DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
July 2014

No. 2014-09

Emergent Process of a Dominant Design:
A Revisit of the Bicycle Industry

Rikiya Tsuchihashi

1Emergent Process of a Dominant Design: A Revisit of the Bicycle Industry
Rikiya Tsuchihashi
Faculty of Economics, Nagasaki University

Abstract
The notion of dominant design has received much attention in technology and strategic
management. Despite abundant research into dominant design, little is known about the
emergent process of dominant design. To fill this gap, this study explores how a dominant
design emerges in an industry and which factors affect it. Based on analysis of the caseof bicycle industry from the early to the late 19th century, this study clarifies the conceptof the “value standard,” which plays a critical role building a dominant design. The
findings reveal how the value standard is affected by technological innovation and sociopolitical factors and how the design that exceeds the threshold of the value standard
becomes the dominant design. The findings also indicate how both component andarchitectural innovation generate various designs that may become the dominant designand how alternative designs converge with the dominant design under selection pressure.
Keywords
Value standard, Dominant design, technological innovation, socio-political factors,
safety bicycle.
JEL classification: M10

2

1. Introduction
The notion of dominant design has received much attention in technology and strategic
management. Many scholars interested in dominant design have investigated theinfluence of patterns on competition (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978; Anderson andTushman, 1990), strategy for building dominant design (Khazam and Mowery, 1994;
Cusumano et al., 1996), and firm survival (Khazam and Mowery, 1994; Baum et al.,
1995; Tegarden et al., 1999). Despite the wealth of dominant design research, little is
known about the emergent process of dominant design. To fill this research gap, we
explore how a dominant design emerges in an industry and which factors affect its
emergence.
Two perspectives can be applied when analyzing the process of technology
evolution: the technological approach and socio-political approach. The technologicalapproach, focusing on the technology itself, analyzes how product architecture andcomponents change over time (Clark, 1985; Abernathy and Clark, 1985). Meanwhile, thesocio-political approach, based on the notion that society builds technology, focuses on
the social context (Pinch and Bijker, 1987; Bijker, 1995). These approaches are notconflicting but rather complementary. Indeed, most scholars have pointed out importanceof considering both technological and socio-political factors when analyzing the diffusionof technology and systems (Hughes, 1983; Tushman and Rosenkopf, 1992).
In accord with this background, we analyze the emergent process of dominant
design from both the technological and socio-political perspectives. To link these two
approaches, we focus on the “value standard,” a key concept meaning uniform view ofthe evaluation criteria regarding technology and products shared by various firms andusers in an industry (Miyazaki, 2006). Focusing on the case of the bicycle industry, wesuggest that technological innovation and socio-political factors build a value standard,
and a product that exceeds the threshold of this value standard becomes a dominant design.
Studying the case of the bicycle industry is appropriate for two reasons. First,
the process of emergence of a dominant design is clear in this industry. The Safety bicycle
clearly became the dominant design when it emerged in 1885, and the basic architectureof the bicycle has not changed for more than 100 years. In contrast, a dominant design
has not emerged in all product categories (Srinivasan et al., 2006). In addition, as
investigating the emergence of a dominant design requires consideration of cognitive
factors, it is only by looking back into history that we can recognize a specific design asa dominant design. Second, because of the abundant research into the history of bicycle,
we can precisely describe the details regarding the emergence of a dominant design. Many
scholars have studied bicycle design from a business management perspective (Roy,
1986; Pinch and Bijker, 1987; Nierop et al., 1997; Galvin, 1999; Galvin and Morkel,2001). To analyze the process correctly, drawing on a multitude of references is important.
The construction of this paper is as follows. Section 2 surveys the literature
regarding dominant design, technological innovation, and the socio-political approach.
Section 3 describes the evolution of bicycle design from the early to the late 1880s. In
Section 4, we develop some propositions with the aim of generalizing the process of theemergence of dominant design. Finally, in Section 5, we conclude our discussion bydescribing the study limitations and providing recommendations for future research.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theory of Dominant Design

