The Performance of Incumbent firms in the Face of Radical Technological Innovation

By Charles W. L. Hill, Frank T. Rothaermel. 2003

1,155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/61005858218f4b8f478a2ae65a36df9f9601bd71

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity (2009, background): “…has increased over the last few decades (Thomas 1996) and a firm's technology sourcing strategy has become increasingly critical to its performance (Hill and Rothaermel 2003, Nicholls-Nixon 1995, Rothaermel 2001), this lack of research points to a significant gap in the burgeoning ambidexterity…”
Incumbent Performance in the Face of a Radical Innovation: Towards a Framework for Incumbent Challenger Dynamics (2012, background): “Commercialization requirements Hill and Rothaermel (2003) Commercialization requirements of the innovation.”
Motivation and Ability? A Behavioral Perspective on the Pursuit of Radical Invention in Multi-Technology Incumbents (2017, positive): “Firms performing above aspirationswill fear adrop inperformance should their attempts at radical invention fail (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003; Mitchell, 1989), and cannibalization of their existing strengths should they succeed (Henderson, 1993; Reinganum, 1983).”
An Attention‐Based View of Family Firm Adaptation to Discontinuous Technological Change: Exploring the Role of Family CEOs' Noneconomic Goals (2015, background): “-----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 around here -----------------------------------The process begins with the emergence of a discontinuous technology (in our specific case: digitization), which is introduced by industry-external firms (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003) and thus can be class”
Growing pains: Pre-entry experience and the challenge of transition to incumbency† (2012, background): “This initial lack of fit to the focal industry context requires significantly more adaptation than de novo firms, which do not have to negotiate internal sources of inertia or have long-standing commitments to established value networks (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003).”
Performance Implications of Firm Resource Interactions in the Acquisition of R&D-Intensive Firms (2008, background): “Because firms that fail to take advantage of investment opportunities risk being unable to make comparable investments later (Hill and Rotharmel 2003), the result is a dilemma where firms can either risk obsolescence and loss of market share (King et al. 2003) or invest in R&D, where it is…”
The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the Newspaper Industry (2015, background): “This is because (1) disruptive innovations create new opportunities that are almost always associated with new products and services served by new business models, and (2) many incumbent firms have managed to respond to disruptive innovations before being disrupted through developing new business mo”
The Mixed Blessings of Technological Innovativeness for the Commercial Success of New Products (2011, background): “Technological innovativeness—the degree of newness of technologies embodied in a new product—is assumed to be a driver of new product success because new technologies promise higher technical performance, and offer additional functionality and increased benefits to customers (Garcia and Calantone, 2”
Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates (2015, background): “…bene ﬁ t disproportionately from the opportunities created by innovativeness due to their less rigid routines and greater ﬂ exibility (e.g., Brüderl and Schüssler, 1990; Christensen and Bower, 1996; Freeman et al., 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; Klepper and Simons, 1997; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).”