Emergence of Industries: A Review and Future Directions

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature on the emergence of industries and the theoretical and methodological approaches employed. The analysis reveals that industry emergence can be depicted as a three‐stage process. In the first, initial stage, a disruption to the existing industrial order triggers the second, the co‐evolutionary stage, which includes four sub‐processes related to developments in technology, markets, activity networks and industry identity. The convergence of these sub‐processes leads to the third stage, a growth stage and the birth of a new industry. While these three stages and the four sub‐processes are well covered in the literature, the authors find that there is a lack of understanding in terms of the transitions between the stages, the interactions and interdependencies between sub‐processes and moderating factors of industry emergence. Future research can bridge these gaps by exploring the different origins and initial conditions of industries, the processes and interactions in the earliest stages of industry emergence, and the role of facilitating and managing industry emergence. This implies a shift in the research focus from the industries that have emerged to the nascent processes of emergence.

Building ICT Entrepreneurship Ecosystems in Resource-Scarce Contexts: Learnings from Kenya’s “Silicon Savannah”

“…Further, the presence of successful entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial fi rms in creating spin-off eff ects that benefi t the ecosystem across its dimensions is stressed in multiple studies (Mason and Brown 2014 ). Arguably such "fertile soil" is the foundation on which early industry emergence processes, such as the emergence of activity networks and the establishment of a technological base are built (Gustafsson et al 2015 ). How is it, then, that we sometimes see technology ecosystems growing in resource-scarce contexts that generally lack such soil?…”

“…4 Finally, in this phase, initial community-building eff orts among potential entrepreneurs and other ecosystem stakeholders emerge, and discussions around the value, nature, and techniques of using ICT to carry out particular activities need to get started (Mezias and Kuperman 2001 ;Munir and Phillips 2002 ). Th is is the stage that Gustafsson et al ( 2015 ) called the "emergence of activity networks" and "formation of industry identity." Th e fi ndings presented earlier indicate that in resource-scarce countries, these processes can develop around entrepreneurial support infrastructure, such as open technology hubs, accelerators, and incubators as well as entrepreneurship competitions.…”

Identity Co‐Formation in an Emerging Industry: Forging Organizational Distinctiveness and Industry Coherence Through Sensemaking and Sensegiving

“…Relatedly, the collective identity of an industry (to which organizations belong) comprises central principles and practices denoting ‘who we are’ and ‘what we do’ as an industry, thus, reflecting commonalities across organizations that belong to that industry (Mervis and Rosch, ). During the critical phase of industry emergence, industry founders (who are also founders of the pioneering firms of such industry) play a key role not only in shaping their own organizational identities, but also in defining the collective identity of the nascent industry (Gustafsson et al, ). Consequently, in the formative years of an industry, the defining principles and practices of individual organizational identities and those of the collective industry identity are often interconnected (Santos and Eisenhardt, ).…”

“…And yet, they have not looked at how industry founders deal with the simultaneous , co‐formation of initial identities for both their pioneering organizations and their emerging industries. Such identity co‐formation represents a key aspect of industry emergence (Gustafsson et al, ), and poses an important challenge to industry founders: they must deal, concurrently , with the tension between reaching industry coherence and creating organizational distinctiveness (Clegg et al, ; Granqvist et al, ; Patvardhan et al, ). This tension generates an identity dilemma and triggers sensemaking and sensegiving processes, which remain understudied and undertheorized.…”

“…This tension generates an identity dilemma and triggers sensemaking and sensegiving processes, which remain understudied and undertheorized. A lacuna that is particularly glaring in light of the important role that identity formation has in the growth and long‐term survival of new industries (Gustafsson et al, ).…”