Journal of Strategic Marketing

Vol. 16, No. 5, December 2008, 401–411

Competitive Advantage with New Product Development:

Implications for Life Cycle Theory
John Nadeaua* and R. Mitch Casselmanb
a
School of Business and Economics, Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario, Canada;
b
Department of Management, California State University, Chico, California, USA
(Received 21 November 2008; final version received 10 June 2008)

The article draws on product life cycle (PLC) and new product development
(NPD) literature to demonstrate the strategic significance of the intersection of
the two streams. This paper makes a unique contribution by illustrating when to
employ NPD strategies and demonstrates the resulting interaction with the
product life cycle. NPD strategies often fail when assumptions about the nature of
the PLC curve are incorrectly perceived. NPD strategies also impact the PLC in a
reflexive manner, opening up opportunities to alter the competitive landscape.
Keywords: product life cycle; new product development; strategic marketing

Introduction
On the surface, a discussion of new product development (NPD) and the product life
cycle (PLC) might seem quite trivial, as one could argue that NPD is by definition
the beginning of the PLC. However, the role of new product development is not
necessarily limited to the start of a PLC (Suomala, 2004). Indeed, the unique
contribution of this paper is to illustrate strategies employed in NPD and the
resulting interaction with the PLC.
This is an important assertion because it implies that NPD is not just about new
products, but rather about shaping the playing field in a larger strategic perspective
of a competitive landscape. The PLC is based on competitive economics, which
presents a theory rooted in the intersection of two separate dynamics: monopolistic
competition and the diffusion of innovation. Firms have the ability to influence each
dynamic and NPD strategies represent one important vehicle of influence. This
intersection provides opportunities for NPD to play a role in firm success and
improve our understanding of why firms pursue particular NPD strategies.

Product life cycle

The product life cycle (PLC) has attained conventional wisdom status within North
America’s management circles. In addition, the concepts behind PLC theory are
intuitively appealing. While the topic was frequently discussed in journals during the
1970s and 1980s, PLC is less likely to be perceived as leading edge from either a
research or practice perspective. This is unfortunate as PLC can provide useful
insight into competitive tactics, particularly shedding light on issues of supply and
demand and issues of time. There is no doubt that when PLC is seen as a

*Corresponding author. Email: johnn@nipissingu.ca

ISSN 0965-254X print/ISSN 1466-4488 online

ß 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09652540802480894
http://www.informaworld.com
402 J. Nadeau and R.M. Casselman

manifestation of time-based competition, the PLC forms part of an approach that is

still highly relevant to current managers.
PLC theory pursues the notion that the progression of a product’s market
presence is similar to organic life. The PLC contains four key life stages a product
passes through from inception to death. The pattern of sales mapped against time
represents a bell-like shape of increasing sales toward a plateau and then falling off
(Figure 1). Each of the four stages (introduction, growth, maturity and decline) are
distinct because the products in this stage share more market characteristics with
other products in the same stage than with itself at a previous or later stage.
The PLC is most usefully defined as a group of related products, which highlights
basic issues about the categorization of products and knowledge creation (or
exploitation vs exploration in new product development). However, there is a
tendency to use the product life cycle curve to measure a number of different, but
closely related concepts. The PLC curve can represent the sales of an individual
product or sales of a particular class of products. In the class of products approach,
the curve is viewed as the sum of all individual product curves in the product class.
From this perspective, the PLC curve is only partially determined by consumer
demand. There are other avenues to influence the shape of the curve at least partly, if
not entirely, under producer control. The role of producers in the determination of
the PLC curve is evidenced in the factors that drive NPD success. For example,
product features and other marketing mix activities have a clear impact on meeting
consumer demand and sales volumes.
Criticisms about the theoretical and practical relevance of the PLC concept
center on the assertion that the PLC has broad explanatory power and is the ultimate
tool for strategy building (Grantham, 1997). However, these criticisms can be
addressed. For instance, the claim that empirical evidence does not exist disregards
several studies on the subject that demonstrate its existence and its importance to
business strategy (Andersen & Zeithaml, 1984). To address another critique, it is
possible to identify the location of a product on the PLC based on penetration of the
market, nature of competition, number of competitors and growth rates (Golder &
Tellis, 2004). Additional indicators or symptoms that may be shared by other
products in the stage can be used to identify the position in the PLC.
Although many of the criticisms levied at the PLC framework may be
discounted, specific concerns do require careful consideration. First, an assertion
is made about the PLC that there is inherent neglect over the differentiation of
product class, form and brand (Grantham, 1997). This distinction is important to
examine because studies have typically focused on the product class level while

Figure 1. The product life cycle. Source: Levitt (1965).

