Bu5iness

Resource4.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Bu5iness

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations*

Arun Kumaraswamy, Raghu Garud and Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari Florida International University; The Pennsylvania State University; University of Cambridge, Cambridge Judge Business School

ABSTR ACT Everyday experiences speak to the accelerated pace of innovation in this era of continual change. Sometimes, innovations enhance the value of existing products and services. At other times, they render existing business models obsolete, disrupt value-networks, prompt providers to rethink who their customers are, and lead custom- ers to rethink what they value. What does it mean to manage in such a world of disrup- tive changes, and how might we research this phenomenon? Together with the contributors to this special issue, we anchor, explore and extend the meanings associ- ated with the concept of disruptive innovation. In particular, we discuss several perspec- tives on disruption – evolutionary, relational, temporal and framing – that culminate in a performative (as opposed to a predictive) approach to thinking about the phenom- enon. In doing so, our intention is to open up the agenda for both researchers and practitioners.

Keywords: disruption, disruptive innovation, ecosystems, platforms, process, performativity, temporality

INTRODUCTION

It is hard to deny that we are living in an age of continual disruptions, defined vernacularly as fundamental changes that disturb or re-order the ways in which firms and their ecosystems operate. In the 1980s, researchers studying techno- logical innovation focused on (among other issues) transilience (Abernathy and Clark, 1985), which culminated in the emergence of dominant designs (Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Utterback and Abernathy, 1975). The 1990s saw the advent

Journal of Management Studies 55:7 2018 doi:10.1111/joms.12399

Address for reprints: Raghu Garud, Smeal College of Business, Management and Organization Department, The Pennsylvania State University, 431 Business Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA ([email protected]). *This is a fully collaborative effort, with authors listed in reverse alphabetical order. We, the guest editors and contributors to this special issue, are indebted to Dries Faems, the Journal of Management Studies handling editor, and the many anonymous reviewers for their generous and constructive feedback.

1026 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

of disruptive technologies, a concept that Christensen (1997) introduced to explore why incumbents may lose ground to innovations introduced by new entrants. This century is best described as an era of continual disruption in which technolog- ical innovations and new business model changes are affecting not just individual firms, but entire industries and ecosystems.

In this introductory essay, we open up the agenda for studying the process of continual disruption. To anchor our arguments, we begin with an overview of the classical evolutionary perspective on disruption. Next, we extend this classi- cal view by considering several additional perspectives on the phenomenon. For instance, by endogenizing the contexts within which disruption unfolds, we offer a relational perspective that considers ecosystem dynamics. Moreover, by consid- ering the process dynamics associated with disruption, we provide a temporal perspective. Considerations of relationality and temporality suggest a heteroge- neity of responses and strategies by disruptors and incumbents to innovations as they unfold over time, which leads to a framing perspective. In combination, these perspectives suggest the utility of taking a performative, as opposed to a predictive, approach to disruption. After presenting the performative approach, we introduce the papers featured in this special issue, each of which deepens and broadens our understanding of the phenomenon.

EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ON DISRUPTION

Christensen (1997) offered a theory on disruptive technologies (later disruptive innovations) in a book evocatively titled The Innovator’s Dilemma. This theory high- lights how challengers can offer what he labelled as disruptive technologies (or innovations) to unseat established incumbents. The challenger begins by offer- ing innovations that are inferior in terms of features or performance, but also cheaper or more accessible than products and services in the mainstream market. Because these ‘inferior’ innovations appeal primarily to niche customer segments that are overserved or ignored by established incumbents, the challenger is able to circumvent selection environments constituting mainstream markets.

Although it may be possible for the incumbent to offer an equivalent innova- tion to compete with the challenger, doing so would cannibalize its profitable offerings in mainstream markets. Faced with this innovator’s dilemma, the incum- bent ignores the challenger and its innovation, and continues improving the performance of its existing products and services. Over time, though, the perfor- mance of the challenger’s innovation gradually improves, while at the same time remaining cheaper or more accessible than the incumbent’s products or services. At a critical juncture, the disruptive innovation becomes good enough to serve mainstream customers, who then migrate to this cheaper or more accessible alter- native. The incumbent, wedded to its long-standing offerings and business model, then finds it almost impossible to compete with the challenger and suffers declin- ing performance. To avoid this outcome, incumbents are advised to ‘develop a disruption of your own before it’s too late to reap the rewards of participation in

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1027

new, high-growth markets’ by setting up a separate organizational unit to manage the innovation (Christensen, 1997).

Despite and because of its evocative framing, the theory of disruption has received its share of criticism (e.g., Danneels, 2004; King and Baatartogtokh, 2015; Lepore, 2014; Markides, 2006; Tellis, 2006; Sood and Tellis, 2011). These studies question the definition of this concept, the assumptions on which the theory is based, the sampling method used and the validity of supporting evidence gathered, and the theory’s predictive power. Subsequently, Christensen and his colleagues addressed several of these criticisms (Christensen, 2006; Christensen et al., 2015) by offering clarifications and by expanding the definition of disruption to include innovative business models and new market footholds in addition to low-end disruptions.

However, the theory (as originally framed) does not adequately address the dynamics of a number of innovations such as Apple’s iPhone or Uber’s ride- hailing platform (also see The Economist, 2015). Many of these innovations are systemic, serve as platforms for others to build on, and disrupt existing relation- ships among the members of entire industries and ecosystems instead of affecting just specific incumbents (as in the case of standalone products or services offered by individual firms). To understand the dynamics involved, and to meaningfully extend the original definition to apply to such innovations, we must adopt a rela- tional perspective on the phenomenon, which we explore next.

A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON DISRUPTION

To establish the foundations for a relational perspective on disruption, we begin with Teece’s (1986) work, which emphasized the critical role of complementary assets in the successful commercialization of innovations. To the extent that innovators can still appropriate value from their innovations without internalizing all complemen- tary assets, they rely on other firms to provide these assets. Scholars have labelled the resultant network of interdependent firms, as business ecosystems (e.g., Adner, 2012; Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Moore, 1996). Together, these firms establish not only the value proposition for buyers, but also how such value is created and captured by each firm (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996). In addition, other actors including regulators, evaluators and other stakeholders play an important role in ecosystem dynamics (Garud and Karnøe, 2003; Van de Ven and Garud, 1989).

