Annals of Business Administrative Science 14 (2015) 231–246

Available at www.gbrc.jp http://doi.org/10.7880/abas.14.231

Online ISSN 1347-4456 Print ISSN 1347-4464
©2015 Global Business Research Center

Criticisms on “the Innovator’s Dilemma”

Being in a Dilemma
Atsushi AKIIKEa) and Shumpei IWAOb)

Abstract: The Innovator’s Dilemma (Christensen, 1997) has been

cited in many studies since Christensen published it in 1997. Some
of these studies have advocated that concepts such as “dynamic
capability,” “ambidexterity,” and “market orientation” can be used to
overcome the environmental changes caused by the innovator’s
dilemma. However, these studies are categorized into two general
types that are not logical refutations: (a) those which merely
suggest the concept without suggesting an opposing example, and
(b) those which do not demonstrate that a trajectory disruption has
occurred even when suggesting an example. We must
demonstrate that a trajectory disruption has occurred and then
suggest a case in which the environmental changes were
mitigated to suggest an example of overcoming the innovator’s
dilemma. However, arguments exist that doubt Christensen’s
concept of trajectory disruption, indicating that the arguments are
not facile.

Keywords: innovation, market, customer, innovator’s dilemma

a)
Faculty of Business Administration, Tohoku Gakuin University, 1-3-1 Tsuchitoi, Aoba-ku, Sendai,
Miyagi, Japan, a_akiike@mail.tohoku-gakuin.ac.jp
b)
Graduate School of Economics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan,
iwao5137@yahoo.co.jp
A part of this paper was originally published as Akiike and Iwao (2013) in Japanese, and an earlier
version of this paper was presented at the ABAS Conference 2015 Winter (Akiike & Iwao, 2015).

231
 Akiike and Iwao

1. Introduction
Christensen published The Innovator’s Dilemma 1 (Christensen,
1997) in 1997 as a compendium of his previous study (Bower &
Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c, 1993;
Christensen & Bower, 1996; Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995;
Rosenbloom & Christensen, 1994). This study has profoundly
influenced the business administration domain. Previous innovation
studies had highlighted the importance of markets and customers
(e.g., Abernathy & Clark, 1985, Foster, 1986); however, they tended
to focus more on the technological perspective (e.g., Abernathy &
Clark, 1985; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). Considering this situation,
Christensen mainly employed data from the hard disk drive (HDD)
industry to test the importance of markets and customers in
innovation.
How has The Innovator’s Dilemma been cited in subsequent
studies? The major problems addressed in this study include
assessing the influence of The Innovator’s Dilemma, which had
significantly impacted the business administration domain, and
offering some suggestions with regard to future research. This study
is structured as follows. First, the beginning of the second section
introduces examples of the manner in which Christensen’s study has
been cited in subsequent studies. Examining the major studies that
have cited The Innovator’s Dilemma, we can see that Christensen’s
study has influenced a broad range of research, from strategy to

1 It is a theory describing the situation in which established industrial firms

that have operated their businesses by listening to their established
customers lose out to new firms that have developed and adopted
technological innovations, which the established firms initially considered
to be unattractive. However, some studies state that established firms as
well as new firms can coexist (Shintaku, Nakagawa, Ogawa, & Yoshimoto,
2014). In addition, for the definition and types of innovation, see Akiike
and Iwao (2013), Akiike (2014), and others.
232
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

marketing. In particular, researchers in the fields of strategy and

marketing have made suggestions regarding the manner in which
established firms can apply concepts such as dynamic capability,
ambidexterity, and market orientation to overcome the situation of
the innovator’s dilemma (e.g., O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Slater &
Narver, 1998).
The third section discusses the shortcomings of the major
subsequent studies. Although these studies indicate the possibility
to overcome the innovator’s dilemma, their detailed examination
indicates that most are concept-level studies. Even if they conduct
case studies on this theme, they insufficiently analyze the core of
Christensen’s study—whether trajectory disruption of the
established performance axis is occurring. Based on this fact, this
study suggests that future research should first clarify whether the
trajectory is being disrupted and then discuss whether that
disruption was overcome when insisting that the innovator’s
dilemma was truly overcome. The fourth section examines the
trajectory disruption. Based on previous studies by Takahashi,
Shintaku and Ohkawa (2007, 2013) and others, a reassessment of
the concept of trajectory disruption suggests some doubts regarding
the argument. In other words, it is difficult to demonstrate the
occurrence of trajectory disruption. In short, this study indicates the
issues involved in testing the validity of and conducting subsequent
studies on the innovator’s dilemma. The fifth section summarizes the
limitations, contribution, and other aspects of this study.

