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

Susan K. Cohen (), Sean T. Hsu () and Kristina B. Dahlin ()
Additional contact information
Susan K. Cohen: Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
Sean T. Hsu: Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, California 92834
Kristina B. Dahlin: School of Management and Business, King’s College London, London SE1 9NH, United Kingdom

Organization Science, 2016, vol. 27, issue 4, 846-872

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.

Keywords: technology battles; standards competition; diffusion; alliance formation; social networks; wireless; dominant design (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1063 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:27:y:2016:i:4:p:846-872

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Organization Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().