Business ecosystems are particularly relevant in systemic industries wherein dif- ferent components or modules of a technology or product platform are offered by different firms, and need to be compatible with one another to generate utility. Innovations may result in changes to the system’s architecture, i.e., the form and function of system components, and how they interface and interact with one another. In such cases, existing roles, relationships, rules and transactions within the ecosystem may be significantly impacted (Garud and Munir, 2008; Jacobides et al., 2006).

Moreover, digital innovations, characterized by convergence and generativ- ity (Yoo et al., 2012) are blurring boundaries between industries and sectors

1028 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

(e.g., Education and Entertainment), consumers and producers (e.g., Sharing Economy), humans and machines (e.g., Artificial Intelligence), products and services (e.g., Servitization), and the physical and the digital (e.g., the Internet of Things). In such cases too, extant relationships among ecosystem members may be reconfigured radically. For instance, the recent emergence of a mobil- ity ecosystem around ‘autonomous vehicles’ (self-driving cars) has impacted not just traditional automakers, but also blurred the boundaries between technology firms, energy companies, and insurance companies (Yin et al., 2017). Likewise, Uber’s business model innovation, besides disrupting taxicab companies, has transformed the transportation industry ecosystem by blurring the line between service providers and users to such an extent that even regulators have had a hard time categorizing the company.

To explain such phenomena, there is utility in explicitly considering the im- pact of innovations on the relational interdependencies across the entire eco- system (Adner and Kapoor, 2010; Dougherty and Dunne, 2011; Garud and Kumaraswamy, 1995; Jacobides et al., 2018). Such a relational view reveals several challenges for firms defending their positions in an existing market (henceforth incumbents), and for firms (whether incumbents or new entrants) attempting to disrupt existing markets (henceforth disruptors) (see Ansari and Krop, 2012; Kapoor and Klueter, 2015). For incumbents, the advent of innovations can disrupt existing relationships. For instance, the introduction of the quartz movement dis- rupted the watchmaking production networks in Switzerland (Glasmeier, 1991; Raffaelli, 2018). Similarly, the ‘Open Access’ model in publishing that allows free access and unrestricted use of academic literature disrupts the relationship be- tween publishers, authors, universities and readers under the ‘Toll Access’ model, wherein readers or universities that subscribe to these publications need to pay to access them (Thananusak and Ansari, 2019 (forthcoming)).

For disruptors, especially in systemic industries characterized by multi-sided platforms (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014; Hagiu, 2014; Nambisan et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2016; Rochet and Tirole, 2003), a critical task is to stitch together a new viable ecosystem around the disruptive innovation. This is a significant chal- lenge because new entrants often need to gain access to complementary resources from the very ecosystem incumbents they disrupt. This disruptor’s dilemma (Ansari et al., 2016; see also Gans, 2016) is particularly critical for disruptors like TiVo and Spotify, which have a high degree of relational dependency on incumbents. Other disruptors such as Airbnb and Uber have less dependency on incumbents, but still need to address dependencies on other stakeholders such as regulators. Examples include ongoing battles between e-cigarette entrepreneurs and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as to whether or not e-cigarettes should be regulated on par with traditional cigarettes (Tharchen and Garud, 2017), and Uber’s battles with regulators on the categorization of its services.

An additional challenge is that different members (or sides) of the ecosystem coalescing around a platform have motivations and interests that may diverge even as they jointly create value. Not surprisingly, some relationships are cooperative

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1029

and some are competitive. Yet others, however, are co-opetitive (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996; Gnyawali and Park, 2011), i.e., cooperative and competitive at the same time. While collaborative relationships have been shown to have a positive impact on innovative performance, it depends on the nature of the part- ner(s) involved (Faems et al., 2005). Dealing with the tensions created by such diverse relationships is not trivial for both incumbents and disruptors.

When we consider the actions and reactions of the multiple stakeholders within an ecosystem, the outcomes of disruptive innovations are difficult to predict. An implication for disruptors, especially small startups, is that they cannot wait for the process to settle down. New technologies might emerge that ‘disrupt’ the disruptive innovations, or incumbents might adapt or even co-opt the disruptive innovation for their own benefit. Therefore, disruptors need to forge ahead de- spite and even because of indeterminacies. These observations lead to temporal considerations (besides relational) that we discuss.

A TEMPOR AL PERSPECTIVE ON DISRUPTION

Scholars have acknowledged that disruption is an overall process of ‘evolution of [the disruptive] product or service over time’ (Christensen et al., 2015, p. 6). This process is best understood as a path that disruptive innovations follow ‘from the fringe to the mainstream’, and ought to be considered disruptive even if they do not end up unseating the incumbents. Here we see the beginnings of a ‘proces- sual’ rather than an ‘outcome-based’ explanation of disruptive innovation, which introduces a temporal facet to disruption.

To extend theorization of disruption using a temporal perspective, we consider why incumbents are unable or unwilling to recognize and respond to the threat of disruption in real time, only to be disrupted over time. Various explanations have been offered. For instance, Christensen highlights the economic dilemma that incumbents confront in introducing disruptive innovations that are not aligned with their business models and threaten cannibalization of their existing offerings. Cognitive explanations (Benner and Tripsas, 2012; Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008; Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000) suggest that incumbents ignore at their peril innovations that threaten their identities, templates, and mental models. Additionally, behavioral explanations portray incumbents as being trapped by core rigidities and organiza- tional myopia (Danneels, 2011; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Levinthal and March, 1993). More recently, scholars have proposed affective reasons for incumbents’ inability to respond in real time, as was the case with Nokia in the mobile telephony market wherein top and middle managers’ shared emotions during the smartphone inno- vation process influenced the company’s ability to respond (Vuori and Huy, 2016).