3

The concept of dominant design has attracted many researchers, who have described it invarious ways. Several scholars have described dominant design as the architecture that
establishes the dominant status in a product category (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978;
Anderson and Tushman, 1990). Utterback (1995) defined dominant design as the designthat wins market dominance and embodies the demand of the majority of customers. This
design need not be of the best quality. Henderson and Clark (1990) suggested that adominant design is characterized by both a set of core design concepts that correspond tothe major functions performed by the product and are embodied in its components and a
product architecture that defines the ways in which these components are integrated.
In this paper, we define the dominant design as the design that wins the market
battle against rival designs and satisfies a certain level of customer demand. Thisdefinition leads to consideration of two aspects. First, although product innovation
frequently occurs and many alternative designs emerge in the fluid phase of industry, thedominant design survives this competitive situation. Second, although a dominant designneed not provide the best performance among all designs, it must satisfy a certain levelof customer needs. We can recognize the dominant design in various industry and productcategories. In their study of dominant design in several industries, Suarez and Utterback(1995) described Underwood’s Model 5 in the typewriter industry, the all-steel andclosed-body car in the automobile industry, and the all-glass and 21-inch-tube in the
picture tube industry. VHS in the VCR industry (Cusumano et al., 1992) and the IBM PC
in the PC industry (Tegarden et al., 1999) have also been identified as dominant designs.
The important consideration in the discussion of dominant design is how its emergenceaffects patterns of industry evolution. Emergence of a dominant design changes the natureof competition and decreases uncertainty in an industry. In an industry that does not havea dominant design, the focal point is competition regarding product innovation. Once adominant design emerges, competition changes from a focus on product innovation to
one of process innovation (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978).
Although a dominant design needs to be based on a “better” technology, adominant design need not be the “best” technology compared with other designs. If acertain design is inferior to other designs, it may still become the dominant design. In
their study of the VCR industry, Rosenbloom and Cusmano (1987) found that despite
being inferior to Sony’s Betamax in terms of technology, VHS became the dominant
design. The crucial point in this battle was not the technology of the tape recorder, suchas the quality of pictures and length of recording, but whether that company can cooperatewith their rivals through opening its technology.
As discussed above, the emergence of a dominant design has a major impact.
However, it is not until a dominant design emerges that its domination of a market can berecognized. Thus, the concept of a dominant design can be considered a more cognitive
concept than a physical concept.
2.2 Technological Approach
In the early studies into the process of emergence of dominant design, the focal point was
the technology itself. These studies recognized the relationship between technology andsociety, based on the understanding that “technology constructs a society.” Once animportant technology is created, technology evolves by its interaction with markets andfirms through the selection process. Clark (1985) described the process of technologicalevolution as the result of a problem-solving process in which a core concept is first4

created, and problem-solving activities proceed to a low level of hierarchy.
Once the problem is resolved, this activity ceases. Repeating this process, design
hierarchies are established based on not only product concepts but also customer concepts.
The concept of “hierarchy of design” is succeeded by that of productarchitecture, the scheme by which the function of a product is allocated to physicalcomponents (Ulrich, 1995; Schilling, 2000). Product architecture is divided into two
types: integral architecture and modular architecture. Integral architecture, a
representative example of which is the automobile, refers to a complex mapping fromfunctional elements to physical components and/or coupled interfaces between
components. On the other hand, modular architecture, a representative example of whichis the PC, refers to a one-to-one mapping from functional elements in the functional
structure to the physical components of the product and specifies de-coupled interfaces
between components (Ulrich, 1995).
The notions of architectural and modular innovation critically affect thecompetitive position of firms. According to Henderson and Clark (1990), who introduced
the concept, architectural innovation is the reconfiguration of an established system tolink together existing components in a new way. In contrast, modular innovation is
innovation that changes only the core design concepts of a technology. Whenarchitectural innovation occurs, established firms tend to fail because the architectural
innovation destroys the usefulness of the architectural knowledge that they haveestablished.
As discussed above, the technological approach focuses on the technology usedin the process of technological evolution. In this approach, the aims of research areproblem solving and determining the relationship between components and productarchitecture. In particular, the research into product architecture focuses on theimportance of distinguishing between changes in product architecture and changes incomponents.
2.3 Socio-political Approach
To gain an understanding of the diffusion of technology and systems, many researchers
have insisted on analyzing not only the technology itself but also its context (Tushman
and Rosenkopf, 1992; Miller et al., 1995; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 1999; Jenkins and Floyd,2001). Expanding the notion of technology and society to the paradigm of a researchstream that they termed the “social construction of technology” (SCOT), Pinch and Biker(1987) and Biker (1995) suggested that the interaction between technology and societyleads an artifact to assume dominant status. On the basis of this concept, they attempted
to explain the evolution of products by including social groups in the analysis andinterpreting their findings from a variety of perspectives. This approach thus emphasizes
three concepts: relevant social groups, defined as groups whose members share themeanings of an artifact; interpretative flexibility, defined as consideration of the different
interpretations held among people and the need for flexibility in how artifacts aredesigned; and closure and stabilization, defined as the process of stabilization of an
artifact and the resolution of problems. Pinch and Biker (1987) suggested that the key
point of closure is whether the relevant social groups see a problem as being solved.
The actions of the groups considered to have sociological legitimacy may affectthe emergence of a dominant design. In their analysis of the process by which the standard
for cochlear implants emerged, Garud and Rappa (1994) explained why the multimodel

