This paper considers the role of design, as the emergent arrangement of concrete details that embodies a new idea, in mediating between innovations and established institutional fields as entrepreneurs attempt to introduce change. Analysis of Thomas Edison's system of electric lighting offers insights into how the grounded details of an innovation's design shape its acceptance and ultimate impact. The notion of robust design is introduced to explain how Edison's design strategy enabled his organization to gain acceptance for an innovation that would ultimately displace the existing institutions of the gas industry. By examining the principles through which design allows entrepreneurs to exploit the established institutions while simultaneously retaining the flexibility to displace them, this analysis highlights the value of robust design strategies in innovation efforts, including the phonograph, the online service provider, and the digital video recorder.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbernathyW. J.ClarkK. B.: 1985“Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction.”Research Policy, 14: 3–22.
2.
BarleyS. R.: 1986“Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments.”Administrative Science Quarterly31: 78–108.
3.
BarleyS. R.TolbertP. S.: 1997“Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution.”Organization Studies, 18: 93–117.
4.
BasallaG.: 1988The Evolution of Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BowerJ. L.ChristensenC. M.: 1995“Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave.”Harvard Business Review, 73(Jan.-Feb.): 43–54.
6.
ArthurBrightJr.: 1949The Electric-Lamp Industry: Technological Change and Economical Development from 1800 to 1947. New York: MacMillan.
7.
BrownS. L.EisenhardtK. M.1997“The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1–35.
8.
BuchananR.MargolisV.: 1995Discovering Design. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CallonM.: 1989“Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis.” In BijkerW. E.HughesT. P.PinchT. J. (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: 83–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
ColeR. E.ScottW. R.: 2000The Quality Movement and Organization Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
ConotR. E.: 1979A Streak of Luck. New York: Seaview Books.
12.
Czarniawska-JoergesB.SevónG.: 1996Translating Organizational Change. New York: de Gruyter.
13.
DacinM. T.: 1997“Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms.”Academy of Management Journal, 40: 46–82.
14.
DacinM. T.VentrescaM. J.BeaiB. D.: 1999“The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue and directions.”Journal of Management, 25: 317–356.
15.
DiMaggioP. J.: 1992“Nadel's paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure.” In NohriaN.EcclesR. G. (eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action: 118–142. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
16.
DiMaggioP. J.: 1997“Culture and cognition.”. Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263–287. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
17.
DouglasM.: 1986How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
18.
DruckerP.: 1999“Beyond the information revolution.”Atlantic Monthly, 284(Oct.): 47–57.
19.
EcclesR. G.NohriaN.BerkleyJ. D.: 1992Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
20.
FreidelR.IsraelP.: 1986Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an Invention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
21.
FriedlandR.AlfordR.: 1991“Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions.” In PowellW.W.DiMaggioP. J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis: 232–263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
GarudR.RappaM. A.: 1994“A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants.”Organization Science, 5: 344–362.
23.
GeertzC.: 1973The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
GiddensA.: 1984The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
GoffmanE.: 1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
27.
GoldbergerP.: 1999“Detroit tiger.”New Yorker, July 12: 28–33.
28.
GombrichE. H.: 1961Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. New York: Bollingen Foundation.
29.
GranickH.: 1975Underneath New York. New York: Fordham University Press.
30.
GranovetterM.: 1985“Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddness.”American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510.
31.
HendersonR. M.ClarkK. B.: 1990“Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9–30.
32.
HughesT. P.: 1983Networks of Power. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
33.
HughesT. P.: 1989American Genesis. A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1890. New York: Viking.
34.
IsraelP. B.: 1998Edison: A Life of Invention. New York: Wiley.
35.
IsraelP. B.NierK. A.CariaiL.: 1998The Papers of Thomas A. Edison: The Wizard of Menlo Park, 1878. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
JosephsonM.: 1959Edison: A Biography. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
KieserA.: 1994“Why organizational theory needs historical analysis—And how this should be performed.”Organization Science, 5: 608–620.
38.
KieslerS.SproullL.: 1982“Managerial responses to changing environments: Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 371–381.
39.
KintschW.van DijkT. A.: 1978“Toward a model of text comprehension and production.”Psychological Review, 85: 363–394.
40.
LawJ.: 1989“Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion.” In BjikerW. E.HughesT. P.PinchT. J. (eds.), The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology: 111–134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
LeblebiciH.SalancikG. R.CopayA.KingT.: 1991“Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 333–364.
LeiterE.: 1991Actors as Observers: A Theory of Skill in Social Relationships. New York: Garland.
45.
Leonard-BartonD.: 1992“Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development.”Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111–125.
LewisM.: 2001Next: The Future Just Happened. New York: W. W. Norton.
48.
LiedtkaJ.: 2000“In defense of strategy as design.”California Management Review, 42(3): 8–30.
49.
LounsburyM.GlynnM. A.: 2000“Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources.” Working paper, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
50.
McGuireP.GranovetterM.SchwartzM.: 1993“Thomas Edison and the social construction of the early electricity industry in America.” In SwedbergR. (ed.), Explorations in Economic Sociology: 213–246. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
51.
McKinleyW.MoneM. A.MoonG.: 1999“Determinants and development of schools of organization theory.”Academy of Management Review, 24: 634–648.
52.
MillardA.: 1990Edison and the Business of Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
MumfordL.: 1934Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace.
54.
NerneyM. C.: 1934Thomas A. Edison: A Modern Olympian. New York: Thomas and Haas.
55.
OrlikowskiW. J.: 1992“The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.”Organization Science, 3: 398–427.
56.
PadgettJ. F.AnsellC. K.: 1993“Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434.”American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1259–1319.
57.
RosenbergN.: 1982Inside the Black Box. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
RumelhartD. E.: 1986“Schemata: The building blocks of cognition.” In SpiroR. J.BruceB. C.BrewerW. F. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and Education: 33–59. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
SchankR.AbelsonR. P.: 1977Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
ScottW. R.: 1995Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
1998Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
62.
SelznickP.: 1949TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
63.
SilverbergR.: 1967Light for the World: Edison and the Power Industry. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
64.
SimonH. A.: 1981The Sciences of the Artificial, 2d ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
SwidlerA.: 1986“Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.”American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.
TiVo, Inc.1999Press release: Philips Personal TV Receiver with TiVo Service named “Best of What's New” and “Product of the Year.”Sunnyvale, CA: TiVo, Inc.
68.
TolbertP. S.ZuckerL. G.: 1983“Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22–39.
VentrescaM.WashingtonM.DialdinD.LaceyR.: 2000“Form Entrepreneurship in Online Database Services, 1972–1992.” Working paper, Kellogg Graduate School of Management.
71.
WeickK. E.: 1979“Cognitive processes in organizations.” In StawB. M. (ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 44–74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
72.
WestneyD. E.: 1987Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer of Western Organizational Patterns to Meiji Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
