Publicado

2018-10-01

Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas

Disruptive technology: the defeat of established companies

Tecnologia disruptiva: a derrota das empresas estabelecidas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404

Palabras clave:

derrota de empresas establecidas, mercado mayoritario, tecnología disruptiva, tecnología emergente, pionero (es)
disruptive technology, emerging technology, defeat of estab¬lished companies, main-stream market, pioneer (en)
derrota de empresas estabelecidas, mercado majori¬tário, pioneirismo, tecnologia disruptiva, tecnologia emergente (pt)

Autores/as

Este trabajo se centra en el estudio de la tecnología disruptiva, una de las formas de innovación radical en producto más relevantes y sobre la que, sin embargo, aún existe mucha confusión. Para ello, y sin ánimo de desarrollar nueva teoría, se lleva a cabo una revisión y organización de los desarrollos teóricos y de la evidencia empírica existente al respecto, siendo varios los logros alcanzados. Por una parte, se clarifica lo que se entiende por tecnología disruptiva, planteándola como una de las principales formas de atacar un mercado ya consolidado y diferenciándola de otros tipos de ataques; por otra, se recopilan y clasifican todos aquellos factores que explican por qué las empresas instaladas en el mercado atacado no son capaces de defenderse con éxito. Además, se aporta claridad y precisión a una literatura rodeada en ocasiones de contradicciones y terminología imprecisa. Finalmente, se pone de manifiesto una serie de cuestiones y reflexiones que requerirían potencial investigación adicional para profundizar en su entendimiento. Con todo ello, se obtienen ventajas tanto para académicos como para directivos: los primeros pueden contar con un punto de referencia muy valioso para dirigir sus recursos y esfuerzos; los segundos pueden acumular conocimiento que les permita guiar de forma efectiva su toma de decisiones ante un ataque disruptivo.

This work focuses on the study of disruptive technology, one of the most important forms of radical product innovation on which, however, there is still much to learn. For this purpose, and with no intention of developing a new theory, we carried out a review and classification of existing theoretical developments and empirical evidence on the subject. Several goals were achieved from this exercise. First, we clarified the meaning of disruptive technology by explaining this is one of the main ways to attack an already consolidated market, and by establishing differences from other types of attacks. Then, we identified and classified all factors that explain why companies established in the attacked market are not able to successfully defend themselves. In addition, we provide clarity and precision to a body of literature sometimes surrounded by contradictions and imprecise terminology. Finally, a series of questions and reflections that might require additional research in order to deepen the understanding of this topic are presented. With all this, advantages for both academics and managers are provided. The former can count on a very valuable point of reference to mobilize their resources and efforts. The latter can accumulate knowledge, allowing them to effectively guide decision-making processes in the face of a disruptive attack.

Este trabalho centraliza-se no estudo da tecnologia disruptiva, uma das formas de inovação radical em produto mais relevante e sobre a qual, contudo, ainda existe muita confusão. Para isso, e sem intenção de desenvolver nova teoria, realiza-se uma revisão e organização do desenvolvimento teórico e da evidência empírica existente a respeito, sendo várias as conquistas atingidas. Em primeiro lugar, esclarece-se o que se entende por tecnologia disruptiva, apresentando-a como uma das principais formas de atacar um mercado já consolidado e diferenciando-a de outros tipos de ataques. Por outro, recopilam-se e classificam-se todos aqueles fatores que explicam por que as empresas instaladas no mercado atacado não são capazes de defender-se com sucesso. Em terceiro lugar, contribui-se com clareza e precisão a uma literatura rodeada, em ocasiões, de contradições e terminologia imprecisa. Finalmente, manifesta-se uma série de questões e reflexões que requereriam potencial pesquisa adicional para aprofundar em seu entendimento. Com tudo isso, obtêm-se vantagens tanto para acadêmicos quanto para empresários. Os primeiros podem contar com um ponto de referência muito valioso para dirigir seus recursos e esforços. Os segundos podem acumular conhecimento que lhes permita guiar de forma efetiva sua tomada de decisões diante de um ataque disruptivo.

Referencias

Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 41-47.

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586-612. doi:10.2307/258919.

Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667-688. doi:10.1002/smj.246.

Adner, R. & Levinthal, D. A. (2000). Technology speciation and the path of emerging technologies. En G. S. Day, J. H. Schoemaker & R. E. Gunther (eds.), Wharton on managing emerging technologies (pp. 55-74). New York: John Wiley.

Amburgey, T., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamic of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 51-73. doi:10.2307/2393254.

Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131. doi:10.2307/2234208.

Arthur, W. B. (1996). Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 100-109.

Bercovitz, J. E., Figuereido, J., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Firm capabilities and managerial decision making: A Theory of innovation biases. En R. Garud, P. R. Nayyar & Z. B. Shapira (eds.), Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights (pp. 233-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511896613.015.

Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the resource allocation. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.

Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review , 73(1), 43-53.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal , 17(3), 197-218. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199603)17:3%3C197::aid-smj804%3E3.0.co;2-u.

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School .

Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics and the value network. Research Policy, 24(2), 233-257. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(93)00764-k.

Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., & Palmer, J. (2016). Disruptive innovation: Intellectual history and future paths. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 17-057, December.

Clark, K. B. (1985). The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy , 14(5), 235-251. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90007-1.

Corsi, S., & Di Minin, A. (2013): Disruptive innovation ... in reverse: Adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(1), 76-90. doi:10.1111/caim.12043.

Cooper, A. C., & Schendel, D. (1976). Strategic responses to technological threats. Business Horizons, 19(1), 61-69. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(76)90024-0.

Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246-258. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00076.x.

David, P. (1975). Technical choice, innovation and economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.

Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2000). Avoiding the pitfalls of emerging technologies. En G. S. Day, J. H. Schoemaker & R. E. Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on managing emerging technologies (pp. 24-52). New York: John Wiley .

Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovation: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422.

Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustain-ability of competitive advantage. Management Science , 35(12), 1504-1514. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1514.

Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy 11(3), 147-162. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.

Foster, R. (1986). Innovation: The attacker's advantage. New York: Summit Books.

Ghemawat, P. (1991). Market incumbency and technological inertia. Marketing Science, 10(2), 161-171. doi:10.1287/mksc.10.2.161

Grove, A. S. (1996). Only the paranoid survive: How to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company and career. New York: Doubleday.

Haan, M. (2003). Vaporware as a means of entry deterrence. Journal of Industrial Economics, 51(3), 345-358. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00204.

Hamberg, D. (1963). Invention in the industrial research laboratory. The Journal of Political Economy, 71(2), 95-115. doi:10.1086/258747.

Helfat, C., & Lieberman, M. (2002). The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of prehistory. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 725-760. doi:10.1093/icc/11.4.725.

Henderson, R. M. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248-271. doi:10.2307/2555761.

Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly , 35(1), 9-30. doi:10.2307/2393549.

Hill, C. W., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257-274. doi:10.5465/amr.2003.9416161.

Immelt, J. R., Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2009). How CE is disrupting itself. Harvard Business Review , 87(10), 56-65.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.

Kassicieh, S. K., Kirchhoff, B. A., Walsh, S. T., & McWhorter, P. J. (2002). The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies. Tech-novation, 22(11), 667-674. doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(01)00064-5.

King, A., & Tucci, C. (2002). Incumbent entry into new market niches: The role of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities. ManagementScience, 48(2), 171-186. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.2.171.253.

Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. (1995). Firms, markets and economic change. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203199237.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellspring of knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School .

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal , 14(S2), 95-112. doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319-338. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535

Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal , 9(S1), 41-58. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090706.

Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science , 32(2), 173-181. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.2.173.

Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory? Journal of Product Innovation Management , 23(1), 19-25. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.x.

Markides, C., & Gerosky, P. A. (2005). Fast second: How smart companies bypass radical innovation to enter and dominate new market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Pascale, R. T. (1984). Perspective on strategy: The real story behind Honda's success. California Management Review, 26(3), 47-72. doi:10.2307/41165080.

Pavitt, K. (1986). Chip and trajectories: how does the semiconductor influence the sources and directions of technical change? En R. MacLeod (ed.), Technology and the human prospect (pp. 31-54). London: Frances Pinter.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. New York: Oxford University.

Shapiro, C. & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules. A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School .

Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy , 15(6), 285-305. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2.

Tellis, G. J., & Golder, P. (1996). First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduring market leadership. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 65-75.

Thiel, P., & Masters, B. (2014): Zero to one. New York: Crown Business.

Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School .

Utterback, J. M., & Acee, H. J. (2005). Disruptive technologies: An expanded view. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(1), 1-17. doi:10.1142/s1363919605001162.

Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 15(4), 304-321. doi:10.1016/s0737-6782(97)00105-7.

Walsh, S. T., Kirchhoff, B. A., & Newbert, S. (2002). Differentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 49(4), 341-351. doi:10.1109/tem.2002.806718.

Wan, F., Williamson, P. J., & Yin, E. (2015). Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation: Evidence from China. Technovation, 39-40, 94-104. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.05.012.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates.

Yu, D., & Hang, C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435-452. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x.

Cómo citar

APA

Fernández, E. y Valle, S. (2018). Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas. Innovar, 28(70), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404

ACM

[1]
Fernández, E. y Valle, S. 2018. Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas. Innovar. 28, 70 (oct. 2018), 9–22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404.

ACS

(1)
Fernández, E.; Valle, S. Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas. Innovar 2018, 28, 9-22.

ABNT

FERNÁNDEZ, E.; VALLE, S. Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas. Innovar, [S. l.], v. 28, n. 70, p. 9–22, 2018. DOI: 10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/innovar/article/view/74404. Acesso em: 15 jul. 2024.

Chicago

Fernández, Esteban, y Sandra Valle. 2018. «Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas». Innovar 28 (70):9-22. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404.

Harvard

Fernández, E. y Valle, S. (2018) «Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas», Innovar, 28(70), pp. 9–22. doi: 10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404.

IEEE

[1]
E. Fernández y S. Valle, «Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas», Innovar, vol. 28, n.º 70, pp. 9–22, oct. 2018.

MLA

Fernández, E., y S. Valle. «Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas». Innovar, vol. 28, n.º 70, octubre de 2018, pp. 9-22, doi:10.15446/innovar.v28n70.74404.

Turabian

Fernández, Esteban, y Sandra Valle. «Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas». Innovar 28, no. 70 (octubre 1, 2018): 9–22. Accedido julio 15, 2024. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/innovar/article/view/74404.

Vancouver

1.
Fernández E, Valle S. Tecnología disruptiva: la derrota de las empresas establecidas. Innovar [Internet]. 1 de octubre de 2018 [citado 15 de julio de 2024];28(70):9-22. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/innovar/article/view/74404

Descargar cita

CrossRef Cited-by

CrossRef citations4

1. Jovany Uribe Ocampo, Paulo Carlos Kaminski. (2023). Incremental Innovation versus Discontinuous Innovation: An Analysis of the Fuzzy Front End. Innovar, 34(92) https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v34n92.101160.

2. Esperanza Rincón Castiblanco, Edwin Leonardo Méndez Ortíz, Rodrigo Lombana Riaño, SANDRA MIYEY PARRA RAMIREZ . (2023). Determinantes del desempeño innovador empresarial en el subsector de telecomunicaciones en Colombia, periodo 2018-2019. Innovar, 34(93), p.e104342. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v34n93.104342.

3. Renata Simões Guimarães e Borges, Gilvan Augusto Silva. (2022). Open innovation. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 21, p.e022019. https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v21i00.8665685.

4. Jovany Uribe Ocampo, Paulo Carlos Kaminski. (2023). Proposal of an FFE model with a high degree of innovation integrating TRIZ and design thinking methodologies, specific for the personal health equipment sector. Cogent Engineering, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2208943.

Dimensions

PlumX

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo

748

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.