See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324701766

Disruptive Innovation: Conceptual Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and

Research Opportunities in the Digital Age

Article in Journal of Product Innovation Management · May 2018

DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12448

CITATIONS READS

85 10,748

4 authors:

Christian Hopp David Antons

Bern University of Applied Sciences RWTH Aachen University
77 PUBLICATIONS 1,426 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 1,411 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jermain Kaminski Oliver Salge

Maastricht University RWTH Aachen University
13 PUBLICATIONS 289 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 2,201 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performing Value in a Digital Age View project

Understanding the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Hopp on 24 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2018;35(3):446–457
C 2018 Product Development & Management Association
V
DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12448

Virtual Issue Editorial

Disruptive Innovation: Conceptual Foundations, Empirical

Evidence, and Research Opportunities in the Digital Age
Christian Hopp, David Antons, Jermain Kaminski, and Torsten Oliver Salge

Introduction technologies were simply not wanted by the current,

often more sophisticated and demanding customers.

T he term “disruption” has become so popular

that it comes up as the “secret solution” in
nearly every management talk, startup pitch,
or political speech. Acclaimed applications and bene-
Consequently, incumbents tended to become myopic
and too sustaining, producing too feature-rich products
that far exceeded customer needs. This over-serving of
current customers then leaves a gap especially at the
fits may range from solving unemployment problems low end of the market (Christensen et al., 2015).
in Europe to eliminating extreme poverty in Nepal. New entrants, in contrast, were able to target
Not surprisingly, Christensen, Raynor, and McDonald especially these low-end segments with a value prop-
(2015, p. 45) attested that people “too frequently [. . .] osition comprising a new mix of features largely
use the term [disruption] loosely to invoke the concept unappealing (on performance) to the higher end of
of innovation in support of whatever it is they wish to the market. Similarly, disruptors may create new
do” and acknowledge, “despite its popularity-in-use, markets, turning nonconsumers into consumers
the core concepts remain widely misunderstood.” (Christensen et al., 2015). Subsequently, the term
Originally, Bower and Christensen (1995) observed disruptive technology has been replaced with disrup-
that many leading companies fail to dominate their tive innovation. In essence, rarely is the technology
industry when technologies (or markets) undergo inherently disruptive, but rather the business model
changes. In this context, the term “disruption” delin- (enabled by new technologies) has a disruptive
eates a process in which new entrants with generally impact on incumbents’ value creation and market
fewer resources challenge incumbent firms. Disruption position (Christensen and Raynor, 2003).
by definition begins in the low-end of the market. New Ever since its inception, the concept of disruptive
entrants target over-looked customers of the incumbent innovation has gained widespread interest. Motivated by
(likely with a product considered inferior by more an empiric observation, it has sparked many broader
demanding customers) and entrants subsequently move research questions. Its traction with practitioners resulted
up-market for disruption to occur. Importantly, they in numerous academic and business publications. Not
note that the sources of losing one’s competitive surprisingly, consultants, managers, and academics from
advantage “[. . .] has little to do with technology fields as diverse as strategy, organizational behavior,
itself.” Instead, it is caused by incumbents being myo- technology and innovation management, as well as infor-
pic and listening “[. . .] too carefully to their custom- mation systems turn to disruption scholars for guidance
ers” (Christensen and Bower, 1996, p. 198). In fact, on how to survive and thrive with disruption seemingly
Bower and Christensen (1995) found that disruptive becoming an everyday occurrence.
With this virtual special issue, we aim to provide the
scholarly community with a broad array of work published
in the Journal of Product Innovation Management that
Address correspondence to: Christian Hopp, Technology allows interested readers to engage in depth in the current
Entrepreneurship Group, TIME Research Area, RWTH Aachen
University, Kackertstraße 7, 52072 Aachen, Germany. E-mail: hopp@ debate around disruptive innovation. We developed this
time.rwth-aachen.de. Tel: 149-241-80-96676. virtual special issue with several objectives in mind.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 447
2018;35(3):446–457

We wish this to be a collection that facilitates an under- Salge, 2018*).1 We use this review as a starting point to
standing of the core tenets of disruption theory. That is, the identify important contributions and map the research
articles presented should allow both an understanding of landscape on disruptive and related forms of innovation.
what disruption theory is, how it has evolved, and how it Using a natural language processing approach, our
has been shaped through constructive criticism. In addi- review analyzed and structured 1078 articles published
tion, we highlight several areas to which disruption on the topics of disruptive innovation and variants
research has contributed and share a number of underex- thereof. The empirical model unearthed 84 distinct
plored research questions for each. topics that jointly map the broader topic landscape of
Recently, the editors of this virtual special issue disruption research. Particularly, one topic stood out.
undertook a systematic review of 40 years (1975–2016) This topic was labeled “Disruptive Innovation” and con-
of disruption research (Hopp, Antons, Kaminski, and tains the theoretical core of disruption research. Our
analysis showed that 62 articles from a wide set of jour-
nals and even disciplines contributed to this topic. Of
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES those articles, nine were published in the Journal of
Dr. Christian Hopp is a professor of technology entrepreneurship in Product Innovation Management (JPIM). For the pur-
the TIME Research Area at RWTH Aachen University, Germany. He
holds a doctoral degree (Dr. rer. Pol.) in Quantitative Economics and poses of this virtual special issue, we excluded Danneels
Finance from the University of Konstanz, a master in business admin- (2006)—the opening article to a JPIM special issue—and
istration from the University of Pittsburgh, USA, and a master in started with the remaining eight JPIM articles published
financial management from the Rotterdam School of Management, the
Netherlands. Prior to joining RWTH Aachen University in August
up until 2016 with notable loadings on the topic of
2013, he was an assistant professor at the University of Vienna, Aus- “Disruptive Innovation.” We extended this list by includ-
tria. His research encompasses various areas ranging from venture cap- ing our own article presenting the first topic map of the
ital financing, human resource management, to entrepreneurship. He
interdisciplinary disruption research landscape (Hopp
has published in Journal of Management Studies, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, among et al., 2018*) along with four additional JPIM articles
others. that were either published after 2016 (Johnson, Friend,
Dr. David Antons is an associate professor (equiv.) and co-director of and Lee, 2017*; Parry and Kawakami, 2017*; Rind-
the Innovation, Strategy, and Organization (ISO) group in the TIME fleisch, O’Hern, and Sachdev, 2017*) or did not meet the
Research Area at RWTH Aachen University, Germany. He received inclusion criteria for our systematic review (Gawer and
his Ph.D. from the same university working in close cooperation with
the RWTH Psychological Institute. He held visiting appointments at
Cusumano, 2014*), yet constitute—in our opinion—par-
the universities of Cambridge and Melbourne. His research interests ticularly valuable contributions to disruption research.
include knowledge sharing across organizational, spatial, and disci- This special issue, therefore comprises 13 JPIM articles
plinary boundaries; psychological influences on decision-making;
that illuminate four central themes of disruption research.
individual learning from feedback; and text mining approaches. Recent
contributions have been published—or are forthcoming—in journals The first theme on “Developing the Conceptual
such as JPIM, Journal of Management, Academy of Management Per- Foundations” is composed of our own systematic review
spectives, and Journal of Service Research. and two additional articles that explicate the main concep-
Mr. Jermain Kaminski is a research associate in the Technology Entre- tual building blocks of disruptive innovation theory and
preneurship Group, TIME research area, at RWTH Aachen University, track their evolution over time. The second theme on
Germany. He studied economics at Witten/Herdecke University, Ger-
many, and conducted research at the MIT Sloan School of Manage-
“Enabling Empirical Work” contains three key pieces that
ment and the MIT Media Lab, USA. He applies neural networks, present insights into how to measure and operationalize
natural language processing, and times series analysis to data in inno- disruption and hence make it amenable to empirical work.
vation and entrepreneurship. He recently published in JPIM, and at the
The third theme on “Managing Disruption” contains four
ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
articles that explore the antecedents to disruption, the role
Dr. Torsten Oliver Salge is a professor and co-director of the Innova-
of individual level variables in explaining the efficacy of
tion, Strategy, and Organization (ISO) group within the TIME
Research Area at RWTH Aachen University, Germany. He received responses to disruptions, and last potential moderators that
his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge and has held (visiting) may limit or abet various response strategies.
appointments at universities in Auckland, Buenos Aires, Bochum, The fourth theme “Keeping Up with the Times”
Cambridge, Duisburg, Oxford, and Philadelphia. His current research
interests include collaborative innovation, organizational search, and
seeks to take disruptive innovation research into the dig-
learning from performance feedback. Recent contributions have been ital age. Here, we highlight prominent grand challenges
published—or are forthcoming—in journals such as JPIM, Journal of for firms and researchers alike. To do so, we included
Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Service
Research, MIS Quarterly, and Research Policy. 1
A * indicates that the respective piece is included in this Virtual Special Issue on
disruptive innovation.
448 J PROD INNOV MANAG C. HOPP ET AL.
2018;35(3):446–457

three recent JPIM publications that we believe will con- important not least for Markides (2006*), who delin-
tribute to making disruption research more meaningful eated the differences between business model innova-
and informative for all those who seek to better under- tion and radical (hitherto unseen) products that are
stand how incumbents can survive and thrive in today’s sometimes subsumed under the rubric of disruptive
digital age. We place special emphasis on servitization, innovation. Markides (2006*) pointed out that both
information technology in general and data in particular, types require very distinct response strategies and that
as both a source of disruption and a key enabler for they should not be mistaken for each other.
those who perceive digitization as an opportunity rather Rather than solely engaging in confirmatory work
than a mere threat and are keen to seize its upside poten- regarding the original observation that many leading
tial (Johnson et al., 2017*; Rindfleisch et al., 2017*). companies cease to dominate their industry when tech-
The final article deals with platforms and ecosystems nologies undergo changes, research has begun to reen-
that resemble many recent discussions around disruptive gage with the theoretical foundations of disruption
innovation (Gawer and Cusumano, 2014*). research. This has sparked broader interest into work
We also wish to emphasize that these emerging on insurance mechanisms against disruptive innova-
themes provide not only new research opportunities, tion, among other topics, by gaining a better under-
but also a unique setting to test the implicit boundary standing of business models or organizational
conditions of disruption theory. With these articles, exploration using distinct business units (Crockett,
we, hence, aim at pushing the boundaries of disruptive McGee, and Payne, 2013*). Christensen et al. (2015)
innovation research in a way that is consistent with the critically assessed the current state of theory building
tenets of the theory laid out in prior paragraphs. The and empirical evidence. Despite the fact that disruptive
articles that are part of this virtual special issue are innovation has gained substantial traction with practi-
listed in Appendix Table 1 alongside a short synopsis tioners, the empirical evidence base remains sketchy,
of each article. and the core concepts consequently are still disputed.
Regardless of whether or not disruptive innovation is
accepted as a normative theory of managerial behav-
Theme 1: Developing the Conceptual ior, it surely serves as the basis for meaningful
Foundations “gedanken experiments.” It emphasizes and sparks
many practically and scientifically interesting questions
Ever since the inception of disruptive innovation/tech- for organizational and managerial behavior. As Knight
nology as a research field, work in JPIM (e.g., Danneels, (1924, p. 3) notes, “the immediate purpose of science
2004*; Markides, 2006*) has stimulated fertile discus- is to enable us to understand, which again covers the
sions about the limitations of disruptive innovation the- understanding both of beauty and of the technique of
ory and offered possible remedies, thereby advancing action.” We believe that the above articles may pro-
theory development. This increasingly popular theory vide inspiration for future research that further helps to
has provoked vibrant debates, which often were shaped develop the theoretical core of disruption research.
by misconceptions and blurry definitions. Over time, the Below we provide a nonexhaustive set of research
question arose as to whether the theory was “wearing questions that we hope might be relevant in this
new clothes” or was “just naked” (Weeks, 2015). regard.
Taking stock of the progress of theory building,
scholars have criticized the theory for conceptual Selected research questions to strengthen the con-
ambiguity, insufficient supporting evidence, and for ceptual foundations:
lack of predictive power (e.g., Danneels, 2004*). This  If managerial myopia by incumbents is a barrier to
has triggered subsequent efforts to specify the bound- disruption, how can incumbents unlearn entrenched
ary conditions of the theory and to sharpen its defini- capabilities to refocus and when should this effort
tions. Danneels (2004*) explicitly discussed the begin?
demerits of customer-orientation and the merits of new
business units for insuring against disruptions. In this  Is disruption inevitable and the impact irreversible
process of theory building, refinement, and advance- for the incumbent’s technologies and business mod-
ment, the notion of disruptive technology has been els? How can incumbents find new areas in which
replaced with the notion of disruptive innovation existing knowledge, products, and technologies can
(Christensen and Raynor, 2003). This extension was be leveraged and applied?
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 449
2018;35(3):446–457

