Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions

Abstract

We present a model that explains how established firms create breakthrough inventions. We identify three organizational pathologies that inhibit breakthrough inventions: the familiarity trap – favoring the familiar; the maturity trap – favoring the mature; and the propinquity trap – favoring search for solutions near to existing solutions. We argue that by experimenting with novel (i.e., technologies in which the firm lacks prior experience), emerging (technologies that are recent or newly developed in the industry), and pioneering (technologies that do not build on any existing technologies) technologies firms can overcome these traps and create breakthrough inventions. Empirical evidence from the chemicals industry supports our model. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The technological origins of radical inventions

“…(e.g. Ahuja and Lampert, 2001;Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001;Dahlin and Behrens, 2005). There is a clear consensus among scholars and practitioners that radical inventions are driving forces of technological, industrial and societal change.…”

“…Apart from a few notable exceptions (e.g. Ahuja and Lampert, 2001) the technical content of a radical invention has not been studied extensively. Instead, existing studies focused on the issue of innovation rather than invention.…”

“…Ahuja and Lampert, 2001;Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001;Dahlin and Behrens, 2005;Tellis et al, 2009), the specific nature of radical inventions has so far remained relatively unclear. In fact, large-scale empirical studies into the technological origin of radical inventions are sparse and almost non-existing.…”

Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration is (Un)Necessary

“…If the target firm has filed patents in the same technology sub-class as the acquirer in the three years prior to the acquisition (to ensure a measure of current knowledge stocks; see Ahuja and Lampert, 2001), we take this as evidence that at the time of the acquisition, there existed common ground between the technical personnel of the acquirer and acquired firms. This is because both acquirer and acquirer possess similar basic technological knowledge necessary to patent in that class, and the act of patenting (which is in the public record) ensures that both parties know that such shared knowledge exists.…”

The elixir (or burden) of youth? Exploring differences in innovation between start-ups and established firms

“…Appropriating the profits from innovation is critical for new firms who may otherwise be unable to capture the 1 There is a related stream of research that investigates whether large firms are more innovative than small firms (e.g. Audretsch 1987, 1988;Ahuja and Lambert 2001;Jaffe and Lerner 2004;Lerner 2004). The evidence seems to suggest that firms become less innovative as they become larger, even though "there are not many largesample studies that convincingly document a relationship between firm size and innovation output" (Kuemmerle 2006).…”