Athena's Birth: Triggers, Actors, and Actions Preceding Industry Inception

Abstract

Research summary Industry evolution scholars define industry inception as the first instance of product commercialization, focusing on subsequent time periods of growth and maturity. Left understudied are the triggers, actors, and actions preceding industry inception. We integrate recent research in a preliminary framework, conceptualizing the incubation stage as activated by a “trigger” event—a scientific discovery, unmet user need, or mission‐oriented grand challenges—and continuing through the first instances of product commercialization. We focus on illuminating actions of multiple and heterogeneous actors that help reduce high technological and demand uncertainty, thereby shaping industry structure and strategic action post‐commercialization. To point, although the actors may be different, their actions follow a similar theme. We hope this framework spurs future research investigating the understudied incubation stage of new industries. Managerial summary Numerous visionaries––inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists, users, managers, policy makers, and others––spend decades laying the groundwork that leads to the creation of new industries. Their contributions are critical, yet have received little systematic attention. Here, we illuminate their actions during the understudied “incubation” stage sparked by a trigger event and culminating in the first instance of product commercialization. We begin by documenting three triggers: scientific and technological discoveries, unmet user needs, and mission‐oriented grand challenges. We show that following a trigger event, visionaries solve the technological problems required to transform an innovative idea into a viable commercial product and engage potential adopters and stakeholders; they do this by both applying their existing knowledge base and engaging in experimentation. Their efforts set the stage for subsequent commercialization efforts. Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Society.

A fresh look at patterns and assumptions in the field of entrepreneurship: What can we learn?

“…There are volumes of work on the origin of entrepreneurial opportunity, in general, and the discovery versus creation dichotomy, in particular (e.g., Agarwal, Moeen, & Shah, ; Aldrich & Ruef, ; Baker & Nelson, ; Bhide, ; Brown & Eisenhardt, ; Haynie, Shepherd, & McMullen, ; Sarasvathy, ; Shane, ; Zott, Amit, & Massa, ). On the theory front, the studies often draw on the seminal works of luminaries such as Kirzner (, ) and Schumpeter (/1934).…”

The pre‐commercialization emergence of the combination of product features in the charge‐coupled device image sensor

“…Extant literature on dominant design (see, e.g., Klepper, ) has, however, similar to the broader innovation literature, largely concentrated on the post‐commercialization phase of a new industry . Recent research supplements Klepper's (, ) observations and suggests that the pre‐commercialization phase involves “actors” experimenting to solve “technological problems to transform an innovative idea into a viable commercial product” (Agarwal et al, , p. 288) . The insights from Moeen and Agarwal () and Agarwal et al (), when combined with the wisdom received from Rosenberg's () and Klepper's () seminal research, raises the intriguing possibility that knowledge generated through such experimentations in the pre‐commercialization phase may shape the dominant design in the post‐commercialization phase—thereby motivating our research question.…”

“…Recently, Moeen (), Agarwal, Moeen, and Shah (), and Moeen and Agarwal () have focused much needed attention on the critical pre‐commercialization phase of a new technology's evolution. This phase covers the period from the time a firm begins “developing the first concept” to the time the firm develops a “working model [that] can be sold to a customer” (Golder, Shacham, & Mitra, , p. 167) and extends almost three decades in some industries (Agarwal & Bayus, ).…”

“…This phase covers the period from the time a firm begins “developing the first concept” to the time the firm develops a “working model [that] can be sold to a customer” (Golder, Shacham, & Mitra, , p. 167) and extends almost three decades in some industries (Agarwal & Bayus, ). Building on these insights, Moeen (, p.17) explored firms' value capture in the pre‐commercialization phase of the agricultural biotech industry, and Agarwal et al (, p. 288) highlighted the role of “triggers” that led to the inception of a new industry.…”

“…Despite these recent investigations expanding our understanding of a new industry's evolution and highlighting the role of early “actors” (Agarwal et al, , p. 288), an exploration of the critical function of firm experimentation—which acts as the harbinger of “major advances in knowledge” (Rosenberg, , p. 22; see also Rosenberg, )—in the pre‐commercialization phase is relatively overlooked in the literature. Specifically, researchers are yet to combine the wisdom received from the innovation literature that has focused on the post‐commercialization phase with the recent advances in our understanding of the pre‐commercialization phase, to investigate how experimentation by early actors during the pre‐commercialization phase paves the way for the emergence of the dominant design—the “combination of features,” that accounts for “50 percent of new product sales” in the post‐commercialization phase (Anderson & Tushman, , pp.…”