–554.

      DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00140.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Explores drivers of scientific creativity by studying the careers of highly promising young scientists who are exposed to two different types of incentive schemes and finds that the longer-term scheme, tolerant of early failure, leads to better knowledge production than the shorter-term scheme, not tolerant of failure.

      Find this resource:

    • Gallini, Nancy, and Suzanne Scotchmer. “Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?” Innovation Policy and the Economy 2 (2002): 51–77.

      DOI: 10.1162/153134602753396976Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article summarizes the various types of IP and other incentives for R&D that exist in the American economy and finds that the key determinant of the best IP system is how easy it is for the holders of the IP to enter into licensing agreements.

      Find this resource:

    • Hall, Bronwyn H., Adam Jaffe, and Manuel Trajtenberg. “Market Value and Patent Citations.” RAND Journal of Economics 36.1 (2005): 16–38.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      In this paper, the authors empirically explore the relationship between patent citations and market valuation. They find that citations significantly boost market value and that self-citations are more valuable than external citations.

      Find this resource:

    Organizational Perspectives

    Complementing the literature included in the sections on Change and Diffusion, Strategy, and Development, this section moves to research that addresses organizational perspectives on technology and innovation as a central component of the work. The section is broken into five subdivisions. Organizational Structure and Processes includes discussions of how firms organize and manage themselves for R&D and innovation. The section on Institutional Processes includes work on institutionalism and its effects on innovation. Organizational Evolution and Change includes research focused on the various ways organizations cope with change and a variety of frameworks for how researchers consider different types of change (such as episodic versus continuous change). Leading Innovation includes papers highlighting technology and innovation management and leadership challenges. Finally, the Identity Implications for Innovation section includes mostly newer work related to organizational identity that addresses both research related to entrepreneurs and established firms.

    Organizational Structure and Processes

    This section includes research related to the fundamental topic of how firms organize for innovation. Barley 1986 is a much-cited sociology-based work related to how technology affects organizational structures. Kogut and Zander 1992 considers the more fundamental question of why firms exist and discusses the firm’s roles of sharing and transferring knowledge. Ahuja 2000 and Burt 2004 both address considerations related to networks, with Ahuja focusing on firm networks and Burt concentrating on networks of individuals. In research published a decade apart, both Galunic and Eisenhardt 2001 and Davis and Eisenhardt 2011 discuss processes related to managing innovation. Rivkin and Siggelkow 2003 addresses organizational design considerations related to the need to balance searching with decision making. Finally, Stern 2004 studies the relationship between a firm’s science-oriented approach and wages for scientists.

    • Ahuja, Gautam. “Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study.” Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (2000): 425–455.

      DOI: 10.2307/2667105Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Ahuja builds a model of firm networks to understand the impact of direct ties, indirect ties, and structural holes on the firm’s innovative output. Using a study of the chemicals industry, he confirms that direct and indirect ties positively impact innovation and that structural holes negatively influence innovation.

      Find this resource:

    • Barley, Stephen R. “Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Observations on CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments.” Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1986): 78–108.

      DOI: 10.2307/2392767Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper leverages sociological thought related to the link between institution and action to present a theory of how technology affects organizational structures by changing institutionalized roles and interaction patterns. Barley emphasizes that the influence of technology depends on specific historical processes and may lead to varying organizational forms.

      Find this resource:

    • Burt, R. “Structural Holes and Good Ideas.” American Journal of Sociology 110.2 (2004): 349–399.

      DOI: 10.1086/421787Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper builds on Burt’s previous social network research on structural holes explaining that “good ideas,” likely to receive praise and have value, are more likely to come from individuals near structural holes in a network, because they are more likely to be exposed to a variety of perspectives.

      Find this resource:

    • Davis, Jason P., and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. “Rotating Leadership and Collaborative Innovation: Recombination Processes in Symbiotic Relationships.” Administrative Science Quarterly 56.2 (2011): 159–201.

