Google Scholar



 title={Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction},
 author={Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B.},
 journal={Research policy},

format for references


categorizing innovation into 4 types(see Fig. 1 pp. 8)

  • Architectural innovation
New technology that departs from extablished systems of production, and in turn opens up new linkages to markets and users, is characteristic of the creation of new industries as well as the reformation of old ones. Innovation of this sort defines the basic configuration of production and process, end establishes the technical and marketing agendas that will guide subsequent development. (pp. 7)
-Markets/ Customer Linkage: disrupt existing/ create new linkage
-Technology/ Production: disrupt/ obsolete existing competence

  • Niche Creation innovation
Using new concepts in technology to forge new market linkages is the essence of architectural innovation. Opening new market opportunities through the use of existing technology is central to the kind of innovation we have labeled "Niche Creation", but here the effect on production and technical systems is to conserve and strengthen established designs. (pp. 10)
 -Markets/ Customer Linkage: disrupt existing/ create new linkage
-Technology/ Production: conserve/ entrench existing competence

  • Regular innovation
Regular innovation involves change that builds on established technical and pruduction competence and that is applied to existing markets and customers. (pp. 12)
-Markets/ Customer Linkage: conserve/ entrench existing linkage
-Technology/ Production: conserve/ entrench existing competence

  • Revolutionary innovation
Innovation that disrupts and renders established technical and production competence obsolete, yet is applied to existing markets and customers, is the fourth category in the transilience map and is labbeled "Revolutionary". (pp. 12)
-Markets/ Customer Linkage: conserve/ entrench existing competence
-Technology/ Production: disrupt existing/ create new linkage


pp. 3

More recently studies by Porter, Rosenbloom, Rosenberg, Nelson and Winder, and others, have begun to illuminate some of the important aspects of the relationship between innovation and competition\footnote{}.

  • >
title={The Technological Dimension of Competitive Strategy},
author={Porter, M.E.},
journal={Research on Technological Innovation Management and Policy},
publisher={JAI Press Inc.},
memo={貸出不可	在架	v.1(1983)	三田	地下5階雑誌	10401328295}

 title={Technological innovation in firms and industries: an assessment of the state of the art},
 author={Rosenbloom, R.S.},
 booktitle={Technological innovation: A critical review of current knowledge},
 editor={Kelly, P. and Kranzberg, M.},
 publisher={San Francisco Press, Inc}

 title={Inside the black box: technology and economics},
 author={Rosenberg, N.},
 publisher={Cambridge Univ Press}

 title={An evolutionary theory of economic change},
 author={Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G.},
 publisher={Belknap press of Harvard University Press}

pp. 4

Rosenbloom called for the development of a conceptual framework that would integrate knowledge concerning technology to other policy arenas of the firm (i.e. marketing, finance, operations, etc.).

pp. 13

Existing models of industry evolution posit a life cycle of development in which new products (and industries) emerge, are developed, defined, and mature \footnote{below}. Framed in terms of the transilience map, models based on the product life cycle, or the "fluid-to-specific" stage model of Abernathy and Utterback, are dominated by the transition from architectural to regular innovation.

  • >

cited as