Abstract:Based on the examination of 239 ''best products'' (all those on Business Week's annual lists from the past decade), this article tests and validates a conceptual framework identifying six ways in which new products open new markets and/or encroach on original products. Three of these six scenarios involve high-end encroachment (the new product first opens a new high-end market, or enters at the high end of an existing market, and then diffuses down-market), and three scenarios involve low-end encroachment (enc… Show more
“…In this school of thought, Utterback and Acee provided a more comprehensive view of technological innovations by adding the third dimension – ancillary performance – and what Christensen defined as disruptive innovation was one of the eight possibilities (Utterback and Acee 2005). Van Orden et al . (2008) further proposed a comprehensive framework including three high‐end and three low‐end encroachment patterns, and emphasized that the three high‐end encroachment patterns (with destructive effects) are not disruptive.…”
Section: Definition Of Disruptive Innovationmentioning
Disruptive Innovation Theory has created a significant impact on management practices and aroused plenty of rich debate within academia. Copious as the studies are, the scattered and conflicting nature of the literature on disruptive innovation in the last decade may pose a state of ambiguity for future research, thus necessitating a comprehensive review at this juncture. This paper first clarifies the basic concept and potential misinterpretations of the theory. Believing in the predictive value of the theory on firm performance, the authors then summarize and critique the research on how to enable potential disruptive innovation from internal, external, marketing and technology perspectives. The different perspectives inspired the authors to identify a number of key research directions within the disruptive innovation research domain. Potential future research is also briefly discussed by integrating disruptive innovation with other research domains, such as open innovation. Finally, in addition to theoretical contributions, the authors make practical contributions by outlining a series of potential inhibitors and enablers of disruptive innovation as managerial 'take-aways'.
“…In this school of thought, Utterback and Acee provided a more comprehensive view of technological innovations by adding the third dimension – ancillary performance – and what Christensen defined as disruptive innovation was one of the eight possibilities (Utterback and Acee 2005). Van Orden et al . (2008) further proposed a comprehensive framework including three high‐end and three low‐end encroachment patterns, and emphasized that the three high‐end encroachment patterns (with destructive effects) are not disruptive.…”
Section: Definition Of Disruptive Innovationmentioning
Disruptive Innovation Theory has created a significant impact on management practices and aroused plenty of rich debate within academia. Copious as the studies are, the scattered and conflicting nature of the literature on disruptive innovation in the last decade may pose a state of ambiguity for future research, thus necessitating a comprehensive review at this juncture. This paper first clarifies the basic concept and potential misinterpretations of the theory. Believing in the predictive value of the theory on firm performance, the authors then summarize and critique the research on how to enable potential disruptive innovation from internal, external, marketing and technology perspectives. The different perspectives inspired the authors to identify a number of key research directions within the disruptive innovation research domain. Potential future research is also briefly discussed by integrating disruptive innovation with other research domains, such as open innovation. Finally, in addition to theoretical contributions, the authors make practical contributions by outlining a series of potential inhibitors and enablers of disruptive innovation as managerial 'take-aways'.
“…This is due to the changing preferences of both core and ancillary attributes that constitute an attribute set upon which customers decide their purchase. More recently, it has been observed that core attributes still play a critical for the adoption of high-end successful products (Van Orden et al, 2011). Therefore, we propose, H3 Lowering the attributes of overshooting in reference to consumer preferences tends to decrease the adaptation of disruptive innovation products in the low-end market.…”
Section: Overshooting: Price Vs Performancementioning
confidence: 93%
“…It is not clear though, that all innovative products follow the previous pattern. Van Orden et al (2011) identify that a majority of innovations encroach directly to the high-end segment of the market but their prices are not inevitably high. Similarly, it has been suggested (Utterback and Acee, 2005) that products may also be high-performing, high-price innovations that compete in a mature market segment that eventually embraces the mass market.…”
This paper aims to determine consumers' internal preference structure for branded and refillable printing cartridges under the perspective of theory of disruptive innovations. In the study region, users may choose to buy a new branded printing cartridge or, once purchased, refill it or have it refilled for further use, displacing the purchase of a new branded cartridge. Drawing on choice-based conjoint techniques and on the basis of 84 sample observations, we assessed the relative importance of price, lifespan, reliability, and quality as critical factors for choosing between branded and refillable printing cartridges. Results of the study show that consumers in market segments, low and high value reliability and quality as main drivers but price is valued higher by high-end consumers and branded printing cartridges' users. Lifespan of the product was found to have a very low contribution to utility. Results are discussed from the perspective of new product development.
“…For example, the winners of IDSA's yearly IDEA competition could represent an expertly selected sample of “great” design that could be analyzed in various ways, potentially resulting in publishable articles. For an example of an analogous piece of research in the NPD field which analyzes Business Week 's “Best Products” as a data set, see van Orden, Van der Rhee, and Schmidt (2011).…”
Section: Partner With a Professional Associationmentioning
This article traces how academic research in the domain of new product development and innovation has become ''legitimized'' over the last several decades and makes three suggestions for how academics in the research domain of design can pursue a similar legitimization process. Specifically, academics researching design issues should:(1) partner with a professional design association; (2) develop a high-quality peer-reviewed journal focusing on design issues; and (3) organize an A-level association design special-interest group.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.