Entry timing and innovation strategy in feature phones

Abstract

Research summary: This inductive study examines how firms make decisions about the timing of innovations, focusing on the mobile handset industry during the feature-phone era. Through qualitative and quantitative data, we reveal how individual technology-entry decisions are influenced by a portfolio-level timing preference, and how this preference informs other aspects of innovation strategy, too. Early movers address greater, more uncertain revenue opportunities with broader, less selective innovation portfolios. Conversely, late movers target lower, more certain revenue opportunities with narrower, more selective portfolios. While timing per se seems unrelated to performance, a timing-strategy alignment is. Future research on the equifinal configurations we propose-broad/nonselective for early movers and narrow/selective for late movers-could thus help resolve the debate about the link between timing and performance. Managerial summary:We study how firms make decisions about the entry of new product features, in this case mobile phone technologies. During development firms weigh the scale and likelihood of features' commercial success. Some firms display a preference for earlier entry, which offers temporary monopoly rewards if uncertainty resolves favorably, while others tend to opt for later entry, which offers greater certainty but lower rewards due to competitive preemption. The innovation portfolios of these companies thus pursue differently structured opportunities, bringing about different strategic approaches. Since early movers aim for big hits to compensate for a higher failure rate, they launch a broader set of features and exert little selective pressure on the development portfolio. By contrast, late movers' lower payoffs reduce their tolerance for failure, making them launch fewer features and emphasize selectiveness; i.e., they invest in learning from the resolution of uncertainty so as to choose features more discriminately. When we examine innovation performance, timing has no significant effect but matching timing with feature breadth does. Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article:Appendix S1. Quantitative data: choice and triangulation. Appendix S2. Construction of feature list. Appendix S3. Feature revenue premiums and hits.

Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants

“…Data coding and first-order codes … be clear about the type of coding strategies adopted (e.g., structural, in vivo, open/initial, emotional, vs.) Dacin, Munir, and Tracey (2010) 11. Data analysis and second-or higher-order codes … how the data were analyzed (e.g., focused, axial, theoretical, elaborative, longitudinal) Klingebiel and Joseph (2016) 12. Data disclosure … make raw materials available (e.g., transcripts, video recordings) Gao, Zuzul, Jones, and Khanna (2017) Note.…”

“…Future qualitative research should be clear about how the data were analyzed (e.g., focused, axial, theoretical, elaborative, and longitudinal). As an exemplar of transparency, Klingebiel and Joseph (2016) identified the methodologies adopted in data analysis (axial, and selective coding) and reported the final higher order codes along with the first-order codes that generated them.…”

Entry‐Timing Advantages in Renewable Natural Resources Industries

“…Indeed, firms in differentiated product industries must take recurrent decisions on the launching of new products to existing markets (Ethiraj and Zhu, 2008), the exploration of new product niches (Greve, 2000) or the innovation of new product features (Paulson Gjerde et al, 2002). Those decisions are generally based on heuristics, as firms deliberately self-select into a timing position (Klingebiel and Joseph, 2016). Heuristics are used to navigate through complex processes, influenced by a host of contingent factors in the presence of uncertainty, in both commodity and differentiated product industries.…”

“…Entry‐timing advantage is subject to various contingencies (Suárez and Lanzolla, ; Zachary et al, ). Defining these contingencies might be an even more fruitful avenue of enquiry than simply elucidating the timing‐performance relationship (Klingebiel and Joseph, ). Given that entry‐timing advantage is a dynamic concept, it is best specified through interactions rather than direct effects (Lieberman and Montgomery, ).…”

Reflections on entry timing and innovation strategy

“…It is a privilege to receive the Ralph Gomory Best Industry Studies Paper Award from the Industry Studies Association (ISA) for our SMJ paper on entry‐timing strategy (Klingebiel & Joseph, ). The paper shows how managers approach innovation‐entry timing and align their entry‐timing position with wider aspects of their innovation strategy, particularly as regards portfolio breadth and resource‐allocation selectiveness.…”