5

channel model became the standard instead of the single channel model. After the
University of Iowa conducted comparable tests and declared that the results supported
the multichannel model, other research institutes supported the multichannel model, too.
In consequence, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Healthultimately supported the multichannel model, which became the industry standard. As
observed in this case, gaining legitimacy from external institutions leads a product toassume standard dominance within a market.
We have seen the two approaches toward examining technology evolution, thetechnological approach cannot be used without consideration of socio-political factors, asboth these approaches are closely related. To understand the process of evolution oftechnology, it must be analyzed from both perspectives. The following section describes
the method of analysis employed for conducting a case study of the bicycle industry using
both the technological and socio-political approaches.
3. Method
The analytical method used in this paper is that of a case study. The aim of this paper isto provide new insights into the process underlying the emergence of dominant design.
Use of a case study design rather than a quantitative design helps in the following ways:
enables analysis of a longitudinal process in detail (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), enables
analysis of how and why many bicycles with distinct designs have been created by great
designers since the 19th century and identification of the functions of these bicycles ineach period, and enables analysis of the factors that generate events and determine thecausal relationship in detail. This capacity was an important consideration, as a
combination of technological and socio-political factors affected the emergence of new
bicycle designs, including the emergence of the women’s movement, enthusiasm forbicycle races, and the provision of infrastructure. This case study was conducted mainly
using archival data collected by prior research into the history of the bicycle industry on
the basis that analysis of rich historical data was vital to present the facts precisely. The
following section analyzes the emergence process of dominant design in the bicycle
industry.
4. Case Analysis: Evolution of the Bicycle Design
4.1 The ancestor of the Bicycle: The Draisine
People today have an image of what a bicycle is—a machine with pedals, cranks, wheelsof the same size, a pneumatic tire, and a diamond frame. However, the design of theDraisine (Figure 1), the bicycle’s ancestor, invented by Karl Drais in 1817, is far fromthat of a modern bicycle. The Draisine had no pedals or crank, and the rider had to kickthe ground to propel the bicycle forward. Although these mechanisms made the machine
simpler, considerable time passed before the modern bicycle was invented. The reason
was that then people thought if riders took their foot off the ground, they may fall off thebicycle (Penn, 2010). Although the Draisine had no pedals, riders could travel at about
15 kilometers per hour. The Draisine had an armrest between the handle and saddle onwhich riders could support their elbow.
………………….
insert figure 1………………….