Together, these explanations lead to a richer understanding of how and why incumbents fall prey to ‘errors of omission’ (Garud et al., 1997) by failing to take a long-term view. In this regard, Schumpeter (1942/1994, p. 1942/1994) noted: ‘[S]ince we are dealing with a process whose every element takes consid- erable time in revealing its true features and ultimate effects, there is no point in

1030 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

appraising the performance of that process ex visu of a given point of time; we must judge its performance over time. . .’. Accordingly, incumbents are advised to reduce errors of omission by pursuing innovations that could be disruptive in the future well before others. However, as we have noted, successfully developing and then commercializing a disruptive innovation is a long drawn out process that could well end up in failure, an “error of commission” that any potential disrup- tor would like to minimize.

How, then, can firms (incumbents and disruptors) ensure fewer errors of omis- sion while also minimizing errors of commission? Usher’s (1954) process of cu- mulative synthesis provides the micro foundations of one such perspective. In particular, Usher offered four intertwined mechanisms driving the emergence of novelty, which he labelled as ‘perception of an incomplete pattern’, the ‘setting of the stage’, ‘act of insight’, and ‘critical revision’. These mechanisms help us understand the micro processes associated with disruptive innovation.

For instance, to reduce errors of omission, incumbents must cultivate the capac- ity to read weak signals about potentially disruptive innovations and explore op- tions before it is too late. To do so, it is critical to ‘set the stage’, by putting in place mechanisms to seek out ideas with potential future value and keep them alive for activation at an appropriate time. Such mechanisms include 3M’s technol- ogy platforms that preserves intermediate insights and artifacts from experiments (Garud et al., 2011), or P&G’s ‘Connect and Develop’ model (Sakkab, 2002) that connects ideas and resources outside the firm with those inside. Setting the stage allows firms to deal with both asynchrony, i.e., different elements emerging at different rates and at different times (see Ansari and Garud, 2009 for how this unfolded during technological transitions in the field of mobile telephony), and diachrony, i.e., ideas for which there are no immediate applications or those con- sidered ‘mistakes’ or ‘failures’ at present becoming valuable in the future (just as ideas considered promising at present turning out to be false starts on further analysis).

Setting the stage also makes it possible for ‘acts of insights’ to occur at opportune moments, or Kairos, which serves as a complement to chronological or sequential time, or Chronos. For instance, 3M cultivated Kairos through its 15 per cent ‘boot- legging rule’, which allowed employees to use a portion of their work time to ex- plore their own ideas, to develop a number of new products including a new kind of abrasive (Trizact) that disrupted its existing abrasive product (Garud et al., 2011). Similarly, as the disruptor, Google cultivated Kairos through its 20 per cent time for participative experimentation to disrupt existing email platforms with its Gmail platform (Garud and Karunakaran, 2018; see also Dougherty, 2016).

An observation offered by Spence Silver of 3M (who is credited with discover- ing the substance that led to 3M’s Post-it Notes) offers additional insights on the process. Silver noted, ‘Things build up and you begin to see the options that [a] discovery creates’ (Lindahl, 1998). In other words, each act of insight is but an intermediate step which opens up new opportunities and challenges. Addressing these emergent opportunities and challenges results in transformations through

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1031

further innovation, i.e., ‘critical revision’ in Usher’s terms. For instance, in the case of TiVo, the DVR technology and the associated business model had to be updated to deal with the television industry ecosystem’s pressures and evolution. Such critical revision forms the basis for strategies like ‘pivoting’, which is dis- cussed in the entrepreneurship literature (Grimes, 2017; Ries, 2011).

A FR AMING PERSPECTIVE ON DISRUPTION

Considerations of relationality and temporality highlight a distributed process involving a multiplicity of stakeholders within an ecosystem. This conceptualiza- tion challenges traditional binary notions of innovations being either sustaining or disruptive. As Christensen (2006) has acknowledged, innovations can be sus- taining to some firms and disruptive to others. Accordingly, within an ecosystem, different members (including incumbents) may be affected differently leading to a heterogeneity of responses. Such heterogeneity within the ecosystem offers the ‘disruptor’ an opportunity to frame its innovation to attract the support of at least some of its members. This leads us to a framing perspective.

Frames are ‘schemata of interpretation’ that enable individuals ‘to locate, per- ceive, identify, and label’ what happens in the world around them (Goffman, 1974, p. 21) or ‘principles of organization which govern the subjective meanings we as- sign to social events’ (Goffman, 1974, p. 11). Framing thus directs our attention to meaning-making by highlighting certain aspects of a perceived reality to stimu- late a particular understanding (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Framing processes operate recursively – both as the background shared reality to make sense of a situation and as tools for strategic and creative behaviour for evoking particular meanings, mobilizing support, gaining legitimacy, and persuading people (Gray et al., 2015).

In the context of technology and innovation, frames provide a socio-cognitive guide to the understanding of a technology and its developmental patterns (Dosi, 1982; Garud and Rappa, 1994) including its implementation and use in particular settings (Bijker, 1995; Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008). People make sense ‘not only of the nature and role of the technology itself, but the specific conditions, applica- tions and consequences of that technology in particular contexts’ (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994, p. 178). Any technology or innovation is understood in different ways by different stakeholders, which in turn guides the understanding of both the problem and potential solutions (Leonardi, 2011). Such an ambiguous, fluid situation offers entrepreneurs the opportunity ‘to shape cognitions, relations and resources in the market to their advantage’ and construct new markets (Santos and Eisenhardt, 2009, p. 665).

We return to TiVo and its digital video recorder to illustrate these points (Ansari et al., 2016). While many incumbents saw TiVo’s DVR as a disruptive threat, tele- vision viewers loved the DVR, and several vendors and new media advertisers saw the technology as enabling potentially new, more effective ways of reaching customers. Even a few broadcast television networks (e.g., NBC) whose busi- ness models were threatened saw future potential in the new technology. Taking

1032 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

advantage of this heterogeneity in perception, TiVo framed its innovation differ- entially. It aggressively framed its DVR as liberating television viewers from the tyranny of broadcast/cable networks and commercials, and as a gateway to more targeted, interactive and appealing advertising that viewers would voluntarily want to watch rather than skip. As it attracted more subscribers and supporters, TiVo progressively posed its DVR platform as an opportunity for emerging digital content providers and distributors to add value to their own products or services, while also offering more effective tools to understand viewership patterns and preferences. Over time, TiVo was able to portray itself (and be perceived by eco- system members) as a connector enabling additional value creation in the ecosys- tem, instead of a disruptor destroying existing value.

