Assessing Innovations from the Technology Perspective

  • Hubert Gatignon
  • David Gotteland
  • Christophe Haon


Technological change can have a major impact on organizations and their performance. It is also a key factor in understanding dynamic organizational capabilities. It is therefore critical to have a clear understanding of the nature of innovations. Assessing innovations in terms of technology means that we consider a product or service as the practical application of knowledge, especially because it uses technical processes or methods. This corresponds to the standard definition of “technology” found in today’s dictionaries. Since this definition applies to knowledge in general, the technological perspective is not exclusively reserved for products but can apply equally to services. Indeed, services are often the result of the application of science of a technical nature. This is clearly illustrated by web-based services such as web-shopping. But this is also the case with more traditional services; for example, a hair salon can be considered from the technical point of view as the use of tools, machines, techniques, and, more generally, know-how for delivering an applied benefit.


Process Innovation Business Unit Radical Innovation Strategic Management Journal Technology Perspective 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abernathy, William J. (1978), The Productivity Dilemma, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abernathy, William J., and Kim B. Clark (1985), “Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction,” Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abernathy, William J., and James M. Utterback (1978), “Patterns of Industrial Innovation,” Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, Christopher W. (1964), Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, Carliss, Christoph Hienerth, and Eric von Hippel (2006), “How User Innovations Become Commercial Products: A Theoretical Investigation and Case Study,” Research Policy, 35(9), 1291–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kim B. Clark (1997), “Managing in an Age of Modularity,” Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kim B. Clark (2000), Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Benner, Mary J., and Michael L. Tushman (2003), “Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited,” The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, Clayton M. (1998), The Innovator’s Dilemma, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, Clayton M., and Richard S. Rosenbloom (1995), “Explaining the Attacker’s Advantage: Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics, and the Value Network,” Research Policy, 24(2), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, Kim B. (1985), “The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,” Research Policy, 14(5), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal (1990), “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Constant, Edward W. (1980), The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, Arnold C., and Clayton G. Smith (1992), “How Established Firms Respond to Threatening Technologies,” Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Damanpour, Fariborz (1991), “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators,” The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Damanpour, Fariborz (1996), “Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models,” Management Science, 42(5), 693–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dewar, Robert D., and Jane E. Dutton (1986), “The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dosi, Giovanni (1982), “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change,” Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ehrnberg, Ellinor (1995), “On the Definition and Measurement of Technological Discontinuities,” Technovation, 15(7), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleming, Lee (2001), “Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search,” Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleming, Lee, and Olav Sorenson (2001), “The Dangers of Modularity,” Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 20–21.Google Scholar
  22. Foster, Richard N. (1986), Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage, New York, NY: Summit Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gatignon, Hubert (Ed.) (2011), SAGE Library in Business and Management: New Products and Services Development, (Vols. 1–4), London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Gatignon, Hubert, Michael L. Tushman, Wendy Smith, and Philip Anderson (2002), “A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics,” Management Science, 48(9), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, Stephen G., Mark B. Gavin, and Lynda Aiman-Smith (1995), “Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henderson, Rebecca M. (1993), “Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henderson, Rebecca M., and Kim B. Clark (1990), “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollander, Samuel (1965), Sources of Efficiency, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hughes, Thomas P. (1983), Networks of Power, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Landes, David S. (1983), Revolution in Time, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Langlois, Richard N., and Paul L. Robertson (1992), “Networks and Innovation in a Modular System: Lessons from the Microcomputer and Stereo Component Industries,” Research Policy, 21(4), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy (1992), “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development,” Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, Marc H., and Robert Seliger (1998), “Product Platforms in Software Development,” Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  34. Myers, S., and D. Marquis (1969), Successful Industrial Innovation, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, Richard R. (1995), “Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change,” Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 48–90.Google Scholar
  36. Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. OECD/Eurostat (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edition, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe E. Bijker (1987), “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts,” in Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes, and Trevor Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Podolny, Joel M., and Toby E. Stuart (1995), “A Role-Based Ecology of Technological Change,” American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1224–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenkopf, Lori, and Atul Nerkar (1999), “On the Complexity of Technological Evolution: Exploring Coevolution within and across Hierarchical Levels in Optical Disc Technology,” in J. Baum and W. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in Organization Science: In Honor of D. T. Campbell, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Rosenkopf, Lori, and Michael L. Tushman (1998), “The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry,” Industrial & Corporate Change, 7(2), 311–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rothaermel, Frank T. (2001), “Incumbent’s Advantage through Exploiting Complementary Assets via Interfirm Cooperation,” Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanchez, Ron (1995), “Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition,” Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanchez, Ron, and Joseph T. Mahoney (1996), “Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design,” Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanderson, Susan, and Mustafa Uzumeri (1995), “Managing Product Families: The Case of the Sony Walkman,” Research Policy, 24(5), 761–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schilling, Melissa A. (2000), “Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity,” The Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.Google Scholar
  47. Scocco, Daniel (2006), “Innovation Theory: Henderson-Clark Model” (accessed August 3, 2013) [available at].Google Scholar
  48. Simon, Herbert A. (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
  49. Teece, David J. (1986), “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy,” Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tripsas, Mary (1997), “Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry” Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tripsas, Mary, and Giovanni Gavetti (2000), “Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia: Evidence from Digital Imaging,” Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tushman, Michael L., and Philip Anderson (1986), “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tushman, Michael L., and Johann Peter Murmann (1998), “Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organizational Outcomes,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 231–266.Google Scholar
  54. Tushman, Michael L., and Charles A. O’Reilly (1996), “Ambidextrous Organiza tions,” California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ulrich, Karl T., and Steven D. Eppinger (1995), Product Design and Development, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Urban, Glen L., and Eric von Hippel (1988), “Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products,” Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Utterback, James M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  58. Vincenti, Walter G. (1990), What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Vincenti, Walter G. (1994), “The Retractable Airplane Landing Gear and the Northrop ‘Anomaly’: Variation-Selection and the Shaping of Technology,” Technology and Culture, 35(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. von Hippel, Eric (1986), “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts,” Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williamson, Oliver E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hubert Gatignon, David Gotteland and Christophe Haon 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Gatignon
    • 1
  • David Gotteland
    • 2
  • Christophe Haon
    • 2
  1. 1.INSEADSorbonne UniversitésFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementFrance

Personalised recommendations