Steven T. Walsh

Differentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies

The literature is full of anecdotes that show new small firms attacking existing markets with innovations based upon disruptive technologies and achieving phenomenal success. Because of this, some theorists argue that disruptive technologies are best commercialized by new small firms. If this is true, can a logical rationale be developed that explains this unique capacity of new firms? If so, can empirical research of new and established firms in an industry fraught with a disruptive technology identify the advantages that new firms have over established firms in the commercialization process? The purpose of this paper is to examine the different roles of established and new firms in disruptive technology commercialization. The authors begin by developing a model of the innovation process beginning with technology creation and ending with user adoption and application. From this model they develop propositions for testing. The authors use survey data collected from 72 micro-electro-mechanical-systems (MEMS) manufacturing firms. Their results from the MEMS industry show that established firms rarely commercialize disruptive technologies and then prefer to use market-pull strategies to accomplish this. New firms select primarily disruptive technologies and choose either market-pull or technology-push strategies for commercialization. Perhaps more important, time to market for new firms is one-fourth that for established firms. These results suggest that new firms have two advantages in commercialization of disruptive technologies-flexibility in marketing strategy and much shorter times to market.

The semiconductor silicon industry roadmap: Epochs driven by the dynamics between disruptive technologies and core competencies

Abstract The resource-based perspective has done much to identify idiosyncratic firm attributes that may be a principal source of competitive advantages. Unfortunately, there has been little systematic industry evidence to support the strategic importance of core competence, nor has there been much work on the temporal or cumulative nature of core capabilities within an industrial setting. Further, little or no research has been performed demonstrating how the advent of technological discontinuities or disruptive technologies plays a part in creating epochs in technology competency development and the roadmap of an industry. In this study, we analyze the evolutionary and cumulative nature of core capabilities and their interactions with technological discontinuities from a market-driven perspective. We have studied the evolution of 167 firms through the 50-year history of the semiconductor silicon industry. Over time, there were several structural shifts in the necessary competencies through the advent of disruptive technologies. In the last 30 years, however, the change in the required competencies has been more cumulative in nature. We summarize this in a roadmap detailing the epochs in the semiconductor silicon industry.

The measurement of technical competencies

Abstract Technical competencies are operationalized and tested on a census of the international semiconductor industry. This study is an important step in moving competence and capability from a popular topic of trade publications and theorists to a quantifiable management science. A series of questions that can be used for the study of other competencies is developed and tested. Competence is shown to be a single trait measure, with a high reliability. The reliability and validity of technical competencies are also considered.

The Competence Pyramid: A Framework for Identifying and Analyzing Firm and Industry Competence

The core capability and competence perspective is respected by both academics and practitioners. The efficacy of this strategic orientation is dependent on a firms ability to identify its specific technological competencies and managerial capabilities and match these strengths with the assets necessary to gain competitive advantage in the firms chosen markets. Here a systematic process for the identification of competencies and capabilities present within a firm and those competencies and capabilities needed for development of competitive advantage in an industry is presented. This system uses a pictorial representation referred to as the competency pyramid. The competency pyramid assists with the implementation of a strategy based on the core competency perspective; by assisting a firm in understanding which competencies they currently posses and which they require for success in the markets they have targeted. The use of the competency pyramid is illustrated using both service and manufacturing examples.

Infrastructure for Emergent Industries Based on Discontinuous Innovations

Abstract A model of infrastructure development for emergent industries based on discontinuous innovations is offered. This model was developed in response to the lack of infrastructure needed for an industry to thrive. Such a model is needed, since Japan, Europe, and the U.S. have attempted with various degrees of success to nurture strategic industries through various policies, including the support of absent but needed infrastructure. The emergent industry based on micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) technologies is used to demonstrate how an infrastructure gradually grows to support a new industry, resulting from discontinuous innovation. The model indicates the evolving nature of the actions and investments that firms and governments need to make to support the growth of an immature industry. In this article, we offer a descriptive model as well as guidance—to firms on whether their intentions and resources fit with the state of the industry, and to policy makers on the timing of different types of support.