However, incumbents and other stakeholders can play the framing game too. For instance, in their study of the emergence of pay TV, Gurses and Ozcan (2015) reported counter framing by incumbents who tried to delegitimize pay TV service by arguing that these services were against the public’s interest. Such counter framing may lead to framing contests, with incumbents potentially having the advantage over new entrants due to their well-established relationships and ar- rangements with key stakeholders including regulators.

In essence, consideration of framing highlights the constitution of disruption as a phenomenon. Categorical distinctions (such as disruptive versus sustaining) do not simply report, describe or represent reality, but also constitute and per- form it. For instance, Osiyevskyy and Dewald (2015) argued that the manner in which a new business model was framed (e.g., as a critical vs. a non-critical threat) influenced intentions to adopt the new business model. Likewise, in his study of the newspaper industry’s response to online publishing, Gilbert (2005) showed that the framing of online publishing as a threat by traditional newspapers re- sulted in aggressive resource commitment to online initiatives.

A PERFORMATIVE APPROACH TO EXPLORING DISRUPTION

As may be evident from the above discussion, the meaning of the term disruption differs across different perspectives. Within Christensen’s evolutionary perspec- tive, disruption alludes to innovations that initially serve niche markets that are not attractive to incumbents but eventually enter the mainstream market to dis- rupt incumbents. From a relational perspective, disruption dynamics unfold not just at the level of specific or individual firms, but also at the inter-firm and eco- system levels. Viewed from a temporal perspective, disruption is a process char- acterized by asynchrony, which in turn is linked with diachrony. Finally, from a framing perspective, the capacity of an innovation to disrupt or not is based on how the innovation is framed and experienced by the multiple actors involved at different times during the innovation’s journey.

Each perspective enables us to explore and explain different facets of disrup- tion. Moving across perspectives, we see that disruption generates complex dy- namics, which cannot be envisaged upfront or understood fully even in real time.

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1033

There are likely to be ups and downs, false starts and dead ends, partial victories and triumphs as multiple actors interact with one another as innovation journeys unfold (Van de Ven et al., 1999). Indeed, various actors involved (whether disrup- tors, incumbents, complementors, regulators or analysts) are unlikely to be able to truly predict such a complex, distributed and emergent process in real time. What approach should we take to deal with such phenomena?

Building on the relational, temporal and framing perspectives discussed ear- lier, we now offer a performative approach to disruption. Performativity views phenomena as being constituted, de-constituted, and re-constituted through the ‘sayings and doings’ (Austin, 1962) of multiple actors (see Garud et al., 2018b). ‘Sayings’ include texts such as business plans and press releases, and ‘doings’ in- clude activities such as developing prototypes and raising capital.

Performativity, in the context of disruptive innovation, does not preclude pro- jections. Incumbents and new entrants realize that the feasibility of a projection is contingent upon its ability to bring about felicitous conditions. Consequently, projections ought to be seen not as predictions to be judged for their accuracy, but as evocative constructions of the future articulated by visionaries to jumpstart the innovation journey. From a performativity perspective, incumbents and dis- ruptors explore ideas that are shaped by memories of the past, aspirations of the future and contextualized by the settings within which they operate (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Garud and Gehman, 2012; Reinecke and Ansari, 2016; Ricoeur, 1984). The past is not simply a collectively reproduced narrative, nor does it nec- essarily constrain the firm in a path dependent manner. Instead, it is a “resource” that can be productively explored and exploited (Garud et al., 2010).

Indeed, performativity is based on an onto-epistemological position that consid- ers the past, present and future as integrated facets of temporal agency (Ricoeur, 1984). ‘Reality exists in a present’ (Mead, 1932, I), but the immediacy of present situations is extended by our ability to imaginatively construct a sense of the past and the future (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Garud and Gehman, 2012; Hatch and Schultz, 2017; Hernes, 2008; Reinecke and Ansari, 2016).

The advantage of taking a performative approach to disruption is that it re- leases firms from the need to be ‘correct’ or ‘accurate’ in their projections on complex emergent phenomena. Instead, firms can focus their efforts on enacting constituted worlds, knowing that their efforts are part of a larger ecology of re- lationships and interactions among heterogenous actants. As Callon (1998) has argued, any act of framing will generate ‘overflows’ (unanticipated occurrences) to which actors will need to respond. But, to do so, they must take into consider- ation the commitments they have made in the past and the possibilities that are afforded in the future by the circumstances they confront in the present (Garud, Gehman and Giuliani, 2018a).

Building on these ideas, Garud et al. (2018b) have argued that actors who em- brace performativity are more likely to try something out to generate feedback, and then adjust their activities and framing when overflows occur. Thereby, they attempt to perform the future instead of trying to predict it. The danger for firms

1034 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

T ab

le 1

. P ap

er s

in t

h is

S p

ec ia

l Is

su e

P ap

er T

it le

A u

th or

s D

is ru

pt iv

e ph

en om

en on

s tu

di ed

Su m

m ar

y de

ta il

D is

ru p

ti ve

i n

n o

va ti

o n

: A

n i

n te

ll ec

tu a

l h

is to

ry a

n d

d ir

ec ti

o n

s fo

r fu

tu re

se ar

C h

ri st

en se

n , M

cD o

n al

d ,

A lt

m an

a n

d P

al m

er N

o t

ap p

li ca

b le

; R ev

ie w

a rt

ic le

A r

ev ie

w o

f th

e in

te ll

ec tu

h is

to ry

a n

d t

h e

ev o

lu ti

o n

o f

th e

st u

d y

o f

d is

ru p

ti ve

i n

n o

va ti

o n

E m

b ra

ci n

g b

ew il

d er

m en

R es

p o

n d

in g

to t

ec h

n o

lo g

ic a

l d

is ru

p ti

o n

i n

h et

er o

ge n

eo u

s m

ar ke

t en

vi ro

n m

en ts

K h

an ag

h a,

Z ad

eh ,

M ih

al ac

h e

an d

o lb

er d

E ri

cs so

n ’s

w o

rl d

w id

e in

it ia

ti ve

s to

n te

n d

w it

h t

h e

em er

ge n

ce o

f th

e d

is ru

p ti

ve c

lo u

d c

o m

p u

ti n

g te

ch n

o lo

g y.

