Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation

Ron Adner; Daniel Levinthal

doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.5.611.10482

journal article May 01, 2001

Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation

Ron Adner Daniel Levinthal

Management Science Vol. 47 No. 5 pp. 611-628 · Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)

View at Publisher Save 10.1287/mnsc.47.5.611.10482

Abstract

The evolution of technology has been a central issue in the strategy and organizations literature. However, the focus of much of this work has been on what is essentially the “supply side” of technical change—the evolution of firm capabilities. We present a demand-based view of technology evolution that is focused on the interaction between technology development and the demand environment in which the technology is ultimately evaluated. We develop a formal computer simulation model that explicitly considers the influence of heterogeneity in market demand—the presence of consumers with different needs and requirements—on firms' innovation choices. The model is used to examine the dynamics of product and process innovation (Utterback and Abernathy 1975). The analysis reveals that demand heterogeneity offers an alternative to supply-side explanations of the technology life cycle. Further, by considering the implications of decreasing marginal utility from performance improvements, the model highlights the role of “technologically satisfied” consumers in shaping innovation incentives, and suggests a rationale for a new stage in the technology life cycle characterized by increasing performance at a stable price. The stage has not yet been treated formally in the literature, but is widely observed, most prominently in digital and information-based technologies.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

43

[1]

Abernathy W. (1978)

[2]

10.2307/2234208

[3]

Boston Consulting Group (1972)

[4]

Brown L.A. (1981)

[5]

10.1111/j.1937-5956.1992.tb00001.x

[6]

Christensen C.M. (1997)

[7]

10.1016/0048-7333(85)90007-1

[8]

10.1287/mnsc.40.2.227

[9]

Cusumano M.A. California Management Rev. (1987)

[10]

David P. American Econom. Rev. (1985)

[11]

10.1016/0305-0483(81)90086-4

[12]

Dessauer J.H. (1971)

[13]

Technological paradigms and technological trajectories

Giovanni Dosi

Research Policy 10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6

[14]

The EconomistMagnetic storage Not Moore's Law. (1997) July 12):72–73

[15]

Foster R. (1986)

[16]

Gort M. Econom. J. (1982)

[17]

Green P.E. (1973)

[18]

10.1016/s0048-7333(94)00790-x

[19]

10.1016/0022-0531(82)90021-7

[20]

Kelly K. Wired (1997)

[21]

10.4159/harvard.9780674188679

[22]

Klepper S. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1996)

[23]

Industry Life Cycles

S. KLEPPER

Industrial and Corporate Change 10.1093/icc/6.1.145

[24]

Kotler P. (1991)

[25]

10.1093/icc/8.1.3

[26]

March J. (1958)

[27]

The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research

Daniel Mcfadden

Marketing Science 10.1287/mksc.5.4.275

[28]

10.2307/133844

[29]

10.1287/mksc.14.3.g180

[30]

Monroe K.B. (1990)

[31]

Mowery D. Res. Policy (1979)

[32]

Nelson R. (1982)

[33]

Pearce M. Wall Street Journal (1994)

[34]

Porter M.E. (1980)

[35]

Porter M.E. (1983)

[36]

Ramstad E. Wall Street Journal (1997)

[37]

Rogers E.M. (1995)

[38]

10.1016/0048-7333(85)90015-0

[39]

10.4159/harvard.9780674432833

[40]

Tirole J. (1988)

[41]

A dynamic model of process and product innovation

James M Utterback, William J Abernathy

Omega 10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7

[42]

Varian H. (1978)

[43]

von Hippel E. (1988)

Cited By

610

How do new use environments influence a technology's knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of lithium-ion battery technology

Abhishek Malhotra, Huiting Zhang · 2021

Research Policy

Branching and Anchoring: Complementary Asset Configurations in Conditions of Knightian Uncertainty

Curba Morris Lampert, MinYoung Kim · 2020

The Academy of Management Review

A demand‐based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage

Ron Adner, Peter Zemsky · 2006

Strategic Management Journal

Metrics

610

Citations

43

References

Details

Published: May 01, 2001
Vol/Issue: 47(5)
Pages: 611-628

Authors

R

Ron Adner

INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France

D

Daniel Levinthal

Wharton Business School, 2000 Steinberg-Dietrich Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Cite This Article

Ron Adner, Daniel Levinthal (2001). Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation. Management Science, 47(5), 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.5.611.10482

Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation

You May Also Like