 What type of organizational structures and leader- predictions.” Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006) raised
ship styles increase the risk of being disrupted and the question of how useful the theory of disruptive
being unable to react to disruptions? innovation can be in ex-ante predictions, when its
empirical base is solely based on ex-post observa-
 Does disruptiveness depend on the type of incum-
tions. Hopp et al. (2018*) also warn to not fall vic-
bent being affected? Are different incumbents dis-
tim to a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy;
rupted in different ways and at different speed?
justifying a causality claim based on observed ex-
 How can the core of disruptive innovation theory be post associations. A deeper reflection about the field
strengthened further by connecting with the long- and “anomaly-seeking” research are called for, to
standing theoretical debate on organizational inertia formulate a normative theory and to establish causal
and adaptability? How can it benefit from classic mechanisms. Only then may the theory help make
perspectives such as structural inertia, organizational predictions about future events.
learning, or dynamic capabilities? The initial theory of disruptive innovation was
“[. . .] a statement of correlation” (Christensen et al.,
 How does our perception of disruptive innovation 2015). Yet, our recent literature sample composed of
change, when we shift our focus from the individ- 1078 journal articles published on “disruption”
ual organization to the organizational population as between 1975 and 2016 (Hopp et al., 2018*) reports
the primary unit of analysis? Is disruptive innova- that 102 of these articles contain the terms “predict*”
tion simply a vital variation-inducing mechanism or “forecast*” in the title and/or abstract. Several
that helps the population though not necessarily articles introduce ways to address and empirically
every organization therein to survive? Perhaps test the predictions that disruptive innovation theory
most fundamentally, is the survival of incumbents makes. Schmidt and Druehl (2008*) were among the
even desirable when assessed from a population first to extend the definition of disruptive innovation
lens or is their failure an essential precondition for and to make it testable in applied empirical work.
renewal? Their research aimed at resolving the misunderstand-
ings and ambiguity around the concept of disruptive
innovation. They brought forward the focus on diffu-
Theme 2: Enabling Empirical Work sion patterns to delineate different degrees of disrup-
tive innovation. They suggested that especially low-
Central to the critique of disruption theory is its lack end encroachment (diffusion from the low to the
of predictive power (e.g., Danneels, 2004*). Theory high end of the market) may lead to myopia by
as a basis for reliable predictions of real world phe- incumbents and thus induces the risk of being dis-
nomena has always been a bone of contention in the rupted. Recent work in Parry and Kawakami (2017*)
economic sciences. As a case in point, many Nobel e.g., considered the encroachment speed of eReaders
laureates speak about prediction in their acceptance in Japan and attribute the market trajectories largely
speeches. Friedrich August von Hayek emphasized to the legal and regulatory environment in Japan.
the problem of prediction in economics (24 mentions Legislative barriers (such as intellectual property
of “predict*” in his speech). Similarly, laureates protection) limited the potential for innovations to
Friedrich A. Hayek, Herbert A. Simon, George Aker- encroach on incumbents. Other work has developed
lof, Clive Granger, and Christopher Sims, among similar (yet competing) duration- and process-based
others, mention predictions or forecasts 24, 33, 7, 16, measures of disruption success (Fenech and Tellis,
and 22 times, respectively.2 Friedman (1953, p. 15) 2016). Similarly, Govindarajan, Kopalle, and Dan-
argues, “the relevant question to ask about the neels (2011*) extend the early ideas in Govindarajan
‘assumptions’ of a theory is not whether they are and Kopalle (2006) and provided a conceptual frame-
descriptively ‘realistic,’ for they never are, but work to tackle the absence of appropriate measures
whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the disruptiveness of innovations. They explicitly
for the purpose in hand. And this question can be documented how ex-post measures can be utilized to
answered only by seeing whether the theory works, make ex-ante predictions, e.g., about organizational
which means whether it yields sufficiently accurate capabilities that may result in disruptive innovation
2
All speeches are available at https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-
and, thus, may help to identify the type of companies
sciences/laureates/ that are more likely to disrupt. Additional work
450 J PROD INNOV MANAG C. HOPP ET AL.
2018;35(3):446–457

building on these ideas has focused on refinements cognitive diversity lead to recombinant novelty being
of dynamic capabilities (Danneels, 2016) and antece- produced; one cannot be understood without the other,
dents to innovation activities (Kyriakopoulos, he claims.
Hughes, and Hughes, 2016). Innovation researchers also draw on very diverse
backgrounds. William Abernathy studied mechanical
Selected research questions to enable empirical engineering first before moving on to a business
work on disruptive innovation: degree. James Utterback holds a degree in industrial
 When (at what critical point) can we say that disrup- engineering, and Michael Tushman holds a degree in
tion has occurred? electrical engineering. Clayton Christensen holds a
degree in economics/econometrics. In terms of inven-
 How can potentially disruptive innovation be tive output and novelty, these authors stand out as
spotted? And how early can it be anticipated? having laid the foundations of the field, or extended
Can disruptive innovations be separated from them by crossing disciplinary boundaries (note e.g.,
technological advancements that enable disruptive as well, the missionary work for both Kim Clark and
innovations? Clayton Christensen). Hence, novel insights and the
vision of thought leaders appear to be inextricably
 Will there be one candidate or multiple candidates
linked. In fact, individuals often envision and then
of innovations than can be potentially disruptive?
bring about future states. Imagination is best charac-
 How can we predict the impact of multiple poten- terized as modus operandi—sense making about a
tially disruptive innovations relative to each other, process into which one is still engaged (Bourdieu,
and in comparison to the prevailing business model 1977). On the other hand, managers might suffer
an incumbent employs? from the Not-Invented-Here syndrome, a negative
attitude toward knowledge and ideas stemming from
 Can we observe cases where new entrants’ disrup- others and externals (Antons, Declerck, Diener, Koch,
tive innovations were successfully averted by the and Piller, 2017; Antons and Piller, 2015). The ques-
incumbent? How do these cases inform us about tion therefore becomes how leaders may overcome
boundary conditions of disruptive innovation theory? stale perspectives, how they can create novelty, and
what the impetus of their innovative endeavors and
their strategic vision is. Research in the Journal of
Theme 3: Managing Disruption Product Innovation Management has explored an
important subdimension of disruptive innovation
There is a clear need to better understand the causal research that links characteristics of leaders underly-
nature of disruption. To accomplish this audacious ing disruptive innovation with subsequent firm pro-
goal, it is important to measure changes and counter- cesses and actions to trace the dynamic evolution of
factual states across time and space. Several JPIM disruption and responses to disruptions. These works
articles show a growing desire to gain a better empiri- explore the generative mechanisms of innovation pro-
cal understanding of the phenomenon and its underly- cesses. Tellis (2006*) was among the first who
ing mechanisms to facilitate effective managerial and explicitly laid out the endogenous roots of disruptive
regulatory responses to disruption. Below we share innovation theory by tracing the performance implica-
what we consider to be promising avenues to explore tions to the source of disruption: visionary leadership
in this regard. and leaders delivering on their promise by executing
their vision.
The Role of Cognition to Envision and Anticipate
Selected research questions on envisioning and
Disruptive Innovation Potential
anticipating disruptive innovation:
As much as creative processes differ, individuals differ
in their creative thinking. In The Age of Insight\Eric  Who within incumbent firms is best positioned to
Kandel (2012), winner of the 2000 Nobel prize in envision and anticipate disruptive innovation? Long-
physiology, describes how a new view of the mind standing employees or recent hires? Industry experts
emerged after painters Klimt, Kokoschka, and Schiele or outsiders? Technical talent or managers? Top
met and interacted with Sigmund Freud. Social and managers or front-line employees?
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 451
2018;35(3):446–457