Factors differentiating the commercialization of disruptive and sustaining technologies

The nature of disruptive and sustaining technologies is sufficiently different to require different activities for the commercialization of these technology categories. Few theorists have developed conceptual schemes about the different methods of commercializing these technologies. The authors take the first steps in investigating these differences by contrasting firms that commercialize disruptive technologies with those that commercialize sustaining technologies. They reveal major differences and analyze these in terms of four major commercialization components: product realization, revenue generation, research support, and market potential. Several hypotheses regarding size of the firm, its financial risk profile, and its R&D strategy are utilized.

Defining the Relationship Among Founding Resources, Strategies, and Performance in Technology-Intensive New Ventures: Evidence from the Semiconductor Silicon Industry

The degree to which a firms performance is dependent on its resources and strategies is widely debated in the literature. We examine this issue by analyzing historical data on the entire population of new independent firms started worldwide in the semiconductor silicon industry for the first 50 years of its existence. We measure resources (managerial capabilities and technological competencies) and strategies (emphasis on demand pull or technology push) at the time of founding and test their relationship with each other as well as with multiple measures of performance (lifespan and best years sales). We find that firms founded on managerial capabilities emphasize demand‐pull strategies at founding, whereas firms founded upon technological competencies emphasize technology‐push strategies at founding. We also find that firms emphasizing technology‐push strategies perform better than firms emphasizing demand‐pull strategies. Lastly, we find that though managerial capabilities are related to a firms best years sales, this relationship is mediated by the firms founding strategy.

A framework for technology management in services

Technology is playing an increasingly important role in many service industries. However, a survey of the existing classification systems of services shows that they are not designed specifically for the management of technology in services, and, thus, fall short when applied to such an environment. This paper describes and provides illustrations of a new framework which is useful for technology management in the service sector. The framework focuses on managing according to where the value is added in the service: in the technology (knowledge-embedded) or in the worker him/herself (knowledge-based). Additionally, the extent to which the service has a product component is also argued to be critical to the successful management of technology.

Critical point drying and cleaning for MEMS technology

A critical step in surface micromachining of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) is the process that releases, cleans, and dries the flexible structures that are crucial to MEMS functionality. Standard release methods employed today can leave residue particles and can cause sticking because of surface tension. Aggressive design requirements, liquid processing, packaging, handling, transportation, and device operation etc., can contribute to device failure due to stiction. The use of supercritical carbon dioxide has been proven in various industries to achieve ultra-clean surfaces. Recent critical research studies by academia, research laboratories and industry have shown that supercritical carbon dioxide can be successfully used to alleviate the stiction problem and provide a clean and dry surface. The absence of surface tension in the supercritical phase of a fluid provides an excellent means to overcome stiction. The advantages of supercritical carbon dioxide include its relatively low critical temperature and pressure, its high diffusivity, low surface tension, and environmentally friendly (non-ozone depleting, non- hazardous). This paper reviews the stiction problem for MEMS, and the application of critical point drying for MEMS technology.

Neo‐Marshellian Equilibrium Versus Schumpeterian Creative Destruction: Its Impact on Business Research and Economic Policy

A cold war exists in faculties of business and economics. It is fought between the neo‐ Marshellians that advocate the elegant simplifying assumption of equilibrium and the Schumpeterians that believe that economic growth is driven by the recognition of new opportunities and the capture of associated benefits through innovation. This fundamental disagreement is referred to as a cold war because the battles are fought indirectly with discussions of wealth transfer (instead of wealth creation), big firms versus small firms (instead of innovative firms versus noninnovative), and stability and managed earnings versus Sarbanes‐Oxley and full disclosure. This note points out that this conflict does in fact exist and then provides a review of the literature and support for the Schumpeterian position as it relates to small business and associated economic policy. The literature is provided by one of the pioneers in this field, Professor Bruce Kirchhoff, as his last direct contribution to the field that he championed for decades.