Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and Research Agenda

By Erwin Danneels. 2004

1,044 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/950d3faea1c23c1abdfc8a17eb39be72fb237b74

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Information Systems

1. M. Ganter
2. Philip Stiles
3. Pieter Krop
4. Jahangir Karimi
5. Yu Dan
6. C. Kim
7. Shahzad Ansari
8. Richard A. Bettis

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Alan L. Porter
2. Arho Suominen
3. Munan Li
4. Abbie Griffin
5. John R. Hauser
6. Yu Dan
7. H. Chieh
8. M. Ganter

In Strategy and Management

1. J. Carr
2. Sali Li
3. Arho Suominen
4. Munan Li
5. Alan L. Porter
6. Chander K. Velu
7. Richard L. Priem
8. Yu Dan

Citations in the corpus

• Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing Science (2006, background): “First, a " disruptive technology " might be identified only post hoc, that is, after it has disrupted the business of incumbents (Danneels 2004).”
• Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research (2018, background): “…marketing, economics, and healthcare (Di Stefano et al., 2012), and vibrant debate about the underlying theoretical concepts (Christensen, 2006; Danneels, 2004; Gans, 2016; Henderson, 2006; King and Tucci, 2002; Slater and Narver, 1998; Sood and Tellis, 2005, 2011 ; Utterback and Acee, 2005),…”
• Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective (2017, background): “(Bower & Christenson, 1995; Danneels, 2004).”
• Insights and New Directions from Demand-Side Approaches to Technology Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategic Management Research (2012, background): “High-tech new ventures face special challenges that often include resource constraints and limited knowledge of market needs (see also Danneels, 2004).”
• A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory (2008, background): “Danneels suggests that several authors seem to think that Christensen did not provide a precise and consistent definition of the term disruptive technology [29].”
• Incumbent Adaptation to Technological Change: The Past, Present, and Future of Research on Heterogeneous Incumbent Response (2018, neutral): “Most disruptive innovations donot entail significant changes to core or complementary resources but instead generate misleading signals based on feedback from the demand side (Adner, 2002; Danneels, 2004).”
• Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms (2015, background): “Hence, radical business model innovations can be disruptive when they change the bases of competition by altering the performance metrics by which firms compete (Daneels, 2004).”
• The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the Newspaper Industry (2015, background): “, [27, 36, 86, 119, 126, 129]), it has made a transition from a descriptive to a normative theory [24].”
• Managing decision-making and cannibalization for parallel business models (2013, background): “To pursue exploration more fully, it needs to be willing to shed commitments to its existing resources, even if that renders some of its investments in existing resources obsolete (Chandy, Prabhu and Antia, 2003; Daneels, 2004).”
• Cash is surprisingly valuable as a strategic asset (2014, background): “However, such analyses often ignore the high rates of failure among small firms, suffer from survivor bias, and overstate the innovative inertia of incumbent firms (Danneels, 2004).”