 Journal of Strategic Marketing 403

practitioners may discuss the PLC theory with a wider reference that embraces all
three terms or even beyond to embrace companies and industries. Second, there is a
suggestion that the PLC may become a self-fulfilling prophecy leading management
to prematurely harvest a product rather than pursue corrective action (Grantham,
1997). There has been little research into this area and self-fulfillment remains a
concern for managers making decisions with their mature and declining products.
Despite the concerns about PLC theory as a broad explanatory theory for
strategy formulation, it generally appears to hold as a relevant alternative theory for
strategic development.

The competitive economics of the product life cycle

The PLC is important, but what shapes the curve? The following discussion
demonstrates that the competitive environment is inseparable from the PLC and, in
part, determines the shape of the curve for every product.
PLC theory represents the intersection of instabilities in the supply and demand
of products. The instability of demand relates to why consumers get into and out of
the market for products and can be explained by the diffusion process of innovation
theory. Consumers generally fall into categories of innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority and laggards, depending on the unique characteristics of the
consumer (Rogers, 1962). The instability of supply relates to why there are different
numbers of firms in the market for a given product and can be explained by the
theory of monopolistic competition. When new products are introduced, there is
monopoly-like competition (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1986). There are few firms competing
– partially due to the time constraints involved in creating new products and
partially because business people are reluctant to take high risks in new markets.
During the growth phase, there is competition, but many of the products are
substitutes for each other (firms attempt to segment or differentiate their products).
At maturity, the market acts more like an oligopoly, and barriers prevent new firms
from entering. The stages of the PLC reflect the intersection of these two theories –
the intersection of supply and demand.
Different competitive advantages are required at different stages in the product
life cycle (see Table 1). Differing competitive advantages (Christensen, 2001) appear
to drive some of the instability of supply, as particular firms are unable to adapt to
the new competitive realities. As firms move through the PLC, product-oriented
innovative capabilities are seen to be less critical than traditional factors such as cost,
distribution and process innovation. The nature of competitive requirements reflects
the earlier distinctions between Schumpeterian and monopolistic competition. As a

Table 1. Competitive advantage and stages of the PLC.

Introduction Growth Maturity Decline

Economies of scale Few Increasing High High

Economies of scope Few Increasing High High
Vertical integration Low Increasing High High
Product competencies High High Low Low
Process competencies Low Low High High
404 J. Nadeau and R.M. Casselman

product market matures, and the particular product market gains greater definition,
there is a shift from internal technological capabilities of firms to external industry
oriented variables. One could argue that the model for success shifts from a
knowledge-based view of the firm to an industry structure perspective. In the early
stages, success is based on knowledge creation and innovation to establish new
products with appealing qualities. In later stages, the effort goes into establishing
market niches or on low cost strategies, an approach more in line with Porter’s
(1980) industry structure view.

NPD strategies and the PLC

Regardless of the defining perspective for the PLC and its curve, there are strategic
implications for producers at each stage of the PLC. Further, there are strategic
considerations for NPD at each stage. Table 2 presents a summary of eight common
strategies used in NPD and the impact they have on the shape and nature of the PLC
curve. The common strategies include pioneer strategy, imitator strategy, rapid
innovation, disruptive technology introduction, pre-announcement, partnering,
standard setting and the use of platforms.
The following discussion expands on this summary by identifying the impact of
each strategy on the shape and nature of the PLC curve and the assumptions about

Table 2. NPD strategies and the PLC.

Strategy Introduction Growth Maturity Decline

Pioneer First mover N/A N/A N/A

advantage
Imitator Strong benefit Decreasing Only useful if Only useful if cost
benefit cost advantages advantages
Rapid innovation First mover Steal Extend life Limited benefit
advantage competitors’ cycle
growth
Disruptive Create new Strong Terminate N/A
technologies market – First benefit incumbents
mover adv.
Pre-announcement Financing Standard Strategic Strategic
strategy, setting, communication, communication,
Perceptual Switching Competitive Competitive
barriers costs games games
Partnering Strong Strong Limited Limited
benefit – benefit – benefit – Cost benefit – Cost
Absorptive Growth & only only
capacity learning
Standard setting Cooperate until Standard set, Competitive phase Competitive phase
technology is Market – Erect entry
legitimate segmentation barriers
& cost
Use of platforms Limited Strong aid to Critical Weakens but some
applicability growth component of lasting benefits
survival
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 405

the nature of the curve inherent in the NPD strategy itself. We also utilize practical
case examples to illustrate these NPD strategies and their impact on the PLC. By
doing so, we shed light on two critical elements. First, there is potential for the
strategy to fail in competitive contexts where the actual PLC differs from perceptions
and assumptions inherent in the NPD strategy. Second, we describe how the strategy
itself has an impact on the basic nature of the PLC and hence provides a new
perspective on the firm’s ability to impact not only aspects of the instability of supply
in the market, but also the nature of the instability of demand. This perspective
highlights the reflexivity of NPD in relation to the PLC. That is, there are second-
order effects that help to further explain both the PLC and strategies for NPD
success.

Pioneer strategy
The pioneer strategy refers to the introduction of a new product where no other
comparable product or approach exists to fulfill a market need. This strategic
approach involves such characteristics as registering for a patent, creating legal
barriers, producing better features than imitator products, dominating the market
with proprietary brands, launching offensive promotions and striving to be the
industry standard (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1986). Each strategic characteristic highlights
the defensive nature of being first to the market. These distinctive characteristics of
the pioneer strategy are best suited for the introduction phase of the PLC. Indeed,
the initiation of this strategy influences the PLC by creating a new curve to represent
the beginning. While some may argue it is best to avoid a pioneer strategy (Lee,
Smith, Grim, & Schomburg, 2000), the option remains for those firms who wish to
introduce dramatically different approaches to satisfy consumer demand. The
approach used by Biovail, a pharmaceutical company, to launch their currently
successful Wellbutrin product is a good example of a pioneer strategy. The product
was differentiated from existing products through a time-release formulation
enabling a convenient once daily dosage that is protected by a patent.

Imitator strategy
Imitation is seen as an effective new product development strategy; some would
argue more effective than pioneer strategies (Schnaars, 1994). The inherent strategy
is to avoid taking the risks involved in establishing a new market, but rather to
follow a pioneer, modifying products to improve on any initial mistakes that a
competitor may have made. Fast imitation is seen as critical to minimizing any
benefit that may accrue to speedy imitation of a pioneer (Lee et al., 2000). Faster and
earlier NPD will lead to a greater shareholder wealth effect. Therefore, there is
incentive to get out there quick on the early part of the PLC curve. The tradeoff is
that the earlier you are, the more risk is taken and you may not know if the market
will materialize. When entering the market, differentiation can focus on improved
product features or lower cost. Imitators can also diminish the value of the
pioneering product by turning the product into a commodity during the growth and
maturity phases of the PLC. Studies have indicated that first mover advantages were
completely destroyed by the sum effect of early and late imitation (Lee et al., 2000).
An extension of the previous example represents an ongoing concern with Anchen,
Impax Laboratories Inc., Abrika Pharmaceuticals LLP and Watson Pharmaceuticals
406 J. Nadeau and R.M. Casselman

launching generic versions of Wellbutrin to the market despite a legal protectionist

stance by Biovail. The value of an imitator strategy in the maturity and decline stages
of the PLC are diminished and is only useful when there is a cost advantage present.