 What happens in case of internal disputes about Selected research questions regarding incumbent’s
competing visions of the future? How can these con- competitive responses:
flicts be resolved?
 What distinguishes successful versus failing incum-  What is the role of senior leadership in building dynamic
bents when being plagued by disruptive innovation capabilities, in establishing structural ambidexterity, and
(organizational structure, culture, top management in creating the organizational structure and culture to
decision-making)? spot and cope with disruptive innovations?
 What are the organizational and operational charac-  Are founder-managed or founder-owned incumbents
teristics that an incumbent needs in order to fight more or less likely to survive or even thrive in case
against potentially disruptive innovation? of disruptive innovations? Why (not)?
 To initiate organizational change, do firms need to
unlearn current capabilities? And if so, how can  What is the relation between in-house R&D, interfirm
firms distinguish between capabilities that are ren- collaborations, and intrafirm spin-offs to develop or
dered irrelevant and those that need to be cope with disruptive innovations? Are they comple-
preserved? ments or substitutes? Does this relationship change
over the new product development cycle?

The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation for  Given the discussion around pioneering or following
as strategic alternatives, when are incumbents suc-
Incumbent’s Competitive Responses
cessful as (fast) followers to the new entrant’s dis-
Tellis (2006*) provided another important insight ruptive innovations? When are new entrants
into the main mechanisms that deter competitive successful with pioneering?
reactions by incumbents: an unwillingness to canni-
balize one’s own assets to deter the disruptor on a The Moderating Role of Institutional and Legal
performance path that is nonlinear and thus difficult Environments
to predict. King and Baatartogtokh (2015), however,
argued in their recent criticism of disruption theory Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) attested that the main
that “Fujifilm survived not because it developed a underlying cause for why nations fail can be attributed
new line of digital cameras but because it used its to man-made political and economic institutions. Espe-
capabilities in chemicals and information technology cially in light of the growing calls for more nationally
to develop successful products and services in coat- oriented policies that we are witnessing, it is interest-
ings, cosmetics, and document processing.” Hence, ing to note that recent work has also studied how insti-
resilience—that is, successfully being able to cope tutional reforms may in fact limit or abet disruptive
with changes and to make do with what is at hand— innovation. Current topics on the regulation of ride-
becomes important. McKendrick, Doner, and Hag- sharing, peer-to-peer accommodation, financial serv-
gard (2000, p. 286) noted that “the real paradox is ices mediated through the blockchain, online data
that a whole class of great firms did not fail despite privacy, and net neutrality demonstrate how central
often trailing the market in the introduction of dis- legal and regulatory norms influence the legitimacy
ruptive technologies.” This is similar to Chesbrough and ultimate fate of a business model.
(2003), who showed that incumbent firms were using An important body of work published in the Jour-
prior knowledge to enter new niches, though they did nal of Product Innovation Management has success-
it later than new entrants did. Along these lines, fully explored an important subdimension using a
Crockett et al. (2013*) studied what it takes for moderator approach to study disruptive innovation
incumbent firms to embrace business model innova- (Huesig, Timar, and Doblinger, 2014*; Lindsay and
tion. They showed that characteristics of the venture Hopkins, 2010*). This research linked incumbent firms
team are important when considering the perfor- with their legal and regulatory environment and tested
mance impact of responding to disruptive innovation. the efficacy of subsequent processes, actions, and
As they found, a shared vision of the new venture responses to disruptions. We believe these works to be
team will increase performance and will link even particularly important for a deeper understanding of
stronger with performance with a higher entrepre- the open-ended, collaborative, interdependent, and con-
neurial orientation of the team.). ditional nature of disruptive innovation processes.
452 J PROD INNOV MANAG C. HOPP ET AL.
2018;35(3):446–457

