The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management

Living Edition
| Editors: Mie Augier, David J. Teece

Dominant Design

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_387-1
  • 3.4k Downloads

Abstract

The notion of dominant designs in a product class has been used by scholars and practitioners of technology management to illustrate a set of product design features that emerge and achieve wide acceptance in a new product market. The emergence of a dominant design occurs during the period in which new combinations of ideas, knowledge and resources are being created and contested by many new entrants in a new product market. During the race to define a dominant design, a firm’s survival is thus dependent upon the successful alignment of the firm’s product strategy with rapidly evolving market requirements.

Keywords

Product Market Product Innovation Incumbent Firm Product Lifecycle Technological Trajectory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abernathy, W., and J.M. Utterback. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review 80: 97–107.Google Scholar
  2. Burg, U.V., and M. Kenney. 2003. Sponsors, communities, and standards: Ethernet vs. token ring in the local area networking business. Industry and Innovation 10: 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, C.M., F.F. Suárez, and J.M. Utterback. 1998. Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Management Science 44: S207–S220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, K.B. 1985. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy 14: 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Klepper, S. 1996. Entry, exit, growth and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review 86: 562–583.Google Scholar
  6. Klepper, S., and K.L. Simons. 2000. Dominance by birthright: Entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry. Strategic Management Journal 21: 997–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Murmann, J.P., and K. Frenken. 2006. Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovation, and industrial change. Research Policy 35: 925–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rosenkopf, L., and M. Tushman. 1994. The coevolution of technology and organization. In Evolutionary dynamics of organizations, ed. J.A.C. Baum and J.V. Singh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Schilling, M.A. 2002. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal 45: 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Soh, P.H. 2010. Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design. Strategic Management Journal 31: 438–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Soh, P.H., and E.B. Roberts. 2003. Network of innovators: A longitudinal perspective. Research Policy 32: 1569–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Srinivasan, R., G.L. Lilien, and A. Rangaswamy. 2006. The emergence of dominant designs. Journal of Marketing 70: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Suárez, F.F., and J.M. Utterback. 1995. Dominant designs and the survival of firms. Strategic Management Journal 16: 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15: 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tegarden, L.F., D.E. Hatfield, and A.E. Echols. 1999. Doomed from the start: What is the value of selecting a future dominant design? Strategic Management Journal 20: 495–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tushman, M.L., and P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Utterback, J.M. 1994. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Utterback, J.M., and W.J. Abernathy. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 33: 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van de Ven, A., and R. Garud. 1994. The coevolution of technical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. In Evolutionary dynamics of organizations, ed. J.A.C. Baum and J.V. Singh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beedie School of BusinessVancouverCanada