H et

er o

ge n

eo u

s m

ar ke

ts p

er sp

ec -

ti ve

; h o

w h

et er

o ge

n ei

ty i

n g

lo b

d em

an d

m ak

es it

d if

fi cu

lt e

ve n

r a

p ro

ac ti

ve i

n cu

m b

en t

re sp

o n

d t

o d

is ru

p ti

o n

W h

y d

o i

n cu

m b

en ts

r es

p o

n d

h et

er o

- ge

n eo

u sl

y to

d is

ru p

ti ve

i n

n o

va ti

o n

T h

e in

te rp

la y

o f

d o

m ai

n i

d en

ti ty

a n

ro le

i d

en ti

K am

m er

la n

d er

, K o

en ig

d R

ic h

ar d

s 14

G er

m an

b o

o k

p u

b li

sh in

g co

m p

an ie

s fa

ci n

g d

is ru

p ti

o n

d u

e to

d ig

it al

p u

b li

sh in

Id en

ti ty

t h

eo ry

p er

sp ec

ti ve

; h o

id en

ti ty

c o

n fl

ic ts

b et

w ee

d o

m ai

n a

n d

r o

le i

d en

ti ti

sh ap

e th

e w

ay i

n cu

m b

en ts

sp o

n d

t o

d is

ru p

ti ve

n o

va ti

o n

U n

p ac

k in

g th

e d

is ru

p ti

o n

p ro

- ce

ss :

N ew

t ec

h n

o lo

g y,

b u

si n

es s

m o

d el

s, a

n d

i n

cu m

b en

t ad

ap ta

ti o

C o

zz o

li n

o , V

er o

n a

an d

o th

ae rm

el D

is ru

p ti

o n

f ac

ed b

y a

m aj

o r

It al

ia n

ew sp

ap er

p u

b li

sh er

f ir

st d

u e

th e

ad ve

n t

o f

th e

in te

rn et

, a n

th en

d u

e to

t h

e en

tr y

o f

o n

li n

e p

u b

li sh

in g

ch al

le n

ge rs

w it

h n

b u

si n

es s

m o

d el

B u

si n

es s

m o

d el

a d

ap ta

ti o

p er

sp ec

ti ve

; h o

w a

p ro

-a ct

iv e

in cu

m b

en t

fi rs

t st

ru g

gl ed

t o

sp o

n d

t o

a d

is ru

p ti

ve i

n n

o va

- ti

o n

it s

o w

n a

n d

t h

ro u

al li

an ce

s, b

u t

ev en

tu al

ly a

d ap

te d

y m

o vi

n g

fr o

m a

c lo

se d

u si

n es

s m

o d

el t

o a

n o

p en

la tf

o rm

-b as

ed b

u si

n es

s m

o d

el .

D is

ru p

ti o

n i

n p

la tf

o rm

-b as

ec o

sy st

em s

O za

lp , C

en n

am o

a n

G aw

er D

is ru

p ti

ve t

ra n

si ti

o n

s b

et w

ee n

cc es

si ve

g en

er at

io n

s o

f vi

d eo

- g

am e

p la

tf o

rm s.

P la

tf o

rm -b

as ed

e co

sy st

p er

sp ec

ti ve

; h o

w c

o m

p le

x it

y o

f te

ch n

o lo

g y

in fl

u en

ce s

su p

p o

fr o

m c

o m

p le

m en

to rs

i n

fe ct

in g

d is

ru p

ti ve

i n

te rg

en er

a- ti

o n

al p

la tf

o rm

t ra

n si

ti o

n s.

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1035

U n

o b

tr u

si ve

m ai

n te

n an

ce :

T em

p o

ra l

co m

p le

x it

y, l

at en

t ca

te go

ry c

o n

tr o

l an

d t

h e

st a

ll ed

e m

er ge

n ce

o f

th e

cl ea

n te

ch s

ec to

Z ie

ts m

a, R

u eb

o tt

o m

a n

Sh an

tz D

is ru

p ti

o n

o f

tr ad

it io

n al

p o

w er

ti li

ti es

i n

C an

ad a

d u

e to

t h

e em

er ge

n ce

o f

cl ea

n t

ec h

n o

lo g

ie s

In st

it u

ti o

n al

t h

eo ry

p er

sp ec

ti ve

; h

o w

n ew

-e n

tr an

t en

tr ep

re n

eu rs

tr o

d u

ci n

g ev

en a

s o

ci al

b en

ef ic

ia l

d is

ru p

ti ve

i n

n o

va ti

o n

n b

e st

al le

d t

h ro

u gh

i n

st it

u -

ti o

n al

m ai

n te

n an

ce w

o rk

er fo

rm ed

b y

in cu

m b

en ts

A n

e co

sy st

em -l

ev el

p ro

ce ss

m o

d el

o f

b u

si n

es s

m o

d el

d is

ru p

ti o

n :

T h

e d

is ru

p to

r’ s

g am

b it

S n

ih u

r, T

h o

m as

a n

B u

rg el

m an

D is

ru p

ti o

n i

n t

h e

en te

rp ri

cu st

o m

er r

el at

io n

sh ip

m an

ag e

- m

en t

(C R

M )

so ft

w ar

e in

d u

st ry

al es

fo rc

e. co

m v

s S

ie b

el )

E co

sy st

em , f

ra m

in g

an d

b u

si n

es s

m o

d el

a d

ap ta

ti o

n p

er sp

ec ti

ve s;

o w

a d

is ru

p to

r m

ak es

it s

d is

ru p

ti ve

i n

te n

ti o

n s

k n

o w

fr o

m t

h e

ve ry

b eg

in n

in g

an d

el iv

er s

o n

t h

is i

n te

n ti

o n

b y

em p

lo yi

n g

d yn

am ic

f ra

m in

g an

d b

u si

n es

s m

o d

el a

d ap

ta ti

o n

f o

rg e

an e

co sy

st em

a ro

u n

d it

s in

n o

va ti

o n

1036 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

operating on the basis of predictions is that they might choose to wait for ambi- guities to subside instead of probing or engaging in any experimentation what- soever (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Even if they act, they might commit themselves prematurely to a course of action based on predictions made with inadequate or questionable information. Instead, a performative approach enables firms to take actions, learn, and transform as the phenomenon unfolds, thereby potentially limiting the likelihood of errors of omission and commission.

