Author
Rahul Kapoor
Other affiliations: INSEAD
Bio: Rahul Kapoor is an academic researcher from University of Pennsylvania. The author has contributed to research in topics: Technological change & Business ecosystem. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 36 publications receiving 4362 citations. Previous affiliations of Rahul Kapoor include INSEAD.
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: It is proposed that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle.
Abstract: The success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment. How do the challenges faced by external innovators affect the focal firm's outcomes? To address this question we first characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence. We follow the flow of inputs and outputs in the ecosystem to distinguish between upstream components that are bundled by the focal firm, and downstream complements that are bundled by the firm's customers. We argue that the effect of external innovation challenges depends not only on their magnitude, but also on their location in the ecosystem relative to the focal firm - whereas greater innovation challenges in components enhances the benefits that accrue to technology leaders, greater innovation challenges in complements erodes these benefits. We further argue that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle. We explore these arguments in the context of the global semiconductor lithography industry from its emergence in 1962 to 2005 across nine distinct technology generations. We find strong support for our arguments.
1,682 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence and show that the success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment.
Abstract: The success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment. How do the challenges faced by external innovators affect the focal firm's outcomes? To address this question we first characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence. We follow the flow of inputs and outputs in the ecosystem to distinguish between upstream components that are bundled by the focal firm, and downstream complements that are bundled by the firm's customers. We hypothesize that the effects of external innovation challenges depend not only on their magnitude, but also on their location in the ecosystem relative to the focal firm. We identify a key asymmetry that results from the location of challenges relative to a focal firm—greater upstream innovation challenges in components enhance the benefits that accrue to technology leaders, while greater downstream innovation challenges in complements erode these benefits. We further propose that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle. We explore these arguments in the context of the global semiconductor lithography equipment industry from its emergence in 1962 to 2005 across nine distinct technology generations. We find strong empirical support for our framework. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1,605 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a framework that considers both the focal competing technologies as well as the ecosystems in which they are embedded to understand why new technologies emerge and quickly supplant incumbent technologies while others take years or decades to take off.
Abstract: Why do some new technologies emerge and quickly supplant incumbent technologies while others take years or decades to take off? We explore this question by presenting a framework that considers both the focal competing technologies as well as the ecosystems in which they are embedded. Within our framework, each episode of technology transition is characterized by the ecosystem emergence challenge that confronts the new technology and the ecosystem extension opportunity that is available to the old technology. We identify four qualitatively distinct regimes with clear predictions for the pace of substitution. Evidence from 10 episodes of technology transitions in the semiconductor lithography equipment industry from 1972 to 2009 offers strong support for our framework. We discuss the implication of our approach for firm strategy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
379 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how hospitals' decisions to invest in new imaging technologies are shaped by their governance modes with physicians and with managed care organizations (MCOs), primary distributors of hospital and physician services.
Abstract: We consider firms in the context of their business ecosystems and explore how governance choices with respect to complementors and distributors shape their competitive behavior—i.e., investments in new technologies. We argue that, in addition to creating differences in incentives, governance choices play an important role in the firm’s ability to coordinate accompanying changes in interdependent activities so as to create value from the new technology. We test our predictions in the U.S. healthcare industry from 1995-2006. We examine how hospitals’ decisions to invest in new imaging technologies are shaped by their governance modes with physicians—key complementors to hospitals, and with managed care organizations (MCOs)— primary distributors of hospital and physician services. We find that hospitals pursuing alliances with physicians are more likely to invest in new technologies than hospitals pursuing arm’slength or integrated modes, and the likelihood of investment is increasing in the scope of alliance. Finally, hospitals pursuing tapered integration with downstream MCOs are more likely to invest in new technologies than hospitals pursuing arm’s-length relationships. Overall, the study argues for extending research on organizational forms to explore the link between coordination mechanisms and competitive behavior, and to consider such choices in the context of business ecosystems.
358 citations
TL;DR: Evidence from Apple’s iOS and Google's Android smartphone ecosystems supports arguments that higher ecosystem complexity helps app developers sustain their superior performance, and that this effect is stronger for more experienc...
Abstract: We study the phenomenon of business ecosystems in which platform firms orchestrate the functioning of ecosystems by providing platforms and setting the rules for participation by complementor firms...
242 citations
Cited by
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The Oxford Handbook of Innovation as mentioned in this paper provides a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation, with a focus on firms and networks, and the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment.
