New disruptive technologies invalidate the traditional competition dimension in continuous innovation and reconstruct the competitive landscape. These technologies leave a management gap in the adoption of new technologies by competing companies. Accordingly, this research establishes a duopoly game model based on horizontal and vertical differentiations for technology competition problems with asymmetric features. Competition between firms and technologies are investigated simultaneously. We find that a profit increase from new technologies is typically eliminated by the increased technology competition. Thus, firms with competitive advantages in the old market might be late in adopting new technologies, and the competition will further delay the adoption process. We then introduce a preemption strategy for adopting disruptive technologies, and test it in both current established competition and threat competition from the entrants. Results show that leading companies might hesitate in deterring new entrants for fear of losing the leadership in the current competition. Finally, we provide a time strategy that can help the market leader maintain a leadership position with minimal losses. Our research has contributed to the studies of both the interpretation of the “innovator’s dilemma” and the direction of technology adoption research under multi-dimensional technologies and multiple competitors.
Accepté le :
Première publication :
Publié le :
DOI : 10.1051/ro/2021176
Keywords: Disruptive technologies, asymmetric competition, innovator’s dilemma, game theory
@article{RO_2021__55_6_3817_0,
author = {Sun, Lianjia and Lin, Jun},
title = {Adoption time of a maturing disruptive technology in a duopoly market},
journal = {RAIRO. Operations Research},
pages = {3817--3844},
year = {2021},
publisher = {EDP-Sciences},
volume = {55},
number = {6},
doi = {10.1051/ro/2021176},
mrnumber = {4355429},
language = {en},
url = {https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2021176/}
}
TY - JOUR AU - Sun, Lianjia AU - Lin, Jun TI - Adoption time of a maturing disruptive technology in a duopoly market JO - RAIRO. Operations Research PY - 2021 SP - 3817 EP - 3844 VL - 55 IS - 6 PB - EDP-Sciences UR - https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2021176/ DO - 10.1051/ro/2021176 LA - en ID - RO_2021__55_6_3817_0 ER -
%0 Journal Article %A Sun, Lianjia %A Lin, Jun %T Adoption time of a maturing disruptive technology in a duopoly market %J RAIRO. Operations Research %D 2021 %P 3817-3844 %V 55 %N 6 %I EDP-Sciences %U https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2021176/ %R 10.1051/ro/2021176 %G en %F RO_2021__55_6_3817_0
Sun, Lianjia; Lin, Jun. Adoption time of a maturing disruptive technology in a duopoly market. RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 55 (2021) no. 6, pp. 3817-3844. doi: 10.1051/ro/2021176
[1] Accenture, New “disruptability index” busts widespread myth that industry disruption is a random occurrence. Available at: https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/nearly-two-thirds-of-large-companies-globally-face-high-levels-of-industry-disruption-accenture-study-finds.htm (Access on February 26, 2018).
[2] and , Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Manage. J. 31 (2010) 306–333. | DOI
[3] and , Right tech, wrong time. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94 (2016) 60–67.
[4] and , Disruptive technologies and the emergence of competition. RAND J. Econ. 36 (2005) 229–254.
[5] , and , Competition and the efficiency of markets for technology. Manage. Sci. 62 (2016) 1000–1019. | DOI
[6] and , The timing of capacity investment with lead times: When do firms act in unison? Prod. Oper. Manage. 24 (2015) 21–41. | DOI
[7] , and , The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. Strategic Manage. J. 37 (2016) 1829–1853. | DOI
[8] , and , Managing licensing in a market for technology. Manage. Sci. 59 (2013) 1092–1106. | DOI
[9] , A new product growth for model consumer durables. Manage. Sci. 15 (1969) 215–227. | Zbl | DOI
[10] and , Managing technology selection and development risk in competitive environments. Prod. Oper. Manage. 20 (2011) 541–555. | DOI
[11] , , and , Characterization of strategic emerging technologies: the case of big data. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 28 (2020) 45–60. | DOI
[12] Boston Consulting Group, Flipping the odds of digital transformation success. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/zh-cn/publications/2020/increasing-odds-of-success-in-digital-transformation (Access on October 29, 2020).
