No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Role of Enabling Technologies in Transformative Innovation
Part of:
Design Management
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
This study is an exploratory analysis of enabling technologies’ influence on the trajectory of industry development using a co-evolutionary model of technology development. When combined, enabling technologies can create new technology-market industry cycles, resulting in transformative innovation. The research approach of this empirical study is to use both primary and secondary data to create a history of the robotics industry and to explore the pre and post changes in the industry from the inclusion of enabling technologies over multiple generations. We propose a new model for understanding the theoretical and practical study of technology development through the lens of enabling technologies and their development and maturity cycles.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1293 - 1302
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Abernathy, W. and Clark, K.B. (1985), “Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction”, Research Policy, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978), “Patterns of industrial innovation”, Technology Review, Vol. 80 No. 7, pp. 40–47.Google Scholar
Balachandra, R., Goldschmitt, M. and Friar, J.H. (2004), “The evolution of technology generations and associated markets: A double helix model”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
Baltes, H., Brand, O., Fedder, G.K., Hierold, C., Korvink, J.G. and Tabata, O. (Eds.) (2013), Enabling Technology for MEMS and Nanodevices: Advanced Micro and Nanosystems, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brockman, B.K., Rawlston, M.E., Jones, M.A. and Halstead, D. (2010), “An exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness in new product development teams”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, pp. 201–219.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B. (2005), “A (very) brief history of artificial intelligence”, AI Magazine, 2005Google Scholar
Engelberger, J.F. (1999), “Historical perspective and role in in automation”, Handbooks of Industrial Robotics, chapter 1.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. (2000), M.(1997), The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Christensen, C.M., Johnson, C.W. and Horn, M.B. (2010), Disrupting Class. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. (1982), “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change”, Research Policy, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
Gallini, N. and Scotchmer, S. (2002), “Intellectual property: when is it the best incentive system?”, Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 2, pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1965), “The discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying qualitative research,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, T. M. and Snelders, D. (2010), “Designing visual recognition for the brand”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 6–22.Google Scholar
Loch, C.H. and Huberman, B.A. (1999), “A punctuated-equilibrium model of technology diffusion”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 160–177.Google Scholar
Mabert, V.A., Muth, J.F. and Schmenner, R.W. (1992), “Collapsing new product development times: Six case studies”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9, pp. 200–212.Google Scholar
Marion, T. J., Friar, J. H. and Simpson, T. W. (2012), “New product development practices and early-stage firms: Two in-depth case studies”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 639–654.Google Scholar
Murray, F. and O'Mahony, S. (2007), “Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: Implications for organization science”, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1006–1021.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. (1942), “Creative destruction”, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Vol. 825, pp. 82–85.Google Scholar
Schweisfurth, T., Tietze, F. and Herstatt, C. (2011), “Exploring the coevolution of design and technology”.Google Scholar
Utterback, J. M. and Suárez, F. F. (1993), “Patterns of industrial evolution, dominant designs, and firms’ survival”.Google Scholar
Stieglitz, N. (2003), “Digital dynamics and types of industry convergence: the evolution of the handheld computers market”, The Industrial Dynamics of the New Digital Economy, Vol. 2, pp. 179–208.Google Scholar
Suarez, F. F., Grodal, S. and Gotsopoulos, A. (2015), “Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 437–448.Google Scholar
Westerlund, L. (2000), The Extended Arm of Man: A History of the Industrial Robot Informationsforlagest, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access