These works explored the generative mechanisms of insight: digital transformation cuts across industry
innovation processes from various levels of analysis boundaries. Enabled by steep changes in sensor tech-
and, in doing so, sought to enhance our insights into nologies, robotics, and artificial intelligence, wireless
the boundary conditions of innovation practices. sensor networks are employed to measure soil charac-
Lindsay and Hopkins (2010*) studied the case of teristics and to grow precision crops (Rawat, Singh,
Kimberly-Clark and the role that (low cost) intellectual Chaouchi, and Bonnin, 2014). Innovation in agricul-
assets such as the “Kleenex” facial tissue play for ture highlights two important dimensions of technolog-
incumbents to counter threats faced by disruptive inno- ical change and industry convergence: using data to
vations. Their work showed that for successful disrup- enhance or develop new products and the merging of
tive innovation, intellectual assets were already in products and services, especially through platforms
place before the potential disruption became evident. and ecosystems. Importantly, both trends challenge
Intellectual assets therefore acted as a safeguard that business models and, given the unprecedented scope
allowed for exploration but also ensured a residual and momentum of digital transformation, high hopes
claim on any future profits by deterring second movers are placed on disruption research as a source of inspi-
and subsequent disruptors. Huesig et al. (2014*) showed ration and guidance.
that regulation is a double-edged sword when it comes Digital transformation also affects production.
to disruptive innovation. While generally incumbents Advancements in additive manufacturing (3D printing,
appear open to avoid red tape, Huesig et al. (2014*) digital production) allow for more rapid prototyping,
showed that the wish to avoid regulation may increase and hence, give new entrants, but also incumbents, an
the chances for submarket entry by the incumbent. Inter- opportunity to explore new business opportunities,
estingly, the regulatory escape can help to avoid poten- likely at a lower cost (Rindfleisch et al., 2017*). This
tially disruptive market situations. Yet, the interplay may not only have a profound impact on the encroach-
between various levels of regulation can be difficult and ment speed of new technologies, but may also allow
tensions may arise between the role of public and pri- incumbents to explore new businesses while maintain-
vate regulatory protection in disruptive innovation ing profits from existing products. Yet, given the
(Pinkse, Bohnsack, and Kolk, 2014). results in Lindsay and Hopkins (2010*), incumbent
firms may be forced to experiment with new forms of
Selected research questions as to the moderating intellectual property rights for digital products to avoid
role of environmental context: infringement. The digitization of the product experi-
ence can be especially disruptive to existing business
 What is the role of intellectual property rights when
models due to the potential of strong changes in con-
engaging in new forms of intrafirm and interfirm
sumer behavior. Rather than buying physical products,
arrangements? Do incumbents need different forms
consumers may turn to online repositories and down-
of intellectual property rights for different degrees
load schematics of products that can be printed at
and stages of disruptiveness?
home. Additive manufacturing is also very likely to
 Is the speed of disruption and the consequences for have a strong impact on the service that firms can
incumbents symmetric across countries and institu- offer for after-sales markets. Rather than relying on
tional environments? Do the effects depend on market guarantees and warrantees, or even product recalls,
structure (very few as opposed to many competitors)? services can be facilitated if consumers are enabled to
print spare parts themselves (Jiang, Kleer, and Piller,
 How can regulation limit or abet disruption to 2017; Kietzmann, Pitt, and Berthon, 2015). Hence,
occur? Do governments need a disruption policy? open designs bring about challenges when it comes to
developing, marketing, and intellectually protecting
new products. Again, this also highlights the role of
Theme 4: Keeping Up with the Times regulation for potentially disruptive innovation (Huesig
et al., 2014*).
Early work on innovation research focused on disrup- This of course poses the question of whether sour-
tions caused by the green revolution and showed how ces of competitive advantage will shift (e.g., from
it transformed the agricultural industry (Feder and manufacturing to supply chain or service capabilities).
O’Mara, 1981; Havens and Flinn, 1975). Once again, Recent work therefore has started to examine the inter-
recent work in agriculture provides an important play between service business model innovation and
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 453
2018;35(3):446–457

product innovation (Chesbrough, 2011; Visnjic, Wien- value generated from these informational resources
garten, and Neely, 2016). Not surprisingly, we see a (Cichy and Salge, 2017; Johnson et al., 2017*). It
growing interest in the area of servitization—adding probably also forces us to re-think the nature of prop-
complementary services to a product (Neely, 2008; erty rights, as we have seen revisions and reconsidera-
Visnjic et al., 2016)—and the role of service innova- tions over the past four decades moving from the age
tion per se (Antons and Breidbach, 2018; Biemans, of natural resources (Demsetz, 1974), to the emergence
Griffin, and Moenaert, 2016). of multiproduct-multinational organizations (Hart and
These arguments point towards a complementarity Moore, 1990), and last to the mobility of human capi-
between products and services. Adding services to the tal (Rajan and Zingales, 2000). Yet again, we see a
product may create “economics of scope in use,” by new resource—information—that is free and can easily
allowing firms to learn about their products (and move around thus shifting the boundaries of the firm
potential extensions and ramifications to problems (Hofman, Faems, and Schleimer, 2017; Rindfleisch
encountered) (Ye, Priem, and Alshwer, 2012). This et al., 2017*). Alas, we are without doubt in need of a
creates, what Rindfleisch et al. (2017*) labeled as revised definition of property rights to safeguard intel-
innovation as data where “[. . .] firms acquire, analyze, lectual assets (Lindsay and Hopkins, 2010*) in the
and act upon consumer data to enhance their innova- presence of business model innovation and an era of
tion activities.” Here, consumers play a central role in the internet of things, the algorithmic economy, and
developing, adapting, and modifying existing products, platform innovation. Redefining property rights is
thus creating innovations. An example is the Lego especially important, as prior work has shown how
community discussed extensively in Hienerth, Lettl, incumbents can employ intellectual assets to counter
and Keinz (2014), where consumers become part of threats faced by disruptive innovations to deter entry
the innovation process. Especially, lead users exhibit a and to enable own disruptive strategies (Lindsay and
clear solution orientation and may help firms to design Hopkins, 2010*). We feel that such a redefinition
completely new product solutions (Kaminski, Jiang, might lead to informative extensions of disruption the-
Piller, and Hopp, 2017; von Hippel, 1986). Lego even ory—and that disruption scholars are in a good posi-
goes so far as to allow users to build their own firms tion to lead this redefinition. They have studied the
around Lego products. Along these lines, platforms underlying changes in business models and markets
that help firms to merge products and services and for more than two decades now.
simultaneously allow them to source and provide
information are gaining in relevance. Gawer and Cusu- Selected research questions on emerging economic
mano (2014*) explored different platform types (com- and technological trends:
pany-specific, internal platforms versus industry-wide,
external platforms). Based on Intel’s example, they  Will digital transformation allow incumbents to
highlighted how platforms evolve, and discuss critical effectively structure the relationship between the
elements of economic design and management of plat- mainstream organization and the spin-off created to
forms. Their work also delineated strategic challenges exploit disruptive innovation? Can IT help to ease
and successful practices of platform leadership. Plat- interferences and to create synergistic relations?
forms inevitably blur organizational boundaries as sup-  Can process technologies (such as additive manufactur-
pliers and customers are embedded into the same ing) help incumbents to rearrange and align supply
ecosystem (Hienerth et al., 2014). At the same time, chains when being faced with potentially disruptive
platform business models have revolutionized tradi- technologies? Will additive manufacturing spark new
tional industries and disrupted many incumbent firms consumer-led disruptive start-ups?
by changing the rules of the respective market. Hence,
these changing industry structures may serve as empir-  Will big data analytics enable incumbents to spot
ical fields to extend and test disruption theory in the potentially disruptive innovation on their radar,
digital age. before they become disruptive?
As the case of Lego-based new start-ups shows, the  Does the rapid technological advancement in com-
reliance on intangible information and algorithms as puting (cloud computing, block-chain technologies,
the underlying drivers of the business model also poses artificial intelligence) increase the number of poten-
new challenges when it comes to data confidentiality, tially disruptive start-ups? Does it increase the
data ownership, rights of use, and claims on residual encroachment speed of disruptive innovations?
454 J PROD INNOV MANAG C. HOPP ET AL.
2018;35(3):446–457