[13] and , Competitive dynamics: themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Acad. Manage. Ann. 6 (2012) 135–210. | DOI
[14] and , Context-dependent preferences and innovation strategy. Manage. Sci. 59 (2013) 2747–2765. | DOI
[15] , and , The D-Day, V-Day, and bleak days of a disruptive technology: a new model for ex-ante evaluation of the timing of technology disruption. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 251 (2016) 562–574. | DOI
[16] , and , The impact of E-book distribution on print sales: analysis of a natural experiment. Manage. Sci. 65 (2019) 19–31. | DOI
[17] , The Innovator’s Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (1997).
[18] , , and , Disruptive innovation: an intellectual history and directions for future research. J. Manage. Stud. 55 (2018) 1043–1078. | DOI
[19] , and , New product development: the performance and time-to-market tradeoff. Manage. Sci. 42 (1996) 173–186. | Zbl | DOI
[20] , Obtaining strategic advantage from being imitated: When can encouraging “clones” pay?. Manage. Sci. 41 (1995) 209–225. | Zbl | DOI
[21] , Anticipated entry and entry deterrence: evidence from the American casino industry. Manage. Sci. 64 (2018) 2325–2344. | DOI
[22] , Product and service innovation and discontinuation in manufacturing and service firms in Europe. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 20 (2017) 250–268. | DOI
[23] , and , The age of temporary advantage. Strategic Manage. J. 31 (2010) 1371–1385. | DOI
[24] , and , Temporary competitive advantage: a state-of-the-art literature review and research directions. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 23 (2021) 85–115. | DOI
[25] and , From environmental assessment results to design for environment product changes: an evaluation of quantitative and qualitative methods. J. Eng. Des. 13 (2002) 233–242. | DOI
[26] , Working the S-curve: assessing technological threats. Res. Manage. 29 (1986) 17–20.
[27] , , , , and , Blockchain as a disruptive technology for business: a systematic review. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 51 (2020) 102029. | DOI
[28] and , Spatial Competition and the Location of Firms. Harwood Academic Publishers Chur, Switzerland (1986).
[29] , and , Red queen competitive imitation in the UK mobile phone industry. Acad. Manage. J. 60 (2017) 1882–1914. | DOI
[30] and , Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Rev. Econ. Stud. 58 (1991) 43–61. | DOI
[31] and , Assessing Airbnb as a disruptive innovation relative to hotels: substitution and comparative performance expectations. Int. J. Hospitality Manage. 64 (2017) 1–10. | DOI
[32] , and , Quality in supply chain encroachment. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage. 18 (2016) 280–298. | DOI
[33] and , Finding the platform in your product. Harvard Bus. Rev. 95 (2017) 94–100.
[34] and , Technology selection methods and applications in manufacturing: a review from 1990 to 2017. Comput. Ind. Eng. 138 (2019) 106123. | DOI
[35] and , Analysis of industry equilibria in models with sustaining and disruptive technology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (2010) 238–248. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[36] , , and , Entry deterrence by timing rather than overinvestment in a strategic real options framework. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 274 (2019) 165–185. | MR | DOI
[37] , and , Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Market. Sci. 30 (2011) 195–212. | DOI
[38] and , Up or out – or stay put? Product positioning in an evolving technology environment. Prod. Oper. Manage. 14 (2005) 362–376. | DOI
[39] , , , and , A framework for analysing blockchain technology adoption: integrating institutional, market and technical factors. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 50 (2020) 302–309. | DOI
[40] , and , Product quality in a distribution channel with inventory risk. Market. Sci. 36 (2017) 747–761. | DOI
[41] , and , Optimal market entry timing for successive generations of technological innovations. MIS Q. Forthcoming (2018).
