Innovation and competition in complex environments
Tommaso Ciarli
University of L'Aquila and University of Bologna
Italy
Riccardo Leoncini
University of Bologna
Italy
Sandro Montresor
Department of Economics
University of Bologna
Italy
Marco Valente
University of L'Aquila
Italy
PP: 292
Abstract
The paper aims to shed light on the relation between technological research, competition and market dynamics, focussing on the role of product modularity. This relation is analysed via qualitative simulation modelling using a simple agent-based model. We define an economic system in which firms compete on the quality characteristics of a certain complex good, in a market where consumers have shown preferences for them. Firms are conceived as bounded rational agents that explore complex product technologies in order to improve their fitness in relation to the selection environment (ie the consumers' evaluation of the characteristics of the final good).
The architecture of the good produced in the system is characterised by different degrees of modularity (ie the lower the correlations between the contributions of the different product components to the final product fitness, the simpler the good's technology and the higher the degree of modularity). On the other hand, the impact of product modularity on industrial dynamics is analysed using a set of quite homogeneous firms.
First, the model yields highly differentiated dynamics for firms that start from similar initial conditions, pointing to the importance of their research strategies. Second, the dynamic patterns obtained show that firms may easily end-up in technological lock-in in spite of initial good performance, suggesting that path-dependence could be broken. Third, modularity impinges directly upon market results: a decrease in modularity, by increasing the difficulty in searching the complex technology, selects a limited number of firms, thus determining concentration in market shares. Finally, the industrial dynamics are influenced by the evolution of the quality of the final good.
Keywords
product innovation, product modularity, market dynamics, agent-based simulations, technological search strategy, complexity
References
Abernathy WJ and Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation, Technology Review 80(7): 40-47.
Anderson P and Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(4): 604-633.
Baldwin CY and Clark KB (2000) Design Rules. Volume 1: The Power of Modularity, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Brusoni S and Prencipe A (2001) Unpacking the black box of modularity: technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change 10(1): 179-205.
Ciarli T, Leoncini R, Montresor S and Valente M (2006a) Technological competition in a modular environment, presented at the DRUID Summer Conference ‘Knowledge, Innovation and Competitiveness', Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.
Ciarli T, Leoncini R, Montresor S and Valente M (2006b) Organisation of industry and innovation dynamics. Presented at the 11International Schumpeter Society Conference. Innovation, competition and growth: Schumpeterian perspectives, Sophia-Antipolis, France.
Cowan R (1990) Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological lock-in, Journal of Economic History 50(3): 541-567
David P (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 75(2): 332-337.
Ernst D (2005) Limits to modularity: reflections on recent developments in chip design. Industry and Innovation 12(3): 303-305.
Fagerberg J (2003) Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13(2): 125-159.
Frenken K, Marengo L and Valente M (1999) Interdependencies, Nearly-Decomposability and Adaptation. In Brenner T (ed) Computational Techniques for Modelling Learning in Economics. Kluwer, Boston Dordrecht and London.
Henderson RM and Clark KB (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9-30.
Kauffman SA, Lobo J and Macready WG (2000) Optimal search on a technology landscape. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 43(2): 141-166.
Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132-157.
Langlois R (2002) Modularity in technology and organization, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 49(1): (19-37.
Lieberman MB and Montgomery DB (1988) First-mover advantages, Strategic Management Journal Summer Special Issue 9: 41-58.
Liebowitz SJ and Margolis SE (1995) Path dependence, lock-in, and history, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 11(1): (205-226
Malerba F (2005) ‘Industrial dynamics and innovation: progress and challenges', Presidential Address delivered at the 32nd Conference of the European Association for Research in Industrial Economics (EARIE).
Marengo L and Dosi G (2005) Division of labor, organizational coordination and market mechanisms in collective problem-solving, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 58(2): 303-326.
Marengo L, Dosi G, Legrenzi P and Pasquali G (2000) The structure of problem-solving knowledge and the structure of organisations. Industrial and Corporate Change 9(4): 757-788.
Nelson RR and Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Schilling MA (2000) Towards a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity, Academy of Management Review 25(2): 312-334.
Simon H (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ulrich KT (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm, Research Policy 24(3): 419-440.
Utterback JM (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Valente M (2006) Pseudo-NK: An enhanced model of complexity. Working Paper mimeo, University of L'Aquila.
eContent Home
