Market strategies for offshore wind in Europe: A development and diffusion perspective

AbstractOffshore wind will contribute to the decarbonization of European power systems, but is currently costlier than many other generation technologies. We assess the adequacy of market strategies available to private actors developing offshore wind farms in Europe, by employing the development and diffusion pattern model. The model includes two earlier phases in addition to the large-scale deployment phase of other diffusion models: the innovation and the market adaptation phases. During its development and diffusion offshore wind moved from experimentation to a dominant design (monopile foundations and a permanent magnet generator). Simultaneously, wind farms shifted from an experimental to a commercial purpose and grew from 10 to 316MW on average. The turbine and wind farm development markets kept a high concentration throughout all phases. Also, the wind farm life cycle and supply chain became more integrated and drew less from the onshore wind and oil & gas sectors.This development and diffusion was shaped by the barriers of cost, project risk and complexity, capital requirements, and multi-disciplinarity. Wind farms developers combined three niche strategies to address these barriers: the subsidized, the geographic, and the demo, experiment and develop. The barriers make these niche strategies more adequate than strategies of mass-market (dominating a market) or wait-and-see (developing resources but waiting for uncertainty reduction before market entrance). Nonetheless, the barriers and market strategies changed during the development and diffusion pattern. Thus, cost and risk reductions decreased the importance of the subsidized niche, while the geographic niche becomes less important as offshore wind develops outside of Europe.The study also identified an increase in cooperation for wind farm development, as development became more international and with more frequent alliances. Wind farm developers and development and diffusion models research must consider how contemporary forms of cooperation improve or hinder the market strategies

ASIC Commercialization Analysis: Technology Portfolios and the Innovative Performance of ASIC Firms during Technology Evolution

We examine the relationship between application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) firms’ technology portfolios and their innovative performance. This relationship is complex, and we hypothesize that it changes according to the stage of ASIC technology evolution. We test our hypotheses using a longitudinal dataset of 67 firms from the ASIC industry over the period 1986–2003. We find that ASIC technology evolution negatively moderates the effects of the size and diversity of the internal technology portfolio on ASIC firms’ innovative performance. This implies that, in earlier phases of ASIC technology evolution, successful ASIC firms developed large and diverse portfolios to cope with technological uncertainty. During later phases of ASIC technology evolution, they tend to have relatively smaller and less diverse portfolios, and they focus on unique, protectable, and exploitable advantages

Optimal Distinctiveness: The Role of Platform Size and Identity

Recent theoretical advances hold that platforms comprise a second strategic dimension next to size, called identity, which describes the platform’s techno-logical and market scope. Letting go of platform size as the main criterion for platform value opens the possibility for platforms to pursue differentiation strategies with a distinct market positioning. The concept of optimal distinctiveness (OD) implies that differentiation can be optimized so that it maximizes performance. In this paper, we draw on recent OD research in and outside of the field of platforms and elaborate on the role of platform size within the distinctiveness framework. We discuss platform size and identity in the context of OD and suggest propositions for future research. The paper contributes to the management of platforms and OD in platform markets by showing how a platform’s distinctiveness strategy may depend on its size. We contribute to platform management across various platform sizes and to research on OD in platform markets

What’s the tally? An Investigation into the Field(s) of Dominant Designs and Platforms

Dominant designs and platforms are two distinct scientific fields in the analysis of innovation of and competition between technologies. Responding to calls for more synthesis in management research, we study the commonalities and differences between the fields surrounding these concepts. To this end, we develop a framework for the comparison of concepts and apply it to dominant designs and platforms. We show that dominant designs and platforms differ most prominently regarding their central mechanisms, their unit and level of analysis, and the timeframe. We will elaborate how they are complementary by developing a research agenda

Capturing Dynamics in Business Model Frameworks

Business model dynamics is important, because high-tech companies, the technology that they commercialize, and the market in which they operate all change over time. We build on the dynamic capability view of the firm to explain business model evolution and innovation, looking particularly at the dynamics that are created by interactions between business model components over time. We use the following four criteria to assess the degree of dynamics in business model frameworks: completeness of business model aspects, interrelationships between aspects, interrelationships over time, and framework changes over time and across contexts. Business model completeness involves internal company aspects and external environmental aspects. Interrelationships of business model aspects are required to assess business model coherence, which is an important indicator of business model quality. Interrelationships between the environment and business model aspects are required to assess the fit of a particular business model in its context. Interrelationships of these aspects over time are needed to understand business model evolution. Finally, business model frameworks need to be adapted over time and across contexts to keep frameworks simple and useful yet complete. Our analysis shows that current business model frameworks do not meet all four criteria, and thus only partly incorporate dynamics

Introduction to the special issue: Platforms, Contingencies and New Product Development

submittedVersionPeer reviewe

Disruptive change and the reconfiguration of innovation ecosystems

This conceptual paper extends the traditional view of disruptive change, which considers the effects of rivalry between an incumbent and new entrant firm, by examining the impact of disruption upon the ‘innovation ecosystem’ in its entirety – the group of organisations that collaborate in creating a holistic value proposition for the end-user. Following Adner’s “ecosystem-as-structure” perspective, we develop propositions that anticipate structural differences between incumbent and disruptive innovation ecosystems, and then review these propositions in the context of three historical, disruptive innovation cases; Bakelite (a synthetic plastic), microwave oven, and photocopier. Through these cases, we illustrate that the manner of innovation ecosystem reconfiguration is likely to depend on the design attributes of the product, as well as the type of disruption experienced. We conclude by reflecting upon contemporary cases of disruption enabled through digital technologies, and proposing a framework that can guide future research

Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review

This paper addresses recent calls to enhance our understanding of innovation ecosystem genesis, focusing in particular on the roles that come to prominence during this important yet volatile phase in the innovation ecosystem lifecycle. To this end, we undertook a systematic review of the literature, which has allowed us to study in detail 60 publications appearing in journals and conference proceedings. Our results propose several roles seminal to innovation ecosystem birth, which we have collated thematically into four groups – leadership roles (‘ecosystem leader’ and ‘dominator’), direct value creation roles (‘supplier’, ‘assembler’, ‘complementor’, and ‘user’), value creation support roles (‘expert’ and ‘champion’), and entrepreneurial ecosystem roles (‘entrepreneur’, ‘sponsor’, and ‘regulator’) – and defined in terms of the specific activities they carry out during ecosystem birth. Furthermore, our findings tentatively suggest the entrance of these roles at different times as the process of genesis unfolds. Particular roles, such as the champion, are likely to be pivotal in ensuring that the innovation can move successfully from discovery to its commercialization. We conclude our paper by discussing future research avenues that can build on our role typology, to shed further light on the process of innovation ecosystem genesis. Highlights •Several roles are enacted during innovation ecosystem genesis. •‘Ecosystem leader’ and ‘dominator’ are leadership roles. •‘Supplier’, ‘assembler’, ‘complementor’, and ‘user’ are value creation roles. •‘Expert’ and ‘champion’ are value creation support roles. •‘Entrepreneur’, ‘sponsor’, and ‘regulator’ are entrepreneurial ecosystem roles