2. Can Incumbents Accommodate to Innovator’s Dilemma?

The Innovator’s Dilemma (Christensen, 1997) has significantly
impacted many studies. For this study, we explored studies that cited
Christensen (1997) on Google Scholar and verified the contents of the
top articles (excluding books). We then surveyed how these studies
233
 Akiike and Iwao

cited the concept of the innovator’s dilemma.

These studies can be classified as follows: ① studies on dynamic
capability (e.g., Benner & Tushman, 2003; Zahra & George, 2002); ②
studies on the ambidexterity of exploitation and exploration (e.g.,
Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006); ③ studies on the effectiveness of
social capital and networks (e.g., Lee, Lee, & Pennings, 2001;
Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001); ④ studies on
entrepreneurship (e.g., Gans, & Stern, 2003; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon,
2003); ⑤ studies on open innovation (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom,
2002; Laursen & Salter, 2006); ⑥ studies on technology diffusion
(Geroski, 2000); ⑦ studies on sociotechnical theories on the joint
promotion of technology and the organization (e.g., Geels, 2004;
Unruh, 2000); and ⑧ studies on innovation from the marketing
perspective (e.g., Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Sheth, Sisodia, & Sharma,
2000).2 This study focuses on the studies on dynamic capability,
ambidexterity (e.g., Gupta et al., 2006), and innovation from the
marketing perspective (e.g., Sheth et al., 2000).
First, how do studies on dynamic capability treat Christensen’s The
Innovator’s Dilemma? Dynamic capability refers to a firm’s
competence in generating new products and processes and in
responding to changes in the market environment (Teece & Pisano,
1994). In other words, it is the competence to continue innovating
and accumulating these innovations inhouse. 3 Such competence
can be divided into three types: ① competence to sense opportunities
or threats and develop ideas, ② competence to seize opportunities,
and ③ competence to coordinate competitiveness through
enhancement, combination, protection, or if necessary,

2 Other types of recent research exist that apply disruptive innovation to

international business (e.g., Govindarajan & Ramamurti, 2011;
Govindarajan & Trimble, 2013; Shintaku & Amano, 2009). Articles
reviewing these are now emerging (Corsi & Di Minin, 2014).
3 See Fukuzawa (2015), which is a detailed review of research on dynamic
capability.
234
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

reconfiguration of the firm’s visible and invisible assets (Teece, 2007

p. 1319). Although firms with dynamic capability are believed to be
capable of generating long-term profitability (Teece, 2007; Teece &
Pisano, 1994; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), further indepth study
on the type of mechanism that can actually generate and retain this
within the organization has been deemed necessary (Teece et al.,
1997). In this situation, the discussion regarding ambidexterity
arises from the alternative positions of whether innovation is
promoted from the utilization of existing assets or whether new
assets gained from external exploration lead to innovation. This
argument has been used to advance studies on dynamic capability
(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Smith & Tushman, 2005), and
Christensen’s study has been cited in this context. Ambidexterity is
defined as “the ability of a firm to simultaneously explore and exploit,
enables a firm to adapt over time” (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008,
p. 185). Although researchers have discussed this concept with
respect to whether exploration and exploitation can be sequentially
combined or pursued simultaneously (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley,
2006), in either case, studies have indicated that it is important to
examine both exploitation and exploration.
The study by Danneels (2002) is an empirical analysis on this
topic.4 Danneels (2002) categorized firms’ competences into market
competence and technology competence, and presented them in a 2 
2 matrix. This study notes that the development of market
competence is linked to exploration, whereas the development of
technology competence is linked to exploitation. Recent studies
divided innovation into sustaining and disruptive innovation. Such

4 Although Danneels (2002) does not mention ambidexterity, the indication

that management of both exploitation and exploration is important is also
cited in such studies on ambidexterity, such as the study by O’Reilly &
Tushman (2008). For more information regarding ambidexterity with
dynamic capability, see another paper discussing ambidexterity such as
Wada (2015).
235
 Akiike and Iwao

studies have proposed the solution that in general, exploitation is

more advantageous to sustaining innovation, whereas exploration is
essential to disruptive innovation (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst &
Tushman, 2009). Other studies contend that Christensen’s findings
are inaccurate because he asserts that disruptive innovation is
common to new entrants, whereas organizations that possess
ambidexterity are capable of responding to new entrants and
therefore are able to gain long-term profitability (Chandy & Tellis,
2000; Hill & Rothaermel, 2003).
In addition, marketing researchers have tended to interpret
Christensen’s argument as a warning that those who listen to their
customers will fail (Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Matsuno, Mentzer, &
Özsomer, 2002; Sheth, Sisodia, & Sharma, 2000). Marketing
researchers thus present their counterarguments from the
perspective of customer relation management (CRM) or
customer-oriented marketing. Slater and Narver (1998) indicate their
misgivings regarding comparing the conclusions of Christensen and
Bower (1996) with the views of marketing research. In addition, they
note that responses to customers seem to differ between those that
are customer led and those that are market oriented.5 According to
Slater and Narver (1998), being “customer led” means responding to
customers’ superficial short-term wants, whereas being “market
oriented” means responding to customers’ latent needs over the long
term. Furthermore, Slater and Narver (1998) note that achieving a
market orientation can lead to a firm’s competitive advantage. Other
studies also have argued that a customer orientation is still more
profitable if it can elicit significant customer data through such
technological advances as information and communication
technology (ICT) applications (Nambisan, 2002) or the development of

5 See Kosuge (2007, 2015) for further information and empirical studies on
market orientation.
236
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

marketing methodologies (Peppard, 2000).6

3. Importance of Trajectory Disruption?

We have thus seen that the studies of strategy, organizational
theory, and marketing have all noted the possibility of overcoming
radical environmental changes caused by the innovator’s
dilemma. In other words, a superior firm will be able to handle the
innovator’s dilemma and other abrupt changes in the environment
because it is customer oriented and it possesses dynamic capability
and ambidexterity.
Has the concept of the innovator’s dilemma already been resolved
successfully? 7 As these studies note, in theory it may be possible to
resolve the innovator’s dilemma. However, these studies merely
suggest concepts, and even if they suggest cases, they usually do not
give any proof of trajectory disruption, which is the core concept of
Christensen’s study.
Let us return to Christensen’s series of studies for a detailed
explanation of this technological trajectory. Christensen began by
analyzing the patterns of innovation in the HDD industry
(Christensen, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). Christensen (1992b, 1992c)
combines the discussion of architectural innovation (Henderson &
Clark, 1990) with that of the S-curve (Foster, 1986) and notes, “a
different S-curve framework for processes of architectural technology
change that comprehends both its technological and market aspects”

6 See Ichikohji and Katsumata (2014) for further information on lead users
and user innovation, which have attracted attention in recent years.
7 In Christensen (1997), the author discusses established firms’ responses to
disruptive change in the second half of the study. Nevertheless, he says
that established firms can manage such changes by generating a new
stand-alone organization through a spin-off or other means. In other words,
he does not comprehensively discuss the responses of established
organizations.
237
 Akiike and Iwao

(Christensen, 1992c, p. 358, summary section). Moreover, the word

“disruptive,” a key term in his study, first appeared in Christensen
(1992a), which was his doctoral thesis. He states “a relatively
disruptive, incongruous effect on established performance trajectories”
(Christensen, 1992a, p. 90).8 From this, we can infer that his initial
research topic was its disruptive effect on a past performance
trajectory. Christensen (1992a) also introduces the idea of the
technology paradigm previously proposed by Dosi (1982) and Nelson
and Winter (1982) in addition to the discussion in Christensen
(1992b, 1992c). Furthermore, he indicates the major influence that
differences in the performance trajectories of each markets have had
on the established firms.9 The refinement and conceptualization of
the discussion in Christensen’s subsequent studies (e.g.,
Christensen & Bower, 1996; Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995) is
also based on the this concept of trajectory disruption.
Trajectory disruption is thus the cornerstone of Christensen’s
study. Therefore, if researchers cannot prove this part of his
argument, they cannot say that the innovator’s dilemma has been
overcome. We argue that subsequent studies to prove this point
remain inadequate. For example, although Danneels (2002) conducts
case studies involving environmental change, he does not prove that
it was an occurrence of what Christensen terms technology trajectory
disruption. Therefore, it is required to test whether a trajectory
disruption has occurred and analyze cases wherein the innovator’s
dilemma was overcome under such a position to assert that the
innovator’s dilemma has been overcome.

8 The term “disrupt” also appears in Abernathy and Clark (1985), which is
cited in Christensen (1992a).
9 In general, later studies (e.g., Christensen & Bower, 1996; Christensen &
Rosenbloom, 1995) have taken these views in refining and conceptualizing
this discussion.
238
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

4. How is the Trajectory Disruption Depicted?

Nevertheless, one point should be remembered in this regard; that
is the problem of depicting Christensen’s trajectory disruption. The
trajectory that Christensen depicted was based on the voluminous
data that he had collected on the HDD industry. Other researchers
would find it extremely difficult to simply amass the same level of
data on other industries. In addition, Takahashi et al. (2007, 2013)
and others have questioned the validity of the disruption. Takahashi
et al. (2007, 2013) criticize the figures used by Christensen in many
of his studies (e.g., Figure 2 in Christensen & Bower, 1996). They
contend that the disruption would have been smaller if he had used
areal recording density from Figure 1 of Christensen and Bower
(1996) as the vertical axis in Figure 2 instead of storage capacity. In
addition, they argue that the HDD trajectory seems to be sustained
by the specification of the vertical axis. In connection with this,
Figure 1 in Agarwal, Echambadi, Franco and Sarkar (2004) contains
a shape similar to an S-curve in its depiction of a new inch HDD that
surpasses the old-generation inch HDD in terms of its areal
density. This therefore suggests the question of whether the
trajectory was really disrupted.10
In other words, subsequent studies have confronted the dilemma
that it is extremely difficult to prove whether a trajectory has been
disrupted, despite the fact that creating ways to overcome
Christensen’s innovator’s dilemma first requires confirmation that
the trajectory has been disrupted.

5. Conclusion
This study has suggested that existing studies consider the fact

10 Takamatsu and Tomita (2015), Danneels (2004), and others discuss

additional problems on Christensen’s study.
239
 Akiike and Iwao

that Christensen’s innovator’s dilemma can be overcome by applying

the concepts of dynamic capability, ambidexterity, and market
orientation. In addition, it indicates the problem of proceeding with
an analysis without considering trajectory disruption, which is the
focus of his study. As a review, this study is limited as it surveys only
the top studies listed in search results from Google
Scholar. Nevertheless, a more detailed analysis of research
influencing the business administration domain is essential to arrive
at a major assertion that Christensen’s innovator’s dilemma can be
overcome. In this sense, we believe that the findings of this study will
be useful for future studies.
Nevertheless, the following point should be considered. The
depiction of trajectory disruption is extremely difficult although
creating ways to overcome Christensen’s innovator’s dilemma first
requires the confirmation that the trajectory has been disrupted.
This is because data gathering and the analysis of the trajectory
disruption are difficult. This study therefore highlights the major
dilemmas that are present in subsequent studies. The question of
“how will established firms survive over the long term?” has been
extensively discussed as a major theme in the business
administration domain. However, more logical and actual analysis is
necessary to reveal the way by which firms can truly overcome the
innovator’s dilemma and survive over the long term.

Acknowledgements
We thank Mr. Takeyasu Ichikohji (Toyo University), Mr. WonWook
Song (The University of Tokyo), and participants of ABAS conference
2015 Winter for commenting on our research.

240
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

References
Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of
creative destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3–22.
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar,
M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out
generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(4), 501–522.
Akiike, A. (2014). Can firms simultaneously pursue technology innovation
and design innovation? Annals of Business Administrative Science, 13,
169–181. doi: 10.7880/abas.13.169
Akiike, A., & Iwao, S. (2013). Henkakuryoku mappu to innovator’s
dilemma. Inobe-syon kenkyu no keifu: Keieigaku rinko Abernathy and
Clark (1985) [Transilience map and innovator’s dilemma: Technical
notes on Abernathy and Clark (1985)]. Akamon Management Review,
12(10), 696–716.
Akiike, A., & Iwao, S. (2015, February). Can incumbents accommodate to
the market/customer dimension in innovation? Paper presented at
ABAS Conference 2015 Winter, University of Tokyo, Japan.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and
process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of
Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies:
Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency,
size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business
model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox
Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 11(3), 529–555.
Christensen, C. M. (1992a). The innovator’s challenge: Understanding the
influence of market environment on processes of technology
development in the rigid disk drive industry (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA.

241
 Akiike and Iwao

Christensen, C. M. (1992b). Exploring the limits of the technology

S-curve. Part I: Component technologies. Production and Operations
Management, 1(4), 334–357.
Christensen, C. M. (1992c). Exploring the limits of the technology
S-curve. Part II: Architectural technologies. Production and Operations
Management, 1(4), 358–366.
Christensen, C. M. (1993). The rigid disk drive industry: A history of
commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review,
67(4), 531–588.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new
technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic
investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 197–218.
Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker’s
advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and
the value network. Research Policy, 24, 233–257.
Corsi, S., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Disruptive innovation… in reverse: Adding
a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 23(1), 76–90.
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm
competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.
Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and
research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4),
246–258.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A
suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of
technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.
Foster, R. N. (1986). Innovation: The attacker’s advantage. New York, NY:
Summit Books.
Fukuzawa, M. (2015). Dynamic capability as fashion. Annals of Business
Administrative Science, 14, 83–96. doi: 10.7880/abas.14.83
Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for
“ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology

242
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.

Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical
systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and
institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6), 897–920.
Geroski, P. A. (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy,
29(4), 603–625.
Govindarajan, V., & Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging
markets, and global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3-4),
191–205.
Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2013). Reverse innovation: Create far from
home, win everywhere. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between
exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4),
693–706.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The
reconfiguration on existing product technologies and the failure of
established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.
Hill, C. W., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent
firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.
Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: A
test of the relationship between positional advantage and
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899–906.
Ichikohji, T., & Katsumata, S. (2014). The relationship between innovation
and consumption of internet users. Annals of Business Administrative
Science, 13, 17–29. doi: 10.7880/abas.13.17
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic
entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of
Management, 29(6), 963–989.
Kosuge, R. (2007). Internal effects of customer contact within service
organizations: Implications for developing a customer-oriented
organizational culture. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 6,
1–13. doi: 10.7880/abas.6.1
Kosuge, R. (2015). Measuring market orientation in the context of service
organizations: A context-specific study. Annals of Business

243
 Akiike and Iwao

Administrative Science, 14, 137–146. doi: 10.7880/abas.14.137

Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness
in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing
firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external
networks, and performance: A study on technology-based
ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 615–640.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of
entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business
performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32.
Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new
product development: Toward a theory. Academy of Management
Review, 27(3), 392–413.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic
change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic
capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
Peppard, J. (2000). Customer relationship management (CRM) in financial
services. European Management Journal, 18(3), 312–327.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman,
M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and
exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4),
685–695.
Rosenbloom, R. S., & Christensen, C. M. (1994). Technological
discontinuities, organizational capabilities, and strategic
commitments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 655–685.
Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and
consequences of customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 28(1), 55–66.
Shintaku, J., & Amano, T. (2009). Shinkoukoku shijou senryaku: Shijou,
shigen senryaku no tenkan [Emerging market strategy: Changes in
market and resource strategy]. (MMRC Discussion Paper No. 277) (in
Japanese).
Shintaku, J., Nakagawa, K., Ogawa, K., & Yoshimoto,

244
 Criticisms on “the innovator’s dilemma” being in a dilemma

T. (2014). Competition and collaboration between Japanese and

Taiwanese firms in optical disk industries. Annals of Business
Administrative Science, 13, 353–367. doi: 10.7880/abas.13.353
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Research notes and communications
customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(10), 1001–1006.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions:
A top management model for managing innovation
streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
Takahashi, N., Shintaku, J., & Ohkawa, H. (2007). Gijutsu torajekutori no
hadan: Keieigaku rinko Christensen and Bower (1996) [The disruption
of technological trajectory: Technical notes on Christensen and Bower
(1996)]. Akamon Management Review, 6(7), 267–274 (in Japanese).
Takahashi, N., Shintaku, J., & Ohkawa, H. (2013). Is technological
trajectory disruptive? Annals of Business Administrative Science, 12,
1–12. doi: 10.7880/abas.12.1
Takamatsu, T., & Tomita, J. (2015). Disruptive innovation: A case of full
mold casting. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 14,
109–126. doi: 10.7880/abas.14.109
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and
microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An
introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and
organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,
439–465.
Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12),
817–830.
Wada, T. (2015). Mottainai innovation. Annals of Business Administrative
Science, 14, 53–66. doi: 10.7880/abas.14.53
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital,
knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young

245
 Akiike and Iwao

technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7),

587–613.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review,
reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,
27(2), 185–203.

Received March 16, 2015; accepted June 4, 2015

246
Copyright of Annals of Business Administrative Science is the property of Global Business
Research Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.