When strategies collide: the impact of financialization on the development of innovative capabilities

Marie Carpenter (), Bob Bell, Henrik Glimstedt and William Lazonick
Additional contact information
Marie Carpenter: IMT-BS - MMS - Département Management, Marketing et Stratégie - TEM - Télécom Ecole de Management - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris] - IMT-BS - Institut Mines-Télécom Business School - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris], LITEM - Laboratoire en Innovation, Technologies, Economie et Management (EA 7363) - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management - UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne - TEM - Télécom Ecole de Management
Bob Bell: LBNL - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [Berkeley]
Henrik Glimstedt: SSE - Stockholm School of Economics
William Lazonick: UMass Lowell - University of Massachusetts [Lowell] - UMASS - University of Massachusetts System

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: A leading supplier of networking equipment since 1986, Cisco Systems is emblematic of the form of business organization that develops new innovative capabilities largely through acquisition and development (A&D) rather than R&D. As the company seeks to transform itself from being a hardware to a software vendor, however, organic revenue growth has proven elusive, suggesting that over-reliance on the A&D framework is not without long-term risks for firms whose long-term prosperity depends on their ability to develop innovative capabilities. A three-decade long study of Cisco's development details key sectors where the company's growth has disappointed - notably, optical networking and mobile backhaul - as well as those sectors, such as routing and switching, where the company maintains the dominance built up during its early years. The same company can thus prove spectacularly successful developing the dynamic capabilities that generate competitive advantage in certain areas and surprisingly poor at doing so in others sectors. To examine the process of decision-making in relation to productive resources within a firm such as Cisco, we detail decisions taken over time to address new markets and delve into the potential for conflict between different corporate priorities. This case study poses interesting questions about the growth of the ‘Penrosian' firm in a financialized 21st century? Can a high-tech firm address such significant technological transformations as those faced by Cisco with a board whose priority is to create shareholder value? Does this have an impact on the ability of the firm to make the significant investments required to engage in collective learning and build the necessary dynamic capabilities?

Keywords: Innovation; Corporate governance; Dynamic capabilities (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014-11-14
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Edith Penrose Centenary Conference : a celebration of the work and legacy of the influential economist, Nov 2014, London, United Kingdom

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:hal:journl:hal-01256605

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().