Symmetric assumptions in the theory of disruptive innovation

PublikationArtikel (med peer review)
Christian Sandström, Disruptiva innovationer, Företagandets villkor, Henrik Berglund, Innovation, Mats Magnusson

Sammanfattning

The literature on disruptive innovation has convincingly explained why many established firms encounter problems under conditions of discontinuous change. Incumbents fail to invest in new technologies that are not demanded by their existing customers. This argument is grounded in resource dependency theory and the associated assumption that existing customers control a firm’s internal resource allocation processes. While the problem of disruptive innovation has been convincingly explained, there is still a need for managerial solutions. We argue that a key reason why such solutions are lacking can be found in the asymmetric assumptions made in the original theory of disruptive innovation. Specifically, we identify two related forms of asymmetry. First, the focal (incumbent) firm is treated as a collection of heterogeneous actors with different preferences, incentives and competencies, whereas firms in the surrounding environment are treated as if they contained no such heterogeneity. Second, the theory of disruptive innovation describes incumbents as controlled by their environment, but has failed to recognize that the environment can also be influenced. In this paper we argue that a more symmetric theory of disruptive innovation – i.e. one that treats all similar entities in the same way – opens up for a range of interesting managerial solutions.

Related content: Working Paper No. 203

Sandström, C., Berglund, H. & Magnusson, M. (2014). Symmetric assumptions in the theory of disruptive innovation – Theoretical and Managerial implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4), 472-483. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12092


Liknande innehåll

Learning from Overrated Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: Seven Takeaways
BokkapitelPublikation
Henrekson, M., Sandström, C., & Stenkula, M.
Publiceringsår

2024

Publicerat i

Springer Nature.

Sammanfattning

This chapter integrates findings from several different case studies on mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) and makes use of the existing literature to briefly describe three other missions: The War on Cancer, homeownership in the United States, and the Swedish Million Program. Together with the analyses in the other chapters of this volume, seven takeaways regarding mission-oriented innovation policies are developed and described: (1) wicked problems cannot be solved through missions, (2) politicians and government agencies are not exempt from self-interest, (3) MOIPs are subject to rent seeking and mission capture, (4) policymakers lack information to design MOIPs efficiently, (5) MOIPs distort competition, (6) government support programs distort incentives and result in moral hazard, and (7) MOIPs ignore opportunity costs. These seven takeaways are illustrated using the cases described in this chapter and elsewhere in this volume.

How Fares the Entrepreneurial State? Empirical Evidence of Mission-Led Innovation Projects Around the Globe
Artikel (med peer review)Publikation
Batbaatar, M., Larsson, J. P., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K.
Publiceringsår

2024

Publicerat i

Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 19(8), 664-772.

Sammanfattning

While considerable efforts have been made to conceptualize and outline the theoretical and normative logic of mission-oriented innovation policies and the role of the entrepreneurial state, there is a stark lack of empirical studies concerning how missions are designed and executed, and when they may work or do not. This monograph reviews theoretical rationales for mission-oriented innovation policy and provides an empirical overview of 30 articles which together cover 51 concluded or ongoing missions from around the world. We synthetize varieties of mission formulations, actors involved, and analyze characteristics of missions described as more or less failed or successful. Among the projects analyzed, many do not fulfill common definitions of “innovation missions.” Missions related to technological or agricultural innovations seem more often successful than broader types of missions aimed at social or ecological challenges, and challenges in the governance and evaluation of missions remain unresolved in the literature. None of the mission cases contain a cost-benefit analysis or takes opportunity cost into consideration.

Visa fler