The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize
Abstract
Why are some firms more successful at introducing radical product innovations than others? Following Schumpeter (1942), many researchers have suggested that firm size is the key organizational predictor of radical product innovation. The authors provide an alternate view and argue that one key variable that differentiates firms with strong radical product innovation records from others is the firms’ willingness to cannibalize their own investments. The authors identify three organizational factors that drive a firm's willingness to cannibalize. Results from a survey of three high-tech industries tend to support the alternate view that willingness to cannibalize is a more powerful driver of radical product innovation than firm size is. These results suggest a need to reconsider conventional wisdom on firm size, cannibalization, and organizational synergy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477
The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379202900103 · Cited by 3,431
The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action
Staw, B. M. (1981) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1981.4285694 · Cited by 1,693
Cited by
Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective
Geels, F. W. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 · Cited by 1,718
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670510375602 · Cited by 1,382
Cross-Sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261 · Cited by 1,305
A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory
Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x · Cited by 547
Disruptiveness of innovations: measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity
Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.511 · Cited by 410
An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Role of Organizational Mission
McDonald, R. E. (2007) · Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0899764006295996 · Cited by 353
Frambach, R. T., Fiss, P. C., & Ingenbleek, P. T. M. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.120 · Cited by 230
Wesseling, J. H., Niesten, E. M. M. I., Faber, J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2015) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.1834 · Cited by 128
Ordanini, A., & Maglio, P. P. (2009) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2009.00238.x · Cited by 127
Antecedents of strategic thinking and its impact on competitive advantage
Dixit, S., Singh, S., Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2021) · Journal of Indian Business Research · doi:10.1108/jibr-08-2020-0262 · Cited by 75
Limaj, E., Bernroider, E. W. N., & Choudrie, J. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.12.003 · Cited by 72
Is sibling rivalry good or bad for high technology organizations?
Khoja, F. (2008) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2008.06.006 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 474-487
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W2061019209
- Cited by
- 1,267
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 29.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
