Innovation and market leadership in a technology industry

Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2020 Innovation and Market Leadership in a Technology Industry Wilson Zehr Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/dissertations Part of the Databases and Information Systems Commons, and the Economic Theory Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu. Walden University College of Management and Technology This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Wilson Zehr has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made.

Review Committee Dr. Craig Barton, Committee Chairperson, Management Faculty Dr. Holly Rick, Committee Member, Management Faculty Dr. Raghu Korrapati, University Reviewer, Management Faculty Chief Academic Officer and Provost Sue Subocz, Ph.

Walden University 2020 Abstract Innovation and Market Leadership in a Technology Industry by Wilson Zehr MBA, Portland State University, 1990 BS, Portland State University, 1986 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management Walden University May 2020 Abstract According to the Abernathy-Utterback (A-U) model, firms focus on technological product innovation early in the product lifecycle and then shift to process innovation as markets mature. However, there is no consensus on the forms that non-technological innovation can take. In addition, the A-U model, which guides innovators, does not include forms of non-technological innovation that are generally accepted by experts. In this study, a hybrid e-Delphi technique with an AHP decision model was used to evaluate the forms of innovation used to establish market leadership over the historical lifecycle of the personal computer industry in the United States.

In Phase 1, an e-Delphi panel of 30 technology experts, each with more than 20 years industry experience, confirmed that product, process, marketing, and organizational innovation are the correct forms to consider. In Phase 2, the expert panel agreed, based on an analysis of 45 years of market leadership data, that market share leaders used product innovation early in the lifecycle, and then process innovation as the market evolved. The expert panel also determined that marketing and organizational innovation were the most important forms of innovation when the market was mature. This research provides new insights that have the potential to aid innovators in choosing the right form of innovation depending on lifecycle stage.

The results could also be used as a baseline to extend the A-U model to other forms of non-technological innovation. This is an essential piece of knowledge that can guide the next generation of innovators, create significant additional wealth, drive job creation and employment, reduce crime, and increase charitable giving. Innovation and Market Leadership in a Technology Industry by Wilson Zehr MBA, Portland State University, 1990 BS, Portland State University, 1986 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management Walden University May 2020 Dedication This research work is dedicated to my son Mason who offered love and support even when the journey sometimes felt long and dark. It is also dedicated to Maggie, our friend, and the world’s sweetest Pitbull, for being understanding when walks were less frequent and research work delayed dinner (often until late).

Thank you to my Dad who helped me appreciate the value of school, gave me the opportunity to pursue my education, and encouraged me to pursue my doctoral studies to their completion. Thank you to my Stepmother who welcomed and supported me when I decided to return to school and still continues to love and support my Dad. Thank you to my Mom who originally introduced me to literature, encouraged me to strike out on my own, and has been a frequent source of advice, debate, and inquiry. Thank you to my grandparents for providing the foundation that our family was built on.

This work is also dedicated to all those who have offered their love and support over the course of life’s journey. Some are still with us, many are not. You may not know who you are, or even understand the role that you played. Yet, you have still earned a special place in my heart.

Thank you for all that you have done. Acknowledgments In 1990, when applying for the MBA program at Stanford University, Dr. Virgil Miller, Dean of the College of Business at Portland State University (PSU), convinced me to enroll in the joint MBA/Systems Science Ph. program at PSU instead.

It was a great opportunity to pursue my education (practical and theoretical), minimize the debt associated with my studies, and continue to pursue my professional career in technology and entrepreneurship. That was really the beginning of this journey. Systems Science is a multi-disciplinary degree and the focus of my studies was systems theory, finance, and quantitative economics. John Oh was my finance and econometrics advisor and Dr.

Harold Linstone ran the Systems Science department at PSU. I completed the coursework for the degree, but left the program to further pursue my professional career before my dissertation was complete. Steve Braun, offered me the opportunity to return to academia and share my practical experience in business and entrepreneurship at Concordia University (Portland, OR). Concordia wanted me to return to PSU and complete my degree.

Admiral Dave Albrecht (retired) and Dr. Ron Miolla were both close colleagues, and mentors, at Concordia, who supported my work and encouraged me to complete my degree. Given the amount of time that had passed since my prior degree program at PSU, the Graduate Studies Office directed me to start over. In order to avoid re-taking the same academic material over again, and to leverage my professional experience in technology and entrepreneurship, I enrolled in the Engineering and Technology Management (ETM) Program at PSU.

Dundar Kocaglu (Dr. K) was my Committee Chair, faculty advisor, and a constant inspiration. Tugrul Daim, who also pursued a professional career in technology, was an important mentor, supporter, and academic role model. Eastern Oregon University (EOU), where I currently teach in the College of Business, required completion of my terminal degree for tenure.

