Schumpeterian Competition and Diseconomies of Scope: Illustrations from the Histories of Microsoft and IBM

Timothy F. Bresnahan; Shane  Greenstein; Rebecca M. Henderson

Chapter | The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited | 2012

Schumpeterian Competition and Diseconomies of Scope: Illustrations from the Histories of Microsoft and IBM

by Timothy F. Bresnahan, Shane Greenstein and Rebecca M. Henderson

Abstract

We address a longstanding question about the causes of creative destruction. Dominant incumbent firms, long successful in an existing technology, are often much less successful in new technological eras. This is puzzling, since a cursory analysis would suggest that incumbent firms have the potential to take advantage of economies of scope across new and old lines of business and, if economies of scope are unavailable, to simply reproduce entrant behavior by creating a "firm within a firm." There are two broad streams of explanation for incumbent failure in these circumstances. One posits that incumbents fear cannibalization in the marketplace and so under-invest in the new technology. The second suggests that incumbent firms develop organizational capabilities and cognitive frames that make them slow to "see" new opportunities and that make it difficult to respond effectively once the new opportunity is identified. In this paper we draw on two of the most important historical episodes in the history of the computing industry, the introduction of the PC and of the browser, to develop a third hypothesis. Both IBM and Microsoft, having been extremely successful in an old technology, came to have grave difficulties competing in the new, despite some dramatic early success. We suggest that these difficulties do not arise from cannibalization concerns or from inherited cognitive frames. Instead they reflect diseconomies of scope rooted in assets that are necessarily shared across both businesses. We show that both Microsoft and IBM were initially very successful in creating freestanding business units that could compete with entrants on their own terms, but that as the new businesses grew, the need to share key firm-level assets imposed significant costs on both businesses and created severe organizational conflict. In IBM and Microsoft's case this conflict eventually led to control over the new business being given to the old and that in both cases effectively crippled the new business.

Keywords: Technological Innovation; Opportunities; Competition; Information Technology; Innovation and Management; Organizations; Relationships; Information Technology Industry;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Bresnahan, Timothy F., Shane Greenstein, and Rebecca M. Henderson. "Schumpeterian Competition and Diseconomies of Scope: Illustrations from the Histories of Microsoft and IBM." In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, edited by Josh Lerner and Scott Stern. University of Chicago Press, 2012.

In the fall of 2018, Hiro Mizuno, the Chief Investment Officer (CIO) of GPIF, the Japanese Government Pension Fund, was reflecting on his efforts to integrate Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues into every aspect of GPIF’s portfolio. His efforts ranged from constructing new stock market indices based on ESG data, changing the compensation and incentives of active investment managers and passive funds, pushing for more corporate sustainability reporting and integrated reporting, and establishing collaborations with other asset owners to drive systems level change. He was convinced that the only way to meet his responsibilities to his beneficiaries was to improve the performance of the entire economy through a focus on improving corporate governance, increasing inclusion in the workplace and gender diversity and reducing environmental damage and progress towards tackling climate change. The early results from his efforts were promising, but was there more he could do?

Korea Telecom (KT) has committed $4 billion in investments and R&D to build a GiGAtopia, essentially ushering in the next generation of mobile (5G) and wired infrastructure. CEO Dr. Chang-Gyu Hwang, and his team are considering which areas to prioritize in terms of new products and services in development. The top five sectors identified by KT’s team include the Internet of Things (including connected cars and smart city/homes), media, health, energy, and security and surveillance, which might provide some quick wins both in terms of revenues and market lead. Should KT develop solutions that could be exported to other countries? Should KT go all in across all five sectors, or select one or two to prioritize?

Faculty & Research

Schumpeterian Competition and Diseconomies of Scope: Illustrations from the Histories of Microsoft and IBM

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors