The purpose of this article is to discuss two approaches to being market oriented—a market-driven approach and a driving-markets approach. Market driven refers to a business orientation that is based on understanding and reacting to the preferences and behaviors of players within a given market structure. Driving markets, on the other hand, implies influencing the structure of the market and/or the behavior(s) of market players in a direction that enhances the competitive position of the business. There are three generic ways of changing the structure of a market: (1) eliminating players in a market (deconstruction approach), (2) building a new or modified set of players in a market (construction approach), and (3) changing the functions performed by players (functional modification approach). Market behavior can be modified directly or, alternatively, indirectly by changing the mind-set of market players (e.g., customers, competitors, and other stakeholders).

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

In the context of mode of entry into new markets, existing theory tends to identify technology licensing as a step toward or an alternative to wholly owned subsidiaries. However, recent trends in technology licensing indicate that technology licensing is used increasingly as a conscious, proactive component of a technology-based firm's global product strategy. The authors present a conceptual framework from the licensor's perspective on technology licensing by combining the existing literature and licensing practices in industry to identify the antecedent product market, industry level, and resource-based factors that lead to technology licensing. They also present propositions on how these factors affect technology licensing and conclude by linking technology licensing to different dimensions of a firm's product strategy.

Standards influence new product development (NPD) in high-technology markets. However, existing work on standards has focused exclusively on one aspect of standards-compatibility standards. This article has the following goals. First, we delineate the concept of customer interface standards as distinct from compatibility standards. This distinction is important from a product development and technology adoption perspective. Second, we propose and show that antecedent factors may motivate a firm differently about the emphasis that the firm should put on a type of standard (compatibility or customer interface) that it follows. For example, we propose that appropriability regime affects pursuit of customer interface standards and compatibility standards differently. Finally, we illustrate how resource access and the nature of the innovation also influence a firm's decision to pursue a standard type. Finally, we propose that pursuit of different standards (customer interface or compatibility) affects the NPD process in terms of (1) sourcing and dissemination of technology and (2) the customer utility for the product, which influences adoption.We collected perceptual data from a sample of marketing and technology managers in high-tech industries in the UK using both formative and reflective scales to measure the constructs. Analysis of the data using LISREL supports our contention that compatibility standards and customer interface standards are distinct constructs and that appropriability regime influences compatibility standards and customer interface standards differently. We also find that pursuit of compatibility standards helps a firm to create direct externalities pursuit of customer interface standards helps firms to develop indirect network externalities and technological advantage in the market.Our findings have the following implications. First, managers need to account explicitly for the difference between compatibility and customer interface standards, as resource allocation decisions during the NPD process will determine where a firm puts more focus. The choices made by the firm-as to whether it pursues compatibility standards or customer interface standards-will determine the type of advantage that it can gain in the market. Given a firm's situation at a point in time, a greater focus on one standard type rather than the other may be the right approach. Such choices will influence resource allocation in the product development process.