Kocaglu retired in 2016, PSU was no longer willing (able) to support my Ph. research work, and I made the transition to Walden University (Minneapolis, MN). Craig Barton has been my primary mentor and a guiding force since my arrival at the university. Holly Rick, Dr.

Raghu Korrapati, Dr. David Gould, Dr. Keri Heitner, and Dr. Jeffrey Prinster have all played important roles in this final leg of the journey.

My university colleagues (and friends) Dr. Gary Keller and Dr. Peter Maille provided much needed encouragement, support, and advice. Holly Chason provided critical assistance with research technique and tools.

Robert Butler and Dr. John Thurber both provided valuable insights on portions of my research. There are undoubtedly others who played important roles in this journey. I apologize in advance for those I’ve missed.

You should know your role was both important and sincerely appreciated. When using Google Scholar (often) in this research process, I’m always struck by the phrase “Stand on the shoulders of giants” featured on the home page. You are all the giants and I could not have reached this point without your help, support, guidance, and encouragement. Thank you for keeping the faith and for allowing me stand on your shoulders.

I am forever in your debt. Table of Contents List of Figures .v Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study .1 Background of the Study .2 Purpose of the Study .4 Nature of the Study .13 Scope and Delimitations .16 Significance of the Study .17 Significance to Theory and Practice. 17 Significance to Social Change. 19 Summary and Transition .20 Chapter 2: Literature Review .23 Literature Search Strategy.35 Importance of Innovation.

35 i Perspectives on Innovation. 42 Categories of Innovation. 44 Summary and Conclusions .66 Chapter 3: Research Method .68 Research Design and Rationale. 70 Role of the Researcher .74 Delphi Research Method.

74 Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). 76 Participant Selection Logic. 78 Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection. 79 Data Analysis Plan.

81 Issues of Trustworthiness .92 PC Market Share Leaders 1975 - 2019. 92 e-Delphi Research Study – Phase 1. 94 e-Delphi Research Study – Phase 2 .96 Evidence of Trustworthiness.113 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations .115 Interpretation of Findings .117 Limitations of the Study.136 Appendix A: e-Delphi Draft Screens .179 Appendix B: e-Delphi Actual Screens .185 Appendix C: Market Share and Forms of Innovation Response Data. PC Market Share Data Set (1975 – 2019) .197 Appendix E: Diffusion Curves for Home Users and Business .197 iv List of Figures Figure 1.

Innovation definitions from fourth edition of the Oslo manual. Searches for the term business model in journals. Prevalent definitions for the term business model. Summary of most important business model authors.

The Business Model Canvas. e-Delphi expert panel participation rates. Flow-chart of e-Delphi process used to recruit the expert panel. Matrix equations to transform pairwise comparisons into weight vectors.

Equations used to calculate Consistency Ratio’s. Geometric mean of individual judgements and priority vectors. Diffusion curve derived for U. household PC adoption.

PC usage rates overall, in business, and by job function. e-Delphi results mapped against overall U. PC market life-cycle. Expanded A-U model with marketing and organizational innovation .122 v 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Innovation has been shown to fuel economic growth, create jobs, and provide significant improvement in people’s lives (Ahlstrom, 2010; Baumol, 2002; Baumol & Strom, 2007; Christensen & Raynor, 2003).

Innovation has also been responsible for 80% of U. economic growth since World War II (Atkinson, 2011). In spite of the documented linkage between innovation, economic development, and improved quality of life; there are many different perspectives on the forms that innovation can take (Foss & Saebi, 2017; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2018; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011), there is no unified theory of innovation (Fagerberg, 2018; Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997), and the tools that could help innovators understand the stage of the lifecycle where different forms of innovation are most effective, are incomplete (Utterback, 1994). The goal of this study was to highlight the benefits of innovation, understand where gaps exist in theory and practice, explore alternative approaches and perspectives, and suggest a path forward that could help future innovators harness the power of innovation for economic growth and social good.

This chapter begins with a background for the study and highlights the importance of innovation in the process of creating economic value. The specific purpose of this study and the problem being explored are outlined, along with the research question that guides this investigation. The nature and scope of the study are covered, along with the underlying definitions, assumptions, and limitations. Finally, this chapter contains an outline of the significance of this study to theory, practice, and social change.

2 Background of the Study Lindgart, Reeves, Stalk, and Deimler (2009), in an annual study of top business innovators, confirmed that companies identified as business model innovators, produced returns four times greater than those identified as product or process innovators. They also found that those returns were more sustainable lasting 10 years or more. To illustrate, the introduction of iTunes in 2003 represented a significant organizational innovation for Apple (Snihur & Wiklund, 2018). This innovation increased iPod product revenue by $345 million (140% increase) in the first year and continued to grow to $8.

It is still more common for business innovators to consider innovation only in terms of technology applied to product/process innovation (Fagerberg, 2018; Medrano & Olarte-Pascual, 2016).