PAPERS IN THIS SPECIAL ISSUE

We now introduce the studies featured in this special issue. It is noteworthy that all empirical studies in this special issue are longitudinal in scope and offer in- depth views into the disruption process. In doing so, these studies deepen and broaden our understanding of the phenomenon (Table 1). Moreover, these stud- ies can be explicitly or implicitly linked to the different perspectives we discussed above, with many cutting across multiple perspectives. Accordingly, we do not at- tempt to categorize them by perspective, and instead highlight the key theoretical frames (as defined by the authors) and insights from each study.

Anchoring the special issue is a paper by Christensen, McDonald, Altman and Palmer titled ‘Disruptive innovation: An intellectual history and directions for future research’, which offers an insightful discussion of the evolution of this con- cept over time. As the authors highlight, the concept of disruptive innovation has invited considerable scholarly debate and research, but also gained considerable currency among practitioners. To take stock, they trace the theory’s intellectual history, noting how its core principles have advanced through a process of anom- aly-seeking. They also trace the theory’s progression from a descriptive to a more explanatory causal theory of innovation and competitive response. Setting the stage for future research, the authors propose several underexplored topics such as response strategies, performance trajectories, and innovation metrics.

For incumbents, an ability to recognize and respond to disruption occurring in real time is clearly important. Yet, doing so is not easy, as the next three papers demonstrate. Khanagha, Zadeh, Mihalache and Volberda study the challenges that Ericsson confronted in responding to the emergence of cloud computing, a digital platform technology, across its operations in more than 170 countries. In their paper titled ‘Embracing bewilderment: Responding to technological dis- ruption in heterogeneous market environments’ the authors theorize that the success of incumbents’ responses depends on their capability for misalignment, which allows them to manage paradoxes in strategic direction, structure, and re- source configuration associated with complex innovation processes.

Additional challenges faced by incumbents are documented by Kammerlander, Koenig and Richards in their paper titled ‘Why do incumbents respond hetero- geneously to disruptive innovations? The interplay of domain identity and role identity’. Approaching the topic from an identity theory perspective, the authors found that the emergence of disruptive innovations produced identity-driven

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1037

conflicts within incumbent firms due to a mismatch between organizational role identity and organizational domain identity. They also found that role and do- main identities can jointly determine whether incumbents adopt the disruptive innovation, and also how rapidly and innovatively they respond to it.

The paper by Cozzolino, Verona and Rothaermel titled ‘Unpacking the dis- ruption process: New technology, business models, and incumbent adaptation’ explores how an incumbent organization managed to adapt its business model in response to ongoing disruption. Their longitudinal study spanning over two decades (1995–2017) sheds light on this important process by analysing how a major Italian news media publisher reacted first to the advent of the internet, a disruptive technology, and then to the entry into its industry of challengers with disruptive business models based on the internet. They examine how the incumbent first experimented somewhat unsuccessfully with the opportunities afforded by the internet, then entered into alliances with others when threatened by challengers, and finally ended up adopting an open platform-based business model to more efficiently leverage emerging opportunities by melding internal and external knowledge and resources.

While these three papers document and theorize on the challenges that incum- bents confront in interpreting and then responding to threats posed by disruptive innovations, the next two papers speak to the external challenges that firms con- front in introducing disruptive innovations. In their paper titled ‘Disruption in platform-based ecosystems’, Ozalp, Cennamo and Gawer study intergenerational transitions in platform-based technologies as instances of potentially disruptive innovations at the ecosystem level. In the video game console industry, they found that technologically complex platforms struggle the most in attracting timely and high-quality complements in the early phases of an intergenerational transition and show a pattern of defection of complementors toward less-complex rival plat- forms. Their study extends the mainstream theory of disruption to apply to plat- form-based ecosystems by highlighting the key roles played by complementors in enabling disruption.

The paper by Zietsma, Ruebottom and Shantz explores the challenges that new-entrant entrepreneurs may confront in introducing disruptive innovations. Approaching the topic from an institutional theory perspective, the authors ex- amined incumbent resistance to a potentially disruptive innovation – the intro- duction of clean energy technology in Canada – even though it was perceived as being socially beneficial. In their paper titled ‘Unobtrusive maintenance: Temporal complexity, latent category control and the stalled emergence of the cleantech sector’, the authors discuss how incumbents (i.e., traditional utilities) were able to engage in ‘unobtrusive maintenance’ by enacting ‘legitimizing sta- bilizing mechanisms’ in their socio-technical regime’s infrastructure. Such main- tenance work by incumbents delayed the emergence of the disruptive clean technology, thereby creating temporal complexity and associated challenges for clean tech entrepreneurs.

1038 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

Concluding the special issue is the study by Snihur, Thomas and Burgelman, which explores Salesforce.com’s successful disruption of the enterprise CRM soft- ware industry. Taking an ecosystem and a business model adaptation perspectives, the authors introduce the notion of disruptor’s gambit wherein the new-entrant challenger is forthright from the very beginning about its intention to disrupt and assume a leadership position in the industry. In their paper titled ‘An ecosys- tem-level process model of business model disruption: The disruptor’s gambit’, the authors describe how the disruptor then delivers on its intention by employ- ing dynamic framing and continual business model adaptation to draw custom- ers and complementors away from the incumbent and forge a vibrant ecosystem around its own technology.

