Abstract
This study examines the evolution of product-based technological trajectories by linking technology and socioeconomic factors. Products evolve to adapt to market conditions in a manner similar to biological evolution, and form a constant trajectory under the influence of the current technological paradigm. This study analyzes the changes in technological trajectories after the emergence of a dominant design in the core weapon of the army—armored tanks. Based on a case study of the evolution of tanks between 1915 and 1998 and the application of principal component analysis (PCA, to transform technological characteristics of tanks into product performance) and K-means clustering (to classify the types of tanks based on the PCA), we find that tanks have evolved into a common pattern of product evolution and the main battle tank concept plays a role as the dominant design. In addition, military tactical doctrines and capability requirements are used to explain the socioeconomic factors at the core of the technological paradigm behind tank development. We argue that the interaction between science, technology, and the social element is responsible for product evolution. In the case of tanks, moreover, we show that the product evolution process follows continuous changes in the technological trajectory resulting from technological advances. This study also derives policy implications for weapons system acquisition.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol Rev 80:40–47
Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Q 35:604–633
Basalla G (1988) The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bonaccorsi A, Giuri P (2000) When shakeout doesn’t occur: the evolution of the turboprop engine industry. Res Policy 29:847–870
Bonen Z (1981) Evolutionary behavior of complex sociotechnical systems. Res Policy 10:26–44
Castaldi C, Fontana R, Nuvolari A (2009) “Chariots of fire”: the evolution of tank technology, 1915–1945. J Evol Econ 19:545–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-009-0141-0
Chandy RK, Tellis GJ (1998) Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. J Mark Res 35:474–487
Cheng C-H, Lin Y (2002) Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142:174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00280-6
Christensen C (1997) Patterns in the evolution of product competition. Eur Manag J 15:117–127
Clark JR (2011) Innovation under fire: Politics, learning, and US Army Doctrine. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Coccia M, Wang L (2015) Path-breaking directions of nanotechnology-based chemotherapy and molecular cancer therapy. Technol Forecast Soc 94:155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.09.007
Constant E (1980) The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore
Corredoira RA, Banerjee PM (2015) Measuring patent’s influence on technological evolution: a study of knowledge spanning and subsequent inventive activity. Res Policy 44:508–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.003
Dawkins R (1983) Universal Darwinism. In: Bendall DS (ed) Evolution from molecules to man. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 403–425
Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res Policy 11:147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6
Dosi G, Nelson RR (2010) Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. In: Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 51–127
Fleck J (2003) Artefact↔activity: the coevolution of artefacts, knowledge and organization in technological innovation. In: Ziman J (ed) Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 248–266
Gazibey Y, Kantemir O, Demirel A (2015) Interaction among the criteria affecting main battle tank selection: an analysis with DEMATEL method. Def Sci J 65:345–355. https://doi.org/10.14429/dsj.65.8924
Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Hogg IV (2000) The Armoured Fighting Vehicles Data Book. Greenhill Books, London
Huenteler J, Ossenbrink J, Schmidt TS, Hoffmann VH (2016) How a product’s design hierarchy shapes the evolution of technological knowledge—evidence from patent-citation networks in wind power. Res Policy 45:1195–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.014
Karvonen M, Kässi T (2013) Patent citations as a tool for analysing the early stages of convergence. Technol Forecast Soc 80:1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.05.006
Kim J, Shin J (2018) Mapping extended technological trajectories: integration of main path, derivative paths, and technology junctures. Scientometrics 116:1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2834-3
Leydesdorff L, Alkemade F, Heimeriks G, Hoekstra R (2015) Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: geographic and technological perspectives on “photovoltaic cells”. Scientometrics 102:629–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1447-8
Malerba F, Orsenigo L (1996) The danymics and evolution of Industries. Ind Corp Chang 5:51–87
Martinelli A (2012) An emerging paradigm or just another trajectory? understanding the nature of technological changes using engineering heuristics in the telecommunications switching industry. Res Policy 41:414–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.012
Mills J-R (2013) Tanks. In: Piehler KG (ed) Encyclopedia of Military Science. Los Angeles, pp 1392–1396
Murmann JP, Frenken K (2006) Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Res Policy 35:925–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011
OECD/Eurostat (2005) Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edn. OECD Publishing, Paris
Peine A (2008) Technological paradigms and complex technical systems—the case of Smart Homes. Res Policy 37:508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.009
Saviotti PP, Trickett A (1992) The evolution of helicopter technology, 1940–1986. Econ Innov New Technol 2:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599200000009
Seidel VP, Langner B, Sims J (2017) Dominant communities and dominant designs: community-based innovation in the context of the technology life cycle. Strateg Organ 15:220–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016653726
Sood A, Tellis GJ (2005) Evolution and radical technological innovation. J Mark 69:152–168
Swann GMP (2001) The demand for distinction and the evolution of the prestige car. J Evol Econ 11:59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00003856
Tucker-Jones A (2015) Soviet Cold War Weaponry: Tanks and Armoured Vehicles. Pen and Sword Military, Barnsley
Tushman ML, Rosenkopf L (1992) Organizational determinants of technological change: toward a sociology of technological evolution. Res Organ Behav 14:311–347
Utterback J, Suarez F (1993) Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Res Policy 22:1–21
Verhoeven D, Bakker J, Veugelers R (2016) Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Res Policy 45:707–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.010
Wahlman A, Drinkwine BM (2014) The M1 Abrams. Today and Tomorrow. Mil. Rev. 11–19
Ziman J (2003) Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge University Press, New York
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2017R1A2B4009376).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, J., Yoon, J. & Lee, JD. Dominant design and evolution of technological trajectories: The case of tank technology, 1915–1998. J Evol Econ 31, 661–676 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00697-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00697-1