 Can servitization help incumbents to become aware Antons, D., and C. F. Breidbach. 2018. Big data, big insights? Advanc-
ing service innovation and design with machine learning. Journal of
of disruptive ideas through direct customer, market, Service Research 21 (1): 17–39.
and technology interaction? Antons, D., M. Declerck, K. Diener, I. Koch, and F. T. Piller. 2017.
Assessing the not-invented-here syndrome: Development and valida-
 Will an integration of product and service design tion of implicit and explicit measurements. Journal of Organiza-
help incumbents to better address customer needs tional Behavior 38 (8): 1227–45.
and thus, limit the risk of being disrupted? Antons, D., and F. T. Piller. 2015. Opening the black box of “Not
Invented Here”: Attitudes, decision biases, and behavioral conse-
 Does the integration of product and service design quences. The Academy of Management Perspectives 29 (2): 193–
require modular thinking in product development 217.
(such as product platforms and product ecosystems) Biemans, W. G., A. Griffin, and R. K. Moenaert. 2016. Perspective:
New service development: How the field developed, its current sta-
to avoid getting disrupted? tus and recommendations for moving the field forward. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 33 (4): 382–97.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice (Vol. 16). Cam-
Conclusion bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bower, J. L., and C. M. Christensen. 1995. Disruptive technologies:
In summary, our virtual special issue includes 13 articles Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review 73 (1): 43–53.
published in JPIM on four core themes of disruptive Chesbrough, H. 2003. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellec-
tual property. California Management Review 45 (3): 33–58.
innovation. We hope that this obviously nonexhaustive
Chesbrough, H. W. 2011. Bringing open innovation to services. MIT
selection of articles helps to track the evolution and Sloan Management Review 52 (2): 85.
transformation of the term, uncover blind spots, and find Christensen, C. M., and J. L. Bower. 1996. Customer power, strategic
missing links in disruption research. We believe that this investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management
virtual issue may help researchers to craft their own Journal 17 (3): 197–218.

research roadmap to enhance the explanatory and predic- Christensen, C. M., and M. E. Raynor. 2003. Why hard-nosed execu-
tives should care about management theory. Harvard Business
tive power of disruption research in general, and to take Review 81 (9): 66–75.
on the grand challenges firms face in the digital era, in Christensen, C. M., M. E. Raynor, and R. McDonald. 2015. What is
particular. We believe that rigorous empirical analyses disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review December: 44–53.
are needed to fully harness the potential of disruption Cichy, P., and T. O. Salge. 2017. Creating value from personal data:
On the legitimacy of business practices in the field of internet-
research to provide meaningful answers to the most enabled services. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference
pressing strategic questions in the digital age. If the on Information Systems (ICIS 2017), Seoul.
record of accomplishment of established companies in *Crockett, D. R., J. E. McGee, and G. T. Payne. 2013. Employing new
reinventing their business model in response to digitiza- business divisions to exploit disruptive innovations: The interplay
between characteristics of the corporation and those of the venture
tion is a useful indicator in this regard, chances are that management team. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30
lessons learned from previous waves of disruption have (5): 856–79.
either not yet diffused sufficiently broadly or cannot be *Danneels, E. 2004. Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and
research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21
readily transferred. (4): 246–58.
Disruption research is a multifaceted phenomenon Danneels, E. 2006. Dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on
that can only be understood when studied at multiple firms and industries. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23
(1): 2–4.
levels of analysis—ranging from the managerial to the
Danneels, E. 2016. Survey measures of first- and second-order compe-
institutional level. We firmly believe that our collec- tences. Strategic Management Journal 37 (10): 2174–88.
tion of articles will allow researchers to transcend the Demsetz, H. 1974. Toward a theory of property rights. In Classic papers in
daze of disruption. Our hope is that it will also enable natural resource economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
scholars to build bridges between a broad range of Feder, G., and G. T. O’Mara. 1981. Farm size and the diffusion of
fields including strategy, technology management, eco- green revolution technology. Economic Development and Cultural
Change 30 (1): 59–76.
nomics, organizational behavior, and information sys-
Fenech, J. P., and G. J. Tellis. 2016. The dive and disruption of suc-
tems, who need to join forces to help organizations cessful current products: Measures, global patterns, and predictive
meet the grand challenges ahead. model. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (1): 53–68.
Friedman, M. 1953. Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
References *Gawer, A., and M. A. Cusumano. 2014. Industry platforms and ecosys-
tem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (3):
*denotes inclusion in this virtual special issue 417–33.
Acemoglu, D., and J. A. Robinson. 2012. Why nations fail: The origins Govindarajan, V., and P. K. Kopalle. 2006. The usefulness of measur-
of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Business. ing disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 455
2018;35(3):446–457

