With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies

Abstract

The academic literature on technology battles has grown rapidly since the 1970s, tracking the ever-expanding role of information and communication technologies in our daily lives. An intriguing thread in this literature pertains to the influence of social networks on standards setting processes. While scholars acknowledge networks’ importance, their relevance to sponsors’ efforts to diffuse their technologies and establish them as de facto standards have been neglected. We theorize that sponsors choose alliance partners according to their location in the networks that connect potential adopters and that the network position that enhances a partner’s attractiveness depends on a technology’s stage of development. We hypothesize that sponsors of technologies that are early in their development and unproven commercially choose partners to create multiple points of contact between previous and potential adopters, called wide bridges. These redundant ties can foster the broad acceptance of a new technology that is essential to drive its diffusion. Sponsors of technologies in later stages of their development, with a commercial track record, can rely on a sparser network of ties to activate peer-to-peer diffusion. In line with our predictions, we found that during the battle to establish a 2G wireless standard in the U.S. market, Qualcomm, sponsor of the unproven CDMA (code division multiple access) technology, formed alliances that conformed to a wide-bridge pattern, while Ericsson, sponsor of the proven TDMA (time division multiple access) technology, formed alliances consistent with a peer-to-peer pattern of diffusion.

A Tale of Two Types of Standard Setting: Evidence From Artificial Intelligence in China

“…Most studies on standards and innovation have focused on standard-setting systems in developed countries (Leiponen, 2008; Miller & Toh, 2022; Wiegmann et al, 2017). For example, prior studies have provided critical insights by investigating a number of topics related to standard setting in the United States or Europe, including standard essential patents (Berger et al, 2012), diffusion and adoption of standards (York et al, 2018), standard performance implications (Blind et al, 2017; Foucart & Li, 2021; Waguespack & Fleming, 2009), and cooperation and competition in the standard deliberation process (Cohen, Hsu, & Dahlin, 2016; Jain, 2012; Jones et al, 2021; Ranganathan et al, 2018). However, less attention has been given to standard setting in emerging economies.…”

Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence

“…We contribute to literature on complex contagions by identifying a new mechanism through which these contagions spread. Prior literature suggests that complex contagions spread between social clusters when there are multiple social ties, known as “wide bridges,” connecting those clusters (Centola, 2015; Cohen, Hsu, & Dahlin, 2016). Complex contagions can therefore spread via spatial diffusion because adjacent geographic areas are linked by wide bridges (Davis & Greve, 1997; Liu, King, & Bearman, 2010; Toole, Cha, & González, 2012).…”

Alianças estratégicas: revisão de literatura de 2007 a 2017

“…A forma com que as empresas se posicionam dentro da rede (structural embeddedness) pode ser responsável também pela seleção de potenciais parceiros, já que sua posição reflete sua reputação e visibilidade na rede (maior sua reputação, maior o seu acesso a fontes de informação). Para Cohen, Hsu & Dahlin (2016), as redes conectam potenciais parceiros e a atratividade de um parceiro no setor de tecnologia depende do estágio de desenvolvimento de tecnologia da empresa (COHEN; HSU; DAHLIN, 2016).…”