[42] , and , First-mover advantage: a synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. J. Market. 56 (1992) 33–52. | DOI
[43] , and , Product upgrades with stochastic technology advancement, product failure, and brand commitment. Prod. Oper. Manage. 26 (2017) 742–756. | DOI
[44] and , New product introduction: timing, design, and pricing. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage. 6 (2004) 302–320. | DOI
[45] , and , Hidden but in plain sight: the role of scale adjustment in industry dynamics. Strategic Manage. J. 35 (2014) 1569–1584. | DOI
[46] and , Designing a family of development-intensive products. Manage. Sci. 52 (2006) 813–825. | DOI
[47] , and , User-generated content and competing firms’ product design. Manage. Sci. 64 (2018) 4608–4628. | DOI
[48] , and , Product positioning in a two-dimensional market space. Prod. Oper. Manage. 18 (2009) 315–332. | DOI
[49] and , Market research and innovation strategy in a duopoly. Market. Sci. 28 (2009) 373–396. | DOI
[50] , and , Disruptive technology and disruptive innovation: ignore at your peril! Technol. Anal. Strategic Manage. 30 (2018) 1247–1255. | DOI
[51] , and , Dynamic commercialization strategies for disruptive technologies: evidence from the speech recognition industry. Manage. Sci. 60 (2014) 3103–3123. | DOI
[52] , and , Reasoning about competitive reactions: evidence from executives. Market. Sci. 24 (2005) 138–149. | DOI
[53] , and , Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Ind. Market. Manage. 57 (2016) 119–126. | DOI
[54] , Strategies for environmental and traditional quality efforts during new product development: balancing complementarity and conflict. Qual. Manage. J. 21 (2014) 23–35. | DOI
[55] , The value of product variety when selling to strategic consumers. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manage. 14 (2012) 371–385. | DOI
[56] , and , Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: a critical review and research directions. Int. J. Res. Market. 27 (2010) 91–106. | DOI
[57] , and , Disruptive innovation from a process view: a systematic literature review. Creativity Innov. Manage. 28 (2019) 157–174. | DOI
[58] , and , Managing market intelligence: the comparative role of absorptive capacity and market orientation. J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016) 5569–5577. | DOI
[59] , Threat of entry, asymmetric information, and pricing. Strategic Manage. J. 34 (2013) 426–444. | DOI
[60] , , and , Disruptive innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging economics. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 58 (2020) 101601. | DOI
[61] , , and , Digital transformation of industrial firms: an innovation diffusion perspective. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 24 (2020) 799–819. | DOI
[62] , and , Capacity investment timing by start-ups and established firms in new markets. Manage. Sci. 57 (2011) 763–777. | Zbl | DOI
[63] , A competence-based view of industry evolution: the impact of submarket convergence on incumbent–entrant dynamics. Acad. Manage. J. 61 (2018) 738–768. | DOI
[64] and , Relationship between technological improvement and innovation diffusion: an empirical test. Technol. Anal. Strategic Manage. (2021) 1–16.
[65] , Price competition and technology licensing in a dynamic duopoly. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 267 (2018) 570–584. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[66] and , Dynamic pricing and competitive time-to-market strategy of new product launch under a multistage duopoly. Eur. J. Oper. Res 277 (2019) 138–152. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[67] , and , Optimal timing of big data application in a two-period decision model with new product sales. Comput. Ind. Eng. 160 (2021) 107550. | DOI
[68] , Incentives for environmental research and development: consumer preferences, competitive pressure and emissions taxation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 276 (2019) 757–769. | MR | Zbl | DOI
[69] , , and , Trade credit or vertical merger strategy for financial constrained retailer in a supply chain with asymmetric competing retailers. RAIRO-Oper. Res. 55 (2021) 1617–1641. | MR | Zbl | Numdam | DOI
[70] and , Products to platforms: making the leap. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94 (2016) 72–78.
[71] and , Green product diffusion: the impacts of asymmetric retailers’ strategic product decisions. RAIRO-Oper. Res. 55 (2021) 1459–1486. | MR | Zbl | Numdam | DOI
Cité par Sources :