Abstract: This handbook looks to provide academics and students with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. Innovation spans a number of fields within the social sciences and humanities: Management, Economics, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Psychology, and History. Consequently, the rapidly increasing body of literature on innovation is characterized by a multitude of perspectives based on, or cutting across, existing disciplines and specializations. Scholars of innovation can come from such diverse starting points that much of this literature can be missed, and so constructive dialogues missed. The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Innovation have carefully selected and designed twenty-one contributions from leading academic experts within their particular field, each focusing on a specific aspect of innovation. These have been organized into four main sections, the first of which looks at the creation of innovations, with particular focus on firms and networks. Section Two provides an account of the wider systematic setting influencing innovation and the role of institutions and organizations in this context. Section Three explores some of the diversity in the working of innovation over time and across different sectors of the economy, and Section Four focuses on the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment. An introductory overview, concluding remarks, and guide to further reading for each chapter, make this handbook a key introduction and vital reference work for researchers, academics, and advanced students of innovation. Contributors to this volume - Jan Fagerberg, University of Oslo William Lazonick, INSEAD Walter W. Powell, Stanford University Keith Pavitt, SPRU Alice Lam, Brunel University Keith Smith, INTECH Charles Edquist, Linkoping David Mowery, University of California, Berkeley Mary O'Sullivan, INSEAD Ove Granstrand, Chalmers Bjorn Asheim, University of Lund Rajneesh Narula, Copenhagen Business School Antonello Zanfei, Urbino Kristine Bruland, University of Oslo Franco Malerba, University of Bocconi Nick Von Tunzelmann, SPRU Ian Miles, University of Manchester Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley Bart Verspagen , ECIS Francisco Louca, ISEG Manuel M. Godinho, ISEG Richard R. Nelson, Mario Pianta, Urbino Bengt-Ake Lundvall, Aalborg
3,040 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The process of innovation must be viewed as a series of changes in a complete system not only of hardware, but also of market environment, production facilities and knowledge, and the social contexts of the innovation organization as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Models that depict innovation as a smooth, well-behaved linear process badly misspecify the nature and direction of the causal factors at work. Innovation is complex, uncertain, somewhat disorderly, and subject to changes of many sorts. Innovation is also difficult to measure and demands close coordination of adequate technical knowledge and excellent market judgment in order to satisfy economic, technological, and other types of constraints—all simultaneously. The process of innovation must be viewed as a series of changes in a complete system not only of hardware, but also of market environment, production facilities and knowledge, and the social contexts of the innovation organization.
2,154 citations
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
2,134 citations
TL;DR: It is proposed that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle.
Abstract: The success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment. How do the challenges faced by external innovators affect the focal firm's outcomes? To address this question we first characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence. We follow the flow of inputs and outputs in the ecosystem to distinguish between upstream components that are bundled by the focal firm, and downstream complements that are bundled by the firm's customers. We argue that the effect of external innovation challenges depends not only on their magnitude, but also on their location in the ecosystem relative to the focal firm - whereas greater innovation challenges in components enhances the benefits that accrue to technology leaders, greater innovation challenges in complements erodes these benefits. We further argue that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle. We explore these arguments in the context of the global semiconductor lithography industry from its emergence in 1962 to 2005 across nine distinct technology generations. We find strong support for our arguments.
1,682 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence and show that the success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment.
Abstract: The success of an innovating firm often depends on the efforts of other innovators in its environment. How do the challenges faced by external innovators affect the focal firm's outcomes? To address this question we first characterize the external environment according to the structure of interdependence. We follow the flow of inputs and outputs in the ecosystem to distinguish between upstream components that are bundled by the focal firm, and downstream complements that are bundled by the firm's customers. We hypothesize that the effects of external innovation challenges depend not only on their magnitude, but also on their location in the ecosystem relative to the focal firm. We identify a key asymmetry that results from the location of challenges relative to a focal firm—greater upstream innovation challenges in components enhance the benefits that accrue to technology leaders, while greater downstream innovation challenges in complements erode these benefits. We further propose that the effectiveness of vertical integration as a strategy to manage ecosystem interdependence increases over the course of the technology life cycle. We explore these arguments in the context of the global semiconductor lithography equipment industry from its emergence in 1962 to 2005 across nine distinct technology generations. We find strong empirical support for our framework. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1,605 citations