Rapid innovation strategy

Rapid innovation is introduced as an alternative method of gaining a competitive
advantage. The strategy centers on frugal use of time as a resource and involves a
shortened planning time in the product development cycle and implementing smaller
incremental improvements more frequently (Stalk, 1988). Managing the transition
between different new products is critical to competitive success (Billington, Lee, &
Tang, 1998; Erhun, Concalves, & Hopman, 2007). The strategy results in three key
outcomes (Stalk, 1988). First, the ‘newness or freshness’ of the product becomes
salient for consumers. Second, the incremental changes and new product features
increase the technological sophistication of the overall product. Third, competitive
offerings begin to look obsolete. The retail fashion environment provides a good
example of the rapid innovation strategy. For instance, Old Navy will promote a
new product style for a new season as they did with Bermuda shorts in the Spring/
Summer of 2005.
A deployment of a rapid innovation strategy has implications throughout the
PLC and to the actual shape of the PLC curve. In the first phase of the PLC, the
rapid innovator can accrue benefits of the first mover. During the growth phase,
the frequent addition of new features contributes to the firm’s ability to steal the
growth away from competitors. These changes to the original product have the direct
effect of shortening the PLC curve for the original product. Essentially, a new
product curve has started at the point of new feature introduction as competitive
offerings look obsolete. During the maturity phase of the PLC, a rapid innovation
strategy can extend the PLC by delivering additional utility through supplementary
features. The decline of the PLC for rapid innovators is marked by limited benefits.
At this point in the cycle, frequent incremental change will likely add diminishing
returns to the firm as many consumers perceive the product to be obsolete.

Disruptive technology strategy

The introduction of new disruptive technologies has a significant impact on the life
cycle of existing products. While sustaining technologies tend to maintain a steady
rate of product improvement, disruptive technologies offer up a different set of
product attributes. These attributes often sacrifice in some area of performance from
existing products, often creating a product where mainstream customers do not
perceive a value (Christensen, 2000). The market for disruptive technologies is
questionable and the associated perception within a company is that financial
returns are uncertain. While disruptive technologies often begin with a ‘sub-
standard’ level of performance, they often allow for a new and possibly faster
trajectory of product improvement. Through time, this often begins to cannibalize
existing technologies often times overtaking the original product as the preferred
market solution. For example, Voice Over Internet products, like those offered by
Skype and NetZero Voice, have the potential to erode a significant share of the
telephony market, especially in the long distance market as their quality improves.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 407

Companies with existing sustaining technologies often fail to launch disruptive

technologies as their existing mindset perceives the product as inferior, with limited
markets and potentially lower profit margins. It has been argued that these
technologies are often best implemented within an independent organization,
particularly when the disruptive technology addresses a different customer, has
lower profit margins and may be perceived as a threat to the existing product (Bower
& Christensen, 1995).
Disruptive technology strategies have a similar effect on the life cycle curve as
does rapid product innovation. They end up pulling down sales of the original
product once the disruptive technology surpasses the technological requirement in
the market. At the same time, the new technology extends and broadens the
marketplace, pushing a parallel curve and extending the life and size of the market
for that product category (see Figure 2).

Pre-announcement strategy
Pre-announcement strategies involve making public disclosures of intended product
releases. Both the product and financial markets often take pre-announcements quite
seriously, particularly where there is demonstration of an irreversible commitment to
a new product (Mishra & Bhabra, 2001). There are six key strategic reasons for pre-
announcement strategies: perceptual barriers to entry; standard setting; customer
switching costs; fund raising; strategic communication; and competitive games
(Mishra & Bhabra, 2001). Creating perceptual barriers to entry can impact
competitors’ new product development plans. In cases where companies have a
strong reputation, a product pre-announcement can also have the effect of freezing
customer decisions to purchase (Mishra & Bhabra, 2001). Pre-announcements that
hint at future pricing can cause competitors to misestimate the benefits of new
product introduction or to change their resource allocations. Each of these impacts
affects the behavior of either suppliers or consumers of products. This in turn
impacts the shape of the product life cycle as instabilities are created in both product
supply and product demand. Indeed, at times, companies may use third parties to
‘leak’ information about new products. Leaked information can be helpful to create
a buzz around new products. For example, a new product from RIM is anticipated
to be the Blackberry 8100 mobile communication device with the ability to play
music and take pictures (CBC News, 2006).

Figure 2. Disruptive technology and the PLC.

Note: LCC stands for Life Cycle Curve.
408 J. Nadeau and R.M. Casselman

The different product pre-announcement strategies can also be seen to have

varying benefits depending on the stage of the life cycle. Pre-announcements for
financing or perceptual barriers may be more suited to early stages of the PLC;
standard setting and customer switching costs to growth stages; and strategic
communication and competitive games to late stages.