      DOI: 10.1177/0001839211428131Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Davis and Eisenhardt study technology innovation in interorganizational relationships, investigating why some of these relationships perform better than others. They find that a rotating leadership process leads to more innovation. This paper uses inductive comparative case methods, studying eight technology collaborations among ten firms in global computing and communications.

      Find this resource:

    • Galunic, D. Charles, and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. “Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms.” Academy of Management Journal 44.6 (2001): 1229–1249.

      DOI: 10.2307/3069398Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Galunic and Eisenhardt study corporate-level processes whereby multi-business firms reconfigure resources (architectural innovation). They introduce a theory of a “dynamic community,” which is an organizational form that links modular structures, corporate culture, dynamic capabilities combining economic and social logics, and managerial roles.

      Find this resource:

    • Kogut, Bruce, and Udo Zander. “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology.” Organization Science 3.3 (1992): 383–397.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.383Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Rather than existing to simply reduce transaction costs, Kogut and Zander posit that the firm exists to share and transfer the knowledge of individuals and groups. They then consider the implications of this concept for how a firm can exploit and recombine its capabilities while creating innovative technology.

      Find this resource:

    • Rivkin, Jan W., and Nicolaj Siggelkow. “Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies among Elements of Organizational Design.” Management Science 49.3 (2003): 290–311.

      DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.49.3.290.12740Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Rivkin and Siggelkow study how organizations balance the need to search for good decisions and the need to lock on those decisions once they find them. They note that organizational design elements and contextual factors affect search and stability and are interdependent. They develop an agent-based simulation leveraging research on complex adaptive systems.

      Find this resource:

    • Stern, Scott. “Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?” Management Science 50.6 (2004): 835–853.

      DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0241Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Stern explores the correlation between a scientific-oriented research approach in an R&D lab and the wages paid to scientists in that lab. He uses a survey of postdoctoral biologists who received multiple job offers and finds that firms that embrace a more science-oriented approach pay their scientists less.

      Find this resource:

    Institutional Processes

    In organizational theory, institutional processes are associated with how organizations develop understanding that is taken for granted. These processes relate to innovation in that they may decrease an organization’s ability to adapt to changes. This section includes work related to institutional theory. Scott 1995 covers institutionalism across a variety of disciplines circa 1995, and Battilana, et al. 2009 develops a model of institutional entrepreneurship that includes a large role for individuals who affect organizations. Maguire, et al. 2004 and Greenwood and Suddaby 2006 contribute to the literature related to institutional entrepreneurship. Leonard-Barton 1992 discusses core capabilities and core rigidities, which are attributes of organizations that may serve to inhibit innovation.

    • Battilana, Julie, Bernard Leca, and Eva Boxenbaum. “How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Annals 3 (2009): 65–107.

      DOI: 10.1080/19416520903053598Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      The authors review literature on institutional entrepreneurship, which is defined as considering actors who initiate changes that contribute to transforming existing, or creating new, institutions. They develop a model of institutional entrepreneurship that addresses the process of emergence of these entrepreneurs through implementation and potential institutionalization of their initiated changes.

      Find this resource:

    • Greenwood, Royston, and Roy Suddaby. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms.” Academy of Management Journal 49.1 (2006): 27–48.

      DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Greenwood and Suddaby contribute to institutional theory by improving understanding of institutional change. The authors address the paradox of embedded agency, questioning how actors can affect the context that is shaping them. They study the introduction of a new organizational form and develop a process model of elite institutional entrepreneurship.

      Find this resource:

    • Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development.” Strategic Management Journal 13 (1992): 111–125.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250131009Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Leonard-Barton studies core capabilities in firms and introduces the contrasting concept of core rigidities, which inhibit innovation. She includes a new dimension of capabilities rooted in values, and presents twenty case studies based on field-based data of new product and process development in five firms.

      Find this resource:

    • Maguire, Steve, Cynthia Hardy, and Thomas B. Lawrence. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada.” Academy of Management Journal 47.5 (2004): 657–679.