In sum, the papers featured in this special issue employ different perspectives to explore the phenomenon of disruptive innovations. Common across them is an emphasis on the following points: (1) that we need to pay attention not just to incumbents and disruptors, but also to other key ecosystem stakeholders; (2) that disruption is a process; and (3) that there are many challenges, complexities and paradoxes involved. With respect to theory, the papers traverse and connect diverse yet complementary literatures including disruption theory, ecosystems, framing, institutional theory, identity theory, and process theory.

CONCLUSION

Many years ago, Peter Drucker noted that ‘The greatest danger in times of turbu- lence is not turbulence itself, but to act with yesterday’s logic’. By any measure, we are living in an era of transformational change brought about by digitalization, industry convergence, overlapping ecosystems, inter-penetrating platforms. Such an era requires new approaches on the part of firms, regulators, market-players and the society at large to deal with ongoing disruptions and attendant changes. Researchers need new ways to empirically study and theorize on such phenom- ena. Practitioners need novel reflective tools, as opposed to simplified prescrip- tions, to help them better deal with disruptions proactively and reactively. We have offered preliminary thoughts on how to better engage with these develop- ments and, in doing so, extended the remit and relevance of extant theory.

Indeed, this special issue is an invitation to both researchers and practitioners to explore what it means to research and manage in this era of continual disrup- tion. No longer can we wait for phenomena to stabilize, or for all the data to be available before we begin our empirical analysis or theorization. Instead, as John Seely Brown, the former Chief Scientist at Xerox PARC and an academic in his own right, noted, ‘…business is always conducted in [a] “fog or reality”. You’re forever aiming at targets you can’t see, or you don’t understand, or change as a result of things you do’ (1997, 99).

How can we theorize and practice in and through this fog that seems to get thicker because of the ‘things we do’? Instead of offering a list of research and practice topics, we provide a generative way to approach this issue. Specifically, we

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1039

suggest that interesting research questions can be generated at the intersection of topics such as platforms, ecosystems, co-opetition, to name a few, and perspectives such as evolutionary, relational temporal and framing that lead to a performative approach. For instance, at the intersection of coopetition and relational/tem- poral perspectives, we could ask: How might the balance between cooperation and competition among firms shift over time as disruption unfolds? Or, at the intersection of ecosystems and performativity, we could ask: How might disrup- tors frame their disruptive innovations (internally and to ecosystem members), and how might such framing change over time? And at the intersection of the temporal, framing and performative perspectives, one might as: How do innova- tors make sense of the past, perform the future, even as they act in the present? These are but indicative questions that can further advance our understanding of disruptive innovation as a performative process.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, W. J. and Clark, K. B. (1985). ‘Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction’. Research policy, 14, 3–22.

Adner, R. (2012). The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation. New York: Penguin. Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010). ‘Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of techno-

logical interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations’. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306 –33.

Ansari, S. M. and Garud, R. (2009). ‘Intergenerational transitions in technological ecosystems: The case of mobile telephony’. Research Policy, 38, 382–92.

Ansari, S., Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). ‘The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem’. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1829–53.

Ansari, S. and Krop, P. (2012). ‘Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a frame- work for incumbent challenger dynamics’. Research Policy, 41, 1357–74.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Benner, M. J. and Tripsas, M. (2012). ‘The inf luence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent indus-

tries: The evolution of digital cameras’. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 277–302. Bijker, W. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. Brandenburger, A. M. and Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Currency Doubleday. Brown, J. S. (1997). ‘Changing the game of corporate research: Learning to thrive in the fog of reality’. In

Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. and Shapira, Z. B. (Eds), Technological Innovation: Oversights and Foresights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 95–110.

Callon, M. (1998). ‘An essay on framing and overf lowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology’. The Sociological Review, 46, 244–69.

Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. (2006). ‘The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 39–55.

Christensen, C., Raynor, M. and McDonald, R. (2015). ‘What is disruptive innovation?’. Harvard Business Review, December, 44–53.

Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). ‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and struc- tural design’. Management Science, 32, 554–71.

Danneels, E. (2011). ‘Trying to become a different type of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona’. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1–31.

Danneels, E. (2004). ‘Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246 –58.

Dosi, G. (1982). ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories’. Research Policy, 11, 147–62.

1040 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

Dougherty, D. (2016). Taking Advantage of Emergence: Productively Innovating in Complex Innovation Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dougherty, D. and Dunne, D. D. (2011). ‘Organizing ecologies of complex innovation’. Organization Science, 22, 1214–23.

Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). ‘What is agency?’. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023. Entman, R. M. (1993). ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’. Journal of Communication, 43,

51–58. Faems, D., Van Looy, B. V. and Debackere, K. (2005). ‘Interorganizational collaboration and innovation:

Toward a portfolio approach’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 238–50. Gans, J. (2016). The Disruption Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Garud, R. and Gehman, J. (2012). ‘Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, rela-

tional and durational’. Research Policy, 41, 980–95. Garud, R., Gehman, J. and Giuliani, A. (2018a). ‘Why not take a performative approach to entrepreneurship?’.

Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 9, 60–64. Garud, R., Gehman, J. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). ‘Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation:

Lessons from 3M Corporation’. Organization Studies, 32, 737–67. Garud, R., Gehman, J. and Tharchen, T. (2018b). ‘Performativity as ongoing journeys: Implications for strat-

egy, entrepreneurship, and innovation’. Long Range Planning, 51, 500–509. Garud, R. and Karnøe, P. (2003). ‘Bricolage vs. Breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technol-

ogy entrepreneurship’. Research Policy, 32, 277–300. Garud, R. and Karunakaran, A. (2018). ‘Process-based ideology of participative experimentation to foster

identity-challenging innovations: The case of Gmail and AdSense’. Strategic Organization, 16, 273–303. Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (1995). ‘Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies

of substitution’. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 93–109. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. and Karnoe, P. (2010). ‘Path dependence or path creation?’. Journal of Management

Studies, 47, 760–74. Garud, R. and Munir, K. (2008). ‘From transaction to transformation costs: The case of Polaroid’s SX-70

camera’. Research Policy, 37, 690–705. Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R. and Shapira, Z. B. (Eds) (1997). Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights. New

York: Cambridge University Press. Garud, R. and Rappa, M. A. (1994). ‘A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear

implants’. Organization Science, 5, 344–62. Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. A. (2014). ‘Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation’. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 31, 417–33. Gilbert, C. G. (2005). ‘Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity’. Academy of

Management Journal, 48, 741–63. Glasmeier, A. (1991). ‘Technological discontinuities and f lexible production networks: The case of Switzerland

and the world watch industry’. Research Policy, 20, 469–85. Gnyawali, D. and Park, B. (2011). ‘Coopetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technolog-

ical innovation’. Research Policy, 40, 650–63. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Grimes, M. (2017). ‘The pivot: How founders respond to feedback through idea and identity work’. Academy of

Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0823. Gray, B., Purdy, B. and Ansari, S. (2015). ‘From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and

mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields’. Academy of Management Review, 40, 115–43. Gurses, K. and Ozcan, P. (2015). ‘Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Framing contests and collective

action to introduce pay TV in the US’. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1709–39. Hagiu, A. (2014). ‘Strategic decisions for multisided platforms’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55, 71–80. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2017). ‘Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the

Carlsberg Group’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 657–97. Hernes, T. (2008). Understanding Organization as Process: Theory for a Tangled World. London: Routledge. Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004). The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for

Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Jacobides, M., Knudsen, T. and Augier, M. (2006). ‘Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appro-

priation and the role of industry architectures’. Research Policy, 35, 1200–21.

Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations 1041

Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C. and Gawer, A. (2018). ‘Towards a theory of ecosystems’. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2255–76.

Kaplan, S. and Tripsas, M. (2008). ‘Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change’. Research Policy, 37, 790–805.

Kapoor, R. and Klueter, T. (2015). ‘Decoding the adaptability-rigidity puzzle: Evidence from pharmaceutical incumbents’ pursuit of gene therapy and monoclonal antibodies’. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1180–207.

King, A. and Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). ‘How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57, 77–90.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). ‘Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product devel- opment’. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–25.

Leonardi, P. M. (2011). ‘Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts’. Organization Science, 22, 347–69.

Lepore, J. (2014). The disruption machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong. The New Yorker, May 23. Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993). ‘The myopia of learning’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. Lindahl, L. (1998). ‘Spence silver: A scholar and a gentleman’. 3M Today, 15 (1), 12–17. Markides, C. (2006). ‘Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory’. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

23, 19–25. Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company. Moore, J. F. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. New York:

Harper Business. Nambisan, S., Siegel, D. and Kenney, M. (2018). ‘On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship’.

Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1300. Orlikowski, W. J. and Gash, D. C. (1994). ‘Technological frames—making sense of information technology in

organizations’. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174–207. Osiyevskyy, O. and Dewald, J. (2015). ‘Explorative versus exploitative business model change: The cognitive

antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation’. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 58–78. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W. and Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets are

Transforming the Economy and how to Make them Work for You. New York: W W Norton & Company. Raffaelli, R. (2018). ‘Technology reemergence: Creating new value for old technologies in Swiss mechanical

watchmaking, 1970–2008’. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218778505. Reinecke, J. and Ansari, S. (2016). ‘Time, temporality, and process studies’. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H.

(Eds), Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 404–18. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and Narrative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful

Businesses. New York: Crown Books. Rochet, J. C. and Tirole, J. (2003). ‘Platform competition in two-sided markets’. Journal of The European

Economic Association, 1, 990–1029. Sakkab, N. Y. (2002). ‘Connect & develop complements research & develop at P&G’. Research-Technology

Management, 45 (2), 38–45. Santos, F. M. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). ‘Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial

power in nascent fields’. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 643–71. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942/1994). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge. Sood, A. and Tellis, G. J. (2011). ‘Demystifying disruption: A new model for understanding and predicting

disruptive technologies’. Marketing Science, 30, 339–54. Teece, D. J. (1986). ‘Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, li-

censing and public policy’. Research Policy, 15, 285–305. Tellis, G. J. (2006). ‘Disruptive technology or visionary leadership?’. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

23, 34–38. Thananusak, T. and Ansari, S. (2019). ‘Scholarly communications and digital disruption: The emergence

of altmetrics and open access publishing in management studies’. In Zilber, T. B., Amis, J. and Mair, J. (Eds), The production of managerial knowledge and organizational theory: New approaches to writing, producing and consuming theory. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited (forthcoming).

Tharchen, T. and Garud, R. (2017). The Emergence of New Market Categories in Stigmatized Industries: The Case of E-Cigarettes. Farrell Center Working Paper, Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

1042 A. Kumaraswamy et al.

The Economist (2015). Disrupting Mr. Disrupter. 26 November. Available at: https://www.economist.com/busi- ness/2015/11/26/disrupting-mr-disrupter (accessed 15 May 2018).

Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. (2000). ‘Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging’. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147–61.

Tushman, M. L. and Anderson, P. (1986). ‘Technological discontinuities and organizational environments’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–65.

Usher, A. P. (1954). A History of Mechanical Inventions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Utterback, J. and Abernathy, W. (1975). ‘A dynamic model of process and product innovation’. Omega, 33,

639–56. Van de Ven, A. H. and Garud, R. (1989). ‘A framework for understanding the emergence of new industries’. In

Rosenbloom, R. and Burgelman, R. (Eds), Research on Technological Innovation and Management Policy, Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 195–226.

Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D., Garud R. and Venkataraman, S. (1999). The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vuori, T. O. and Huy, Q. N. (2016). ‘Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 9–51.

Yin, E., Ansari, S. and Akhtar, N. (2017). ‘Radical innovation, paradigm shift and incumbent’s dilemma the case of the auto industry’. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies, 9, 138–48.

Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K. and Majchrzak, A. (2012). ‘Organizing for innovation in the digitized world’. Organization Science, 23, 1398–408.