Partnering strategy
Firms may partner or enter into strategic alliances in order to launch new products.
A key benefit of these partnerships is the access to technology and capabilities that
are not part of a single firm. They also can be undertaken to mitigate risks, typically
to reduce the size of investment for products with large development costs.
Partnering can also be undertaken in an effort to increase the resources applied to a
given project in order to improve time to market. This approach can be well suited to
capital-intensive industries like aerospace. Here, Airbus is an example where several
European aircraft manufacturers formed a consortium to launch new airplanes.
Products of cooperating firms tend to be less innovative than products of a single
firm; horizontal partnerships tend to be more innovative than vertical associations;
and, firms working with companies outside their industry tend to be more innovative
than firms cooperating with partners from within the same industry (Kotabe &
Swan, 1995). Since collaboration can lead to poorer innovativeness than a single
firm, partnering should be left to those who cannot ‘go alone’. Therefore, alliances
should only be pursued by smaller firms where they can pool resources to accomplish
innovation. This is not to say that partnering would not occur for many other
reasons beyond NPD. Another benefit beyond NPD success (Kotabe & Swan, 1995)
is knowledge acquisition (i.e. absorptive capacity increases by incorporating
knowledge from your alliance partners). The key reason for partnering then appears
to be to access technology, competence or knowledge not possessed by a single firm.
This implies that partnering in PLC terms would be undertaken on the earlier part of
the PLC, in terms of firm’s center of gravity (see Figure 3).

Standard setting strategy

Standard setting can be used as a strategy for new product development. This type of
strategy is particularly effective in situations where there is a high network
externality for the product (Ozsomer & Cavusgil, 2000), that is, where more users of
a product increase the product’s value. When standards are forming, there is

Figure 3. Partnerships and the PLC.

 Journal of Strategic Marketing 409

confusion in the marketplace, there are competing standards and competitors are
attempting to move their standard to the front of the pack. A classic example is
found with the competition for setting standards between VHS and Beta in the video
recording market of the 1980s or the more recent BluRay vs HD DVD battle. While
Beta was touted as offering superior reproduction quality, VHS evolved to become
the dominant standard through the licensing of proprietary technology. Similarly,
both BluRay and HD DVD actively compete to ensure that a wider range of movie
titles are released on their standards.
Standard setting can take place naturally in the marketplace but also through
formal standard setting bodies such as the International Standards Organization.
This can have an impact on the nature of competition before and after a dominant
design emerges in the marketplace (Ozsomer & Cavusgil, 2000). Prior to
standardization, there is an incentive toward ‘mutualism’, that is particular groups
cooperating together, one group licensing their technologies to other firms and the
general all out battle to attain a dominant market share for the ‘standard’ regardless
of which competitor holds that share. An absence of standards may stall or inhibit
the overall size of the PLC curve as broad consumer acceptance of the product is
more difficult.

Platform strategy
The use of a product platform is another key strategy in successful new product
development. One aspect of product platforms sees platform leaders driving industry
wide innovation for an evolving system of separately developed pieces of technology
(Cusumano, 2002). Platform leadership usually means strong market share, with
weaker competitors who desire to be platform leaders offering secondary solutions.
These markets also include complementors, who make the ancillary products that
expand the platform’s market. You can only develop as fast as these complementors
can keep up. A key example would be Intel’s microprocessors that are the base
technology on which numerous other companies provide complementary products.
A second application of product platform strategy is the establishment of a
proprietary technology that acts as a base upon which future products are built. For
example, the electronic gaming industry requires consumers to choose between
platforms like the Microsoft XBOX or Sony Playstation. The principal manufac-
turers or third party game developers (e.g. Electronic Arts) then offer software to
augment the initial consumption of the hardware. Once a customer commits to this
particular platform, they are reliant, to a certain extent, on future enhancements
from that company. Product platforms rely on two basic economic principles:
network externalities (the more users of a platform, the greater the benefit to all
users) and switching costs (the costs of a customer moving to a new platform).
Product platforms have the effect of grouping together multiple products into the
same PLC. This increases the importance of early stages of the PLC in cases where a
platform may develop and allows future product innovation outside the company to
enhance the value of a static product design, effectively extending the length of the
PLC. Platforms stabilize both supply and demand of a product. This situation limits
the number of competitors capable of supplying a particular product group and it
enables a consistent supply of customers who have vested interests in not switching
platforms (see Figure 4).
410 J. Nadeau and R.M. Casselman

Figure 4. Platform leadership and the PLC.