      DOI: 10.2307/20159610Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This qualitative study of the emerging field of HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada analyzes how institutional entrepreneurship may vary across contexts. The authors contribute to institutional entrepreneurship studies by exposing some of the relevant microdynamics, postulating differences across contexts, and illustrating how power can be used to influence institutional change.

      Find this resource:

    • Scott, W. Richard. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1995.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Scott notes that this book is his attempt to review and evaluate major work related to institutionalism in economics, political science, sociology, social psychology, and organization studies. He comments that he aims to present what is noteworthy related to “new institutionalism” in organizational analysis, particularly from a sociological perspective.

      Find this resource:

    Organizational Evolution and Change

    The research in this section relates to challenges of organizational change in various forms. Tushman and Romanelli 1985 presents an overview of organizational evolution from a variety of perspectives, incorporating the concept of punctuated equilibrium with its accompanying periods of convergence and reorientation. Tushman and O’Reilly 1996 focuses on the concept of ambidexterity, whereby organizations must cope with both incremental and radical change at the same time. Building on this research, Tripsas 1997 uses a historical study of the typesetter industry to explore how firms cope with radical technological change. Brown and Eisenhardt 1997 presents a counterview to that of punctuated equilibrium, focusing on managerial behaviors in contexts of continuous change. Weick and Quinn 1999 also distinguishes between types of organizational change, and uses episodic versus continuous change as a basis for comparison. Galunic and Eisenhardt 1996 considers organizational change associated with how divisions of large multidivisional corporations lose business charters. Siggelkow 2001 uses a longitudinal study derived from his field-based research of the apparel firm Liz Claiborne to analyze organizational change related to incremental movements; he concerns himself with how firms react to environmental changes, particularly those that he defines as fit-conserving. Boumgarden, et al. 2012 discusses ambidexterity and vacillation as complementary means for leaders to address the challenges of managing exploration and exploitation in the context of organizational change.

    • Boumgarden, Peter, Jackson Nickerson, and Todd R. Zenger. “Sailing into the Wind: Exploring the Relationships among Ambidexterity, Vacillation, and Organizational Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 33.6 (2012): 587–610.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.1972Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Exploration and exploitation are complementary, yet there is a fundamental paradox for managers who aim to accomplish both. The authors highlight two potential approaches, ambidexterity and vacillation. They study how these contribute to performance, and find that the two are also complements, though they work through different mechanisms.

      Find this resource:

    • Brown, Shona L., and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. “The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42.1 (1997): 1–34.

      DOI: 10.2307/2393807Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper contrasts continuous change in an organization with punctuated equilibrium. Brown and Eisenhardt present theoretical insights regarding organizational structures and processes. Their findings include that successful managers balance limited structure with significant communication and freedom, conduct low-cost experiments, and link products through rhythmic transition processes.

      Find this resource:

    • Galunic, D. Charles, and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. “The Evolution of Intracorporate Domains: Divisional Charter Losses in High-Technology, Multidivisional Corporations.” Organization Science 7.3 (1996): 255–282.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.7.3.255Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Galunic and Eisenhardt study multidivisional organizations presenting a process model of how divisions lose business charters through different patterns and logics. They contribute to organizational theory by explaining how large, diversified corporations respond to fast-moving environmental change by using charter changes to address coevolving markets and technologies.

      Find this resource:

    • Siggelkow, Nicolaj. “Change in the Presence of Fit: The Rise, the Fall, and the Renaissance of Liz Claiborne.” Academy of Management Journal 44.4 (2001): 838–857.

      DOI: 10.2307/3069418Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Siggelkow develops a framework to analyze how firms react to environmental changes, particularly when the firm has a tight fit among its activities. He suggests distinguishing between fit-destroying and fit-conserving environmental changes. Through a longitudinal study of Liz Claiborne, he finds that fit-conserving changes are harder for managers to address.

      Find this resource:

    • Tripsas, Mary “Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry.” Strategic Management Journal 18 (1997): 119–142.

      DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%3C119::AID-SMJ921%3E3.3.CO;2-SSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper contributes to the literature exploring why firms succeed and fail when an industry undergoes radical technological change. Tripsas finds incumbents’ success versus new entrants is determined by three factors: investment, technical capabilities, and appropriability through specialized complementary assets. The complementary assets findings highlight the importance of studying multiple perspectives.

      Find this resource:

    • Tushman, Michael L., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. “Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change.” California Management Review 38.4 (1996): 8–30.

      DOI: 10.2307/41165852Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Tushman and O’Reilly add to the literature on organizational change by addressing why it is so difficult for successful organizations to cope with radical change. They explain that organizations must be ambidextrous, or able to implement both incremental and revolutionary change simultaneously.

      Find this resource:

    • Tushman, Michael L., and Elaine Romanelli. “Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation.” In Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 7. Edited by Larry L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw, 171–222. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper incorporates literature related to organizational change (ecological, adaptation, and transformational) to present an integrated perspective on organizational evolution. The authors propose a model based on punctuated equilibrium, considering how organizations move through periods of convergence followed by reorientations, as well as how executives manage internal and institutional forces.

      Find this resource:

    • Weick, Karl E., and Robert E. Quinn. “Organizational Change and Development.” Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1999): 361–386.

      DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper presents a study and discussion of organizational change, with emphasis on the distinction between episodic change and continuous change. Throughout the work, the authors present tensions in recent research and potential ways to reconcile these through, among other means, reframing arguments and modifying vocabulary.

      Find this resource:

    Leading Innovation

    Most researchers recognize that managers play a pivotal role in technology and innovation development; this section includes research on management challenges related to technology and innovation. Pfeffer 1981 points out that it is worthwhile for scholars to study language and symbols as a means to understand the role management plays in organizations. Van de Ven 1986 is a broad-based article on the topic of managing innovation developing concepts related to managing people, ideas, and an innovation infrastructure. Pettigrew and Fenton 2000 presents case studies related to innovative forms of organizing and organizational performance. Burgelman 2002 focuses on the role of the CEO in strategy development, particularly in conjunction with a firm’s relationship with an existing product market (or coevolutionary lock-in). More recently, Weick, et al. 2005 is an updated discussion of sensemaking and opportunities to explore it further in organizational studies. Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009 and Eggers and Kaplan 2009 address managerial considerations related to innovation strategy challenges.

    • Andriopoulos, Constantine, and Marianne W. Lewis. “Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation.” Organization Science 20.4 (2009): 696–717.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper identifies three paradoxes of innovation related to tensions firms face between exploitation and exploration in product development. The research shows that firms use both integration and differentiation to manage these paradoxes. The authors use a comparative case study of five firms in product design to develop their framework.

      Find this resource:

    • Burgelman, Robert A. “Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Coevolutionary Lock-in.” Administrative Science Quarterly 47.2 (2002): 325–357.

      DOI: 10.2307/3094808Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This is a longitudinal field-based study of Andy Grove’s tenure as CEO of Intel and explains how he transitioned the strategy development process from an internal-ecology model to a classical rational-actor model. It addresses how coevolutionary lock-in comes about and focuses on the role of the CEO in strategy development.

      Find this resource:

    • Eggers, J. P., and Sarah Kaplan. “Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change.” Organization Science 20.2 (2009): 461–477.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0401Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Eggers and Kaplan contribute to the literatures related to incumbent firm responses to technical change and product development. Using a hazard rate model, they study managerial cognition and how CEO attention affects organizational outcomes. They also study how the interaction between attention and organizational factors matters to strategic renewal efforts.

      Find this resource:

    • Pettigrew, Andrew M., and Evelyn M. Fenton. The Innovating Organization. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2000.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This book presents eight case studies that were part of an international multidisciplinary multimethods study related to innovative forms of organizing. The studies focus on organizational transformations and linking organizational forms to performance.

      Find this resource:

    • Pfeffer, Jeffrey. “Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms.” In Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 3. Edited by Larry L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw, 1–52. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1981.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Pfeffer highlights the dual nature of organizational studies, distinguishing between the traditional approach measuring observable facts and the cognitive approach emphasizing language and symbols. He aims to study the role of management focused on symbolic content and to show how one can develop testable propositions by studying management in this manner.

      Find this resource:

    • Van de Ven, Andrew H. “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation.” Management Science 32.5 (1986): 590–607.

      DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper takes a general management approach to innovation and addresses four question areas related to managing attention, moving from ideas to implementation, managing the complexity and interdependence of part-whole relationships, and creating an innovation infrastructure.

      Find this resource:

    • Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. “Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking.” Organization Science 16.4 (2005): 409–421.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld’s stated goal with this paper is to take stock of the concept of sensemaking and bring it up to date. They provide a lively refreshed view of the topic and offer a laundry list of opportunities for sensemaking to fill identified gaps in organizational theory.

      Find this resource:

    Identity Implications for Innovation

    In recent years, the concept of organizational identity, particularly related to identity change, has received considerable attention in the organization studies and management literature. The lessons are relevant to our topic, since innovation frequently involves accompanying organizational adaptation and identity-related considerations. Also, entrepreneurship is strongly associated with technology and innovation, and this literature has a few examples that explore considerations for entrepreneurs relevant to an innovation discussion. Lounsbury and Glynn 2001 studies entrepreneurs and how, in conjunction with creating their new enterprises, they create identities that assist them in acquiring necessary capital. Navis and Glynn 2011 discusses entrepreneurship and identity considerations, as well as the paradoxical challenge of striving to be considered both legitimate and distinctive simultaneously. Considering larger firms, Fiol 2002 studies a very well established organization over a ten-year period and investigates another paradox relating to how a strong identity helps move an organization forward, yet also creates challenges related to organizational identity change. Nag, et al. 2007 looks at the role that identity and knowledge play in the failure of an organization to implement a strategic change. In work directly addressing technology and innovation, Tripsas 2009 focuses on the relationship between new technology adoption and organizational identity.

    • Fiol, C. Marlene. “Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational Identities.” Organization Science 13.6 (2002): 653–666.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Fiol considers the paradoxical challenge when an organization has a strong identity that assists with organizational buy-in during an organizational change, but also potentially hinders change by preventing individuals from being able to see a new future. Fiol studies identity change in a high-technology company over a ten-year period.

      Find this resource:

    • Lounsbury, Michael, and Mary Ann Glynn. “Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources.” Strategic Management Journal 22.6–7 (2001): 545–564.

      DOI: 10.1002/smj.188Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Lounsbury and Glynn explore the link between entrepreneurial stories that founders tell and their ability to create new ventures, acquire capital, and generate wealth. They define the process of “cultural entrepreneurship,” whereby storytelling enables new ventures to identify and legitimate themselves. This paper incorporates institutional, identity, and resource-based perspectives.

      Find this resource:

    • Nag, Rajiv, Kevin G. Corley, and Dennis A. Gioia. “The Intersection of Organizational Identity, Knowledge, and Practice: Attempting Strategic Change via Knowledge Grafting.” Academy of Management Journal 50.4 (2007): 821–847.

      DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279173Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper studies the relationship between organizational identity, knowledge, and practice by looking at the failure of an organization to transform as a result of discontinuous environmental shift. The intersection of identity, knowledge, and practice led to difficulties in development of new knowledge and undermined strategic changes attempted by the firm.

      Find this resource:

    • Navis, Chad, and Mary Ann Glynn. “Legitimate Distinctiveness and the Entrepreneurial Identity: Influence on Investor Judgments of New Venture Plausibility.” Academy of Management Review 36.3 (2011): 479–499.

      DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2011.61031809Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Leveraging literatures on entrepreneurship, identity, and institutions, Navis and Glynn address the paradox faced by entrepreneurs needing to be legitimate to investors to gain credibility while also establishing themselves as distinctive from others. They develop propositions related to how entrepreneurs construct legitimately distinctive identities and how these may affect investors.

      Find this resource:

    • Tripsas, Mary. “Technology, Identity, and Inertia through the Lens of ‘The Digital Photography Company.’” Organization Science 20.2 (2009): 441–460.

      DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0419Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper investigates identity change associated with new technology adoption. Tripsas introduces the concept of identity-challenging technologies, which are technologies that differ from expectations associated with an organization’s identity. This paper contributes to the literature on technology management, organizational identity, and strategic renewal of small firms.

      Find this resource:

    Policy

    Technology and innovation policy refers to actions at the governmental levels that influence the direction of technology, the pace of innovation, and the competitiveness of nations. The framework of Teece 1986 emphasizes the importance of public policy to the ability of innovative firms to profit, while Dasgupta and David 1994 digs deeper into the relationship between research, science, and technology to understand policies for incentives to innovate. Dobbin 1994 studies the railway policies of three countries to understand national determinants of innovation policy strategy, and Furman, et al. 2002 considers what drives a nation’s ability to innovate and patent internationally. Both Segal and Whinston 2007 and Marx, et al. 2009 explore the impacts of specific policies on innovative industries, with the former focusing on antitrust legislation and the latter concentrating on noncompete agreements. Pisano and Shih 2009 seeks to understand why the United States has become less competitive over the last thirty years, and what can be done to reverse this trend.

    • Dasgupta, Partha, and Paul David. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy 23.5 (1994): 487–521.

      DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Dasgupta and David create an overarching framework to understand the economic relationship of research, science, and technology. They use this framework to explore the efficiency of incentives that are used to produce science and technology.

      Find this resource:

    • Dobbin, Frank. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

      DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139174183Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Dobbin uses history of railway policy in the United States, France, and Britain from 1825 to 1900 to present origins of national industrial policy strategy. He conceptualizes the national traditions that affect policy development, and argues that traditions influence policies by contributing to collective understandings of social order and instrumental rationality.

      Find this resource:

    • Furman, Jeffrey L., Michael E. Porter, and Scott Stern. “The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity.” Research Policy 31.6 (2002): 899–933.

      DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00152-4Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This paper constructs a framework to explain a nation’s ability to produce and commercialize innovative technology over the long term and the convergence of innovative capacity among OECD countries in the last twenty-five years and then uses the framework to empirically investigate drivers of international patenting in the United States.

      Find this resource:

    • Marx, Matt, Debbie Strumsky, and Lee Fleming. “Mobility, Skills, and the Michigan Non-compete Experiment.” Management Science 55.6 (2009): 875–889.

      DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0985Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      This article explores the impact of government policies on the mobility of employees via a natural experiment when Michigan stopped enforcing its noncompete policy. It finds that noncompetes do indeed restrict the mobility of employees, especially those who have firm-specific skills or are highly specialized in technical fields.

      Find this resource:

    • Pisano, Gary P., and Willy C. Shih. “Restoring American Competitiveness.” Harvard Business Review 87.7–8 (2009): 114–125.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Pisano and Shih find that the high number of US companies that have outsourced their manufacturing capabilities since the 1980s has led to a rapid decline in the innovative capabilities of US firms, which is leading to a decline in America’s dominance in the high-tech sector.

      Find this resource:

    • Segal, Ilya, and Michael Whinston. “Antitrust in Innovative Industries.” American Economic Review 97.5 (2007): 1703–1730.

      DOI: 10.1257/aer.97.5.1703Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Segal and Whinston study the impacts of antitrust laws on incentives for innovation. They find that restrictive antitrust laws can lead to higher profits for entrants but lower profits for incumbents, while policies that aim to protect entrants lead to higher rates of innovation.

      Find this resource:

    • Teece, David J. “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and Public Policy.” Research Policy 15 (1986): 285–305.

      DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Teece develops an important framework for understanding how firms profit from technological innovation by discussing the key interactions between the appropriability regime of a technology, the complementary assets needed for the success of that technology, where in the dominant design lifecycle the particular technology is, and the resulting policy implications.

      Find this resource:

    LAST MODIFIED: 01/28/2013

    DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199846740-0025

    back to top

    Article

    Up

    Down