Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcasts
  • About Us
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Cold Call Podcast
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    • COVID-19 Business Impact Center
      COVID-19 Business Impact Center
      Schumpeterian Competition and Diseconomies of Scope: Illustrations from the Histories of Microsoft and IBM
      18 Mar 2011Working Paper Summaries

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

      by Timothy Bresnahan, Shane Greenstein and Rebecca Henderson
      Firms dominant in one era are often less successful in new technological eras, despite being able to exploit economies of scope and other incumbent advantages. What leads to this Schumpeterian creative destruction? Researchers Timothy Bresnahan (Stanford), Shane Greenstein (Northwestern), and Rebecca Henderson (Harvard Business School) look to IBM and Microsoft for an answer. Key concepts include:
      • Traditional explanations for creative destruction include the view that an incumbent, fearing cannibalization of its own business, under-invests in new technology. Another explanation has an incumbent, blinded by its own biases, slow to see new opportunities.
      • Looking at the introduction of the PC and web browser, the researchers propose a third explanation: that initial successes by both IBM and Microsoft in their respective new areas was stalled by corporate resistance after they requested more resources to grow.
      • In IBM and Microsoft's case this conflict eventually led to control of the new business being given to the old and, in both cases, effectively crippled the new business.
      LinkedIn
      Email

      Author 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

      Paper Information

      • Full Working Paper Text
      • Working Paper Publication Date: January 2011
      • HBS Working Paper Number: 11-077
      • Faculty Unit(s): General Management; Strategy
          Trending
            • 29 Oct 2020
            • Research & Ideas

            The COVID Gender Gap: Why Fewer Women Are Dying

            • 13 Jul 2020
            • Research & Ideas

            Merck CEO Ken Frazier Discusses a COVID Cure, Racism, and Why Leaders Need to Walk the Talk

            • 13 Jan 2021
            • Research & Ideas

            How 'Small C' Change Can Beat Large-Scale Rebuilding

            • 11 Jan 2021
            • Research & Ideas

            Is A/B Testing Effective? Evidence from 35,000 Startups

            • 25 Feb 2019
            • Research & Ideas

            How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

        Rebecca M. Henderson
        Rebecca M. Henderson
        John and Natty McArthur University Professor
        Contact
        Send an email
        → More Articles
        Find Related Articles
        • Strategy
        • Innovation and Invention

        Sign up for our weekly newsletter

        Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
        ǁ
        Campus Map
        Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
        Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
        Soldiers Field
        Boston, MA 02163
        Email: Editor-in-Chief
        →Map & Directions
        →More Contact Information
        • Make a Gift
        • Site Map
        • Jobs
        • Harvard University
        • Trademarks
        • Policies
        • Digital Accessibility
        Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College