Platform leadership begins in the growth phase of the PLC, although benefits of
this leadership carry on to the end of the PLC. In fact, it is complementary products
of the platform that help grow the market by generating interest and sales in the core
platform. Competitive pressures of many new entrants and the slowing growth in the
marketplace heighten the importance of platform leadership. The established
platform leader will likely remain for the eventual decline of the product.

Conclusions
This paper has examined the relationships between new product development and
the product life cycle. By doing so, we shed light on two critical elements. First, there
is potential for the NPD strategy to fail in competitive contexts where the actual
PLC differs from perceptions and assumptions of the PLC inherent in the NPD
strategy. In short, different NPD strategies are more effective at certain stages in the
PLC. Second, we describe how the strategy itself has an impact on the basic nature of
the PLC and hence provides a new perspective on the firm’s ability to impact not
only aspects of the instability of supply in the market, but also the nature of the
instability of demand. This perspective gets at a reflexivity within NPD and the PLC
or at second-order effects and helps to further explain both the PLC and strategies
for NPD success.
This is important because the success of new product development initiatives is
not limited to the traditional success factors identified in the literature. It implies that
certain NPD efforts have inherent strategic benefits in situations where the
organization has a longer-term commitment to that particular product area or
there is ‘competitive damage’ that can be inflicted on firms to ease competitive
pressure in entirely different product markets.
The discussion also raises a number of future areas for productive research. First,
research into the nature of the impact of various NPD strategies on the PLC might
identify empirical evidence on the use of particular NPD strategies at different stages
of the PLC. Second, research into the impact of strategic actions of individual firms
may uncover the extent to which the shape of the PLC can be altered in different
product markets. Overall, significant benefits can accrue to firms that consider the
PLC impact when designing their NPD strategies.

References
Andersen, C., & Zeithaml, C. (1984). Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and
business performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 5–24.
Billington, C., Lee, H.L., & Tang, C. (1998). Successful strategies for product rollovers. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 39(3), 23–30.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 411

Bower, J.L., & Christensen, C.M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard
Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.
CBC News. (2006). Blog claims sneak peek of RIM’s next Blackberry. Retrieved 30 August
2006, from www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/08/30/rim-engadget.html.
Christensen, C.M. (2000). The innovators dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to
fail. New York: Harper Collins.
Christensen, C.M. (2001). The past and future of competitive advantage MIT. Sloan
Management Review, 42(2), 105–109.
Cusumano, M. (2002). The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review,
43(3), 51–58.
Erhun, F., Concalves, P., & Hopman, J. (2007). The art of managing new product transitions.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 73–80.
Golder, P., & Tellis, G. (2004). Growing, growing, gone: Cascades, diffusion, and turning
points in the product life cycle. Marketing Science, 23(2), 207–218.
Grantham, L.M. (1997). The validity of the product life cycle in the high-tech industry.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15(1), 4–10.
Kotabe, M., & Swan, K.S. (1995). The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new
product development. Strategic Management Journal, 16(8), 621–636.
Lee, H., Smith, K., Grim, C., & Schomburg, A. (2000). Timing, order and durability of new
product advantages with imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 23–30.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43(November/
December), 81–94.
Mishra, D.P., & Bhabra, H.S. (2001). Assessing the economic worth of new product pre-
announcement signals: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 10(2), 75–93.
Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. (1986). Competition and product management: Can the product life
cycle help? Business Horizons, 29(4), 51–62.
Ozsomer, A., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2000). The effects of technology standards on the structure of
the global PC industry. European Journal of Marketing, 34(9/10), 1199–1220.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.
New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Schnaars, S.P. (1994). Managing imitation strategies: How later entrants seize markets from
pioneers. New York: Free Press.
Suomala, P. (2004). The life cycle dimension of new product development performance
measurement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(2), 193–221.
Stalk, G. (1988). Time – the next source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review,
66(4), 41–51.