predictions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23 (1): Kyriakopoulos, K., M. Hughes, and P. Hughes. 2016. The role of mar-
12–18. keting resources in radical innovation activity: Antecedents and
*Govindarajan, V., P. K. Kopalle, and E. Danneels. 2011. The effects payoffs. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (4): 398–
of mainstream and emerging customer orientations on radical and 417.
disruptive innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management *Lindsay, J., and M. Hopkins. 2010. From experience: Disruptive inno-
28 (1): 121–32. vation and the need for disruptive intellectual asset strategy. Journal
Hart, O., and J. Moore. 1990. Property rights and the nature of the firm. of Product Innovation Management 27 (2): 283–90.
Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1119–58. *Markides, C. 2006. Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory.
Havens, A. E., and W. Flinn. 1975. Green revolution technology and Journal of Product Innovation Management 23 (1): 19–25.
community development: The limits of action programs. Economic McKendrick, D., R. F. Doner, and S. Haggard. 2000. From Silicon
Development and Cultural Change 23 (3): 469–81. Valley to Singapore: Location and competitive advantage in the
Hienerth, C., C. Lettl, and P. Keinz. 2014. Synergies among producer hard disk drive industry. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business
firms, lead users, and user communities: The case of the LEGO pro- Books.
ducer–user ecosystem. Journal of Product Innovation Management Neely, A. 2008. Exploring the financial consequences of the servitiza-
31 (4): 848–66. tion of manufacturing. Operations Management Research 1 (2):
Hofman, E., D. Faems, and S. C. Schleimer. 2017. Governing collabora- 103–18.
tive new product development: Toward a configurational perspective *Parry, M. E., and T. Kawakami. 2017. The encroachment speed of
on the role of contracts. Journal of Product Innovation Management potentially disruptive innovations with indirect network externali-
34 (6): 739–56. ties: The case of e-Readers. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
*Hopp, C., D. Antons, J. Kaminski, and T. O. Salge. 2018. Virtual Issue ment 34 (2): 141–58.
Perspective: The topic landscape of disruption research: A call for Pinkse, J., R. Bohnsack, and A. Kolk. 2014. The role of public and pri-
consolidation, reconciliation, and generalization. Journal of Product vate protection in disruptive innovation: The automotive industry
Innovation Management 35 (3): 458–487. and the emergence of low-emission vehicles. Journal of Product
*Huesig, S., K. Timar, and C. Doblinger. 2014. The influence of regula- Innovation Management 31 (1): 43–60.
tion and disruptive potential on incumbents’ submarket entry deci- Rajan, R. G., and L. Zingales. 2000. The governance of the new enter-
sion and success in the context of a network industry. Journal of prise. NBER Working Paper No. w7958. Cambridge, MA: National
Product Innovation Management 31 (5): 1039–56. Bureau of Economic Research.
Jiang, R., R. Kleer, and F. T. Piller. 2017. Predicting the future of addi- Rawat, P., K. D. Singh, H. Chaouchi, and J. M. Bonnin. 2014. Wireless
tive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal impli- sensor networks: A survey on recent developments and potential
cations of 3D printing for 2030. Technological Forecasting and synergies. The Journal of Supercomputing 68 (1): 1–48.
Social Change 117: 84–97.
*Rindfleisch, A., M. O’Hern, and V. Sachdev. 2017. The digital revolu-
*Johnson, J. S., S. B. Friend, and H. S. Lee. 2017. Big data facilitation, tion, 3D printing, and innovation as data. Journal of Product Inno-
utilization, and monetization: Exploring the 3Vs in a new product vation Management 34 (5): 681–90.
development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management
34 (5): 640–58. *Schmidt, G. M., and C. T. Druehl. 2008. When is a disruptive innova-
tion disruptive? Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (4):
Kaminski, J., Y. Jiang, F. Piller, and C. Hopp. 2017. Do user entrepre- 347–69.
neurs speak different? Applying natural language processing to
crowdfunding videos. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference *Tellis, G. J. 2006. Disruptive technology or visionary leadership? Jour-
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Den- nal of Product Innovation Management 23 (1): 34–38.
ver. pp. 2683–89. Visnjic, I., F. Wiengarten, and A. Neely. 2016. Only the brave: Product
Kandel, E. 2012. The age of insight: The quest to understand the innovation, service business model innovation, and their impact on
unconscious in art, mind, and brain, from Vienna 1900 to the pre- performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33 (1):
sent. New York: Random House. 36–52.
Kietzmann, J., L. Pitt, and P. Berthon. 2015. Disruptions, decisions, and von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead users: A source of novel product concepts.
destinations: Enter the age of 3-D printing and additive manufactur- Management Science 32 (7): 791–805.
ing. Business Horizons 58 (2): 209–15. Weeks, M. R. 2015. Is disruption theory wearing new clothes or just
King, A. A., and B. Baatartogtokh. 2015. How useful is the theory naked? Analyzing recent critiques of disruptive innovation theory.
of disruptive innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review 57 Innovation 17 (4): 417–28.
(1): 77. Ye, G., R. L. Priem, and A. A. Alshwer. 2012. Achieving demand-side
Knight, F. H. 1924. The limitations of scientific method in economics. synergy from strategic diversification: How combining mundane
In The trend of economics, ed. R. G. Tugwell, 229–67 New York: assets can leverage consumer utilities. Organization Science 23 (1):
Alfred A. Knopf. 207–24.
456 J PROD INNOV MANAG C. HOPP ET AL.
2018;35(3):446–457

Appendix

Table 1. Summary of Virtual Special Issue Articles

Subject Article Synopsis

Mapping the Research Landscape

Topic Hopp, C., Antons, D., Kaminski, Empirical topic model approach (1078 articles) that reviews
Landscape J., & Salge, T. O. (2018). Per- existing literature on disruptive innovation to identify blind
spective: The topic landscape spots and to provide actionable guidance for researchers.
of disruption research: A call Contributes to a richer understanding of the multifaceted
for consolidation, reconcilia- phenomenon of disruption at multiple levels of analysis
tion, and generalization. Jour- and aims to advance disruption research by providing a
nal of Product Innovation detailed agenda for future research.
Management, 35(3), 458–487.
Theme 1: Developing the Conceptual Foundations
Critical Reflection Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive Critical reflection on the theory of disruptive technologies,
technology reconsidered: A examination of predictions derived from theory, discussion
critique and research agenda. of the demerits of customer-orientation and the merits of
Journal of Product Innovation new business units for insuring against disruptions. Has led
Management, 21(4), 246–258. to a rejuvenated interested in the topic of disruption and
spurred the refocusing of theory (toward disruptive innova-
tion) subsequently.
Theoretical Reification Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive The article reviews the literature on specific types of disrup-
innovation: In need of better tive innovations: business model innovation and radical
theory. Journal of (hitherto unseen products). Both types are distinctively
Product Innovation Manage- different and hence, require distinct responses from
ment, 23(1), 19–25. incumbents. Especially, mistaking one for the other may
lead to employing a generally suitable response, albeit in a
completely wrong context. Lumping both types of innova-
tion under the rubric of disruptive innovation may do more
harm than good; for both, theoretical progress and practical
implications.
Theme 2: Enabling Empirical Work
Theory Building for Empirical Schmidt, G. M., & Druehl, C. T. Conceptual article that discusses and extends the definition of
Delineation (2008). When is a disruptive disruptive innovation. Seeks to resolve misunderstandings
innovation disruptive? Journal and ambiguity associated with the prevailing (and
of Product Innovation competing) definitions of disruption. First study to empha-
Management, 25(4), 347–369. size diffusion patterns to delineate different degrees of
disruptive innovation. Low-end encroachment (diffusion
from the low to the high end of the market) may lead to
myopia by incumbents. Also delineates three different
types of encroachment incumbents may encounter.
Measuring Disruption Govindarajan, V., Kopalle, P. K., Conceptual work that tackles the absence of appropriate mea-
& Danneels, E. (2011). The sures for the disruptiveness of innovations. Prior
effects of mainstream and existing innovation measures can only measure disruptive-
emerging customer orientations ness after introduction (and when it begins disrupting).
on radical and disruptive Discusses how ex post measures can be utilized to make
innovations. Journal of Product ex ante predictions about organizational capabilities that
Innovation Management, may result in disruptive innovations and thus, may help to
28(s1), 121–132. identify the type of companies more likely to disrupt.
Antecedents to Disruption and Parry, M. E., & Kawakami, T. Qualitative interviews with practitioners about the late and
Encroachment Speed (2017). The encroachment slow introduction of eReaders in Japan. Considers the
speed of potentially disruptive encroachment speed of eReaders and finds evidence for
innovations with indirect managerial myopia. The study traces the trajectory of
network externalities: The case introduction in large part to the legal and regulatory
of e-Readers. Journal of Prod- environment in Japan. But also points and organizational
uct Innovation Management, and technological antecedents to the slow introduction.
34(2), 141–158.
Theme 3: Managing Disruption
Cognition Tellis, G. J. (2006). Disruptive Critical reflection on disruptive innovation theory in light of
technology or visionary leader- related empirical
ship? Journal of evidence. Explicitly lays out the
endogenous roots of disruptive innovation theory by
 DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION J PROD INNOV MANAG 457
2018;35(3):446–457

Table 1. Continued
Subject Article Synopsis
Product Innovation Manage- tracing the performance
ment, 23(1), 34–38. implications to the source of disruption: visionary leader-
ship and leaders delivering on their promise by executing
their vision. Two critical hindering factors for competitive
reaction by incumbents stand out: a unwillingness to canni-
balize one’s own assets to deter the disruptor and a perfor-
mance path that is nonlinear and thus difficult to predict.
Team-Level Antecedents for Dis- Crockett, D. R., McGee, J. E., & Cross-sectional survey in a single-industry study (declining
ruption Responses Payne, G. T. (2013). Employ- newspaper business) that needs to embrace digitalization
ing new business divisions to and business model innovation. Shows that characteristics
exploit disruptive innovations: of the venture team are important when considering the
The interplay between performance impact of responding to disruptive
characteristics of the corpora- innovation. A shared vision of the new venture team
tion and those of the venture will increase performance and will link even stronger with
management team. Journal of performance with a higher entrepreneurial orientation of
Product Innovation Manage- the team.
ment, 30(5), 856–879.
IP Strategies to Fight Disruption Lindsay, J., & Hopkins, M. Presents evidence from a one-company case study (Kim-
(2010). From experience: Dis- berly-Clark) on the dual role that (low costs) intellectual
ruptive innovation and the need assets may play for incumbents to counter threats faced by
for disruptive intellectual asset disruptive innovations and to reduce internal resistance
strategy. Journal of Product against pursuing projects with disruptive innovation
Innovation Management, 27(2), potential. For successful disruptive innovation products
283–290. intellectual assets were already in place, before the
potential became evident.
Role of Regulation in Avoiding Huesig, S., Timar, K., & Doblin- Empirical cross-country study of entry (and success) of
Disruption ger, C. (2014). The influence of incumbent operators in the public hotspot market. Studies
regulation and disruptive poten- uncommon environment and shows (contrary to
tial on incumbents’ submarket ubiquitous industries) that the incumbent’s wish to avoid
Entry decision and success in regulation may increase the chances for submarket entry
the context of a network indus- by the incumbent. Interestingly, the regulatory escape can
try. Journal of Product Innova- help to avoid potentially disruptive market situations.
tion Management, 31(5), 1039–
1056.
Theme 4: Keeping Up with the Times
The Digital Revolution and Inno- Rindfleisch, A., O’Hern, M., & Conceptual article that introduces and discusses the economic
vation from Data Sachdev, V. (2017). The digital challenges of the digital revolution. Presents 3D printing
revolution, 3D printing, and as a case in point, and in particular establishes the notion
innovation as data. Journal of of data-rich environments that can help to spur and
Product Innovation Manage- enhance innovation activities. Attests that the digital
ment, 34(5), 681–690 revolution is likely to alter the role of consumers, the
nature of products, and the nature of product experience.
Platforms and Innovation Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. Conceptual work that provides an overview and systematic
Ecosystems (2014). Industry platforms and analysis of industry platforms. Identifies and discusses
ecosystem innovation. Journal two dominant platform types (company-specific internal
of Product Innovation Manage- platforms and industry-wide external platforms). Highlights
ment, 31(3), 417–433. platform evolution using a practice (Intel) example.
Provides important propositions as to the economic design
and management of platforms and discusses strategic chal-
lenges and successful practices of platform leadership.
“Big Data” in New Product Johnson, J. S., Friend, S. B., & Focusses on the role of “big data” on new product develop-
Development Processes Lee, H. S. (2017). Big data ment processes. Survey results show that firms with an
facilitation, utilization, and exploration orientation exhibit positive influence on all
monetization: Exploring the dimensions of data usage (volume, variety, and velocity).
3Vs in a new product develop- Provides insights into the continuous exploration process
ment process. Journal of Prod- of making the most of big data and generates valuable
uct Innovation Management, scales for further research endeavors.
34(5), 640–658.

View publication stats