6

4.2 From “Kicking” to “Pedaling”: The Boneshaker
In the history of bicycle, the most important innovation was the pedal. With its invention,
which was not the result of a technological change but rather a cognitive change, people
could travel without kicking the ground. Between 1861 and 1863, Pierre Michauxinvented an innovative bicycle with two wheels propelled by pedals and cranks attacheddirectly to the front hub. The Michaux bicycle (Figure 1) was widely accepted in the U.K.,
where it was called the “Boneshaker” because of the strong vibration that riders felt intheir backbone while riding it. As the wooden tires of the early Boneshaker were coveredby iron to prevent abrasion, they could not absorb ground vibration. Another problem
with this bicycle was the noise caused by riding it, which also caused many accidents bymaking cows and horses run wild (Kobayashi, 2009).
The reason Michaux attached the pedal to the front hub was not to propel riders
forward but to provide them a place to keep their feet while traveling downhill (Kobayashi,2009). While traveling downhill, riders did not need to pedal, and thus their feet remained
up in the air. To solve this problem, Michaux placed the pedal instead of the footrest near
the front hub. Many engineers improved the Boneshaker after Michaux invented theprototype of this bicycle. A more sophisticated model of the Boneshaker emerged around
1870, in which the position of the saddle was closer to the front wheel to increase rider
power for increased pedaling power and stability. With this change, riders could more
powerfully propel themselves forward using their weight during pedaling. Moreover,various components of the Boneshaker were improved: a spring was placed on the saddle
and brake, a rump was provided for night riding, and an ornament was added to the frame.
With these changes, the Boneshaker became widely accepted worldwide by the 1880s(Sano, 1985).
4.3 The High Wheel Bicycle: The Ordinary
Although the Michaux bicycle was more comfortable and faster than the Draisine, it could
not go fast enough to satisfy riders. To overcome this, the bicycle design was changed
further, resulting in the invention of the “Ordinary” bicycle (Figure 2). The “Phantom,”the first Ordinary bicycle, was made by Reynolds and Mays in 1869 in the U.K. Designedwith wooden wheels on a double-tension spoke made from one long wire onto which bothends were attached to the hub double spoke, a triangular frame, and lightweight iron bars,
the Phantom weighed about 24 kilograms, and was lighter than the Boneshaker (Counter,
1955).
The turning point in the design of the Ordinary bicycle was the emergence of
the “Ariel.” Produced in Coventry by Jams Starley and William Hillman, the Ariel
featured a tubular steel backbone and a solid fork, a shorter and stiffer seat spring, slottedcranks, a rear brake, wire wheels, solid rubber tires, and cylindrically or cone-shaped
plane bearings on the wheel axis (Sano, 1985; Herlihy, 2004). The innovation of the ballbearing in the U.K. in the late 1870s, which became widely used in the bicycle axle, also
greatly impacted the bicycle industry. The accuracy of the ball itself was very importantin the functioning of the bicycle components. As early models of the ball bearing were
handmade, they were easily misshapen by strong pressure. As technology progressed,
improved ball bearings made with metallic spheres were created that dramaticallydecreased the friction among the rotating parts, allowing riders to travel more speedily
and comfortably (Herlihy, 2004).

7

The most distinctive feature of the Ordinary bicycle was its large front wheel.
In the case of a bicycle with pedals directly attached to the front wheel, the distance of
one pedal was equal to the circumference of the wheel. As the easiest means of increasing
the distance traveled with the turn of one pedal was increasing the diameter of the front
wheel, the diameter of the front wheel was increased to 1.5 meters, allowing riders totravel up to 30 kilometers per hour (Penn, 2010). Although the Ordinary was superior toother models in terms of speed, it was inferior in terms of safety. Because of the large
front wheel, riders experienced difficulty mounting and dismounting. Owing to theposition of the saddle, they also experienced difficulty balancing on the bicycle, leading
many to fall off and hit the ground headfirst (Herlihy, 2004).
………………….
insert figure 2………………….

4.4 The Pursuit of Safety: The Improved Ordinary and the Tricycle
Although the characteristic style of the Ordinary appealed to many, the Ordinary did not
become the standard model. To meet the demand for a safe and comfortable bicycle,
engineers developed two models: the “Extraordinary,” invented by Singer in 1878, andthe “Kangaroo,” invented by Hillman, Herbert, and Cooper of Coventry in 1884. The
main features of the Extraordinary were the moving of the position of the saddle backfrom the front wheel. These features helped riders to travel more safely and comfortablycompared with with the existing Ordinary (Counter, 1955). The Kangaroo (Figure 3),
which incorporated a key technical invention—the chain drive—had a 36-inch front
wheel geared up to the equivalent of 60 inches by means of two independent chain drives,
one connecting each crank to its side of the front wheel. Moreover, by decreasing thediameter of the front wheel to about 92 centimeter, which was less than the largest
Ordinary wheel by 50 centimeter, the inventors of the Kangaroo increased the ease bywhich the rider could mount and dismount (Herlihy, 2004).
Other attempts at improvement led to the invention of the tricycle (Figure 4).
The first successful tricycle was the Coventry tricycle, the first model of which waspropelled by the lever moving the legs up and down and the second model by a driving
chain system. The improved Coventry was the first machine in history to adopt the rackand pinion system. The Coventry tricycle became known as a good bicycle and remained
popular for more than 10 years. By 1884, over 200 models of the tricycle had been createdin the U. K. other than the Coventry tricycle. In the late 1880s, demand for the tricycle
emerged in the U.S.A. as well, especially among society women. Since two people could
ride the tricycle together, husbands and wives often went cycling for both health andpleasure (Herlihy, 2004). Although the tricycle had the advantage of safety, it had the
problems of lack of speed and, being much larger than a two-wheeled bicycle, difficulty
in storage. These disadvantages prevented the tricycle from becoming the dominant
design.
………………….
insert figure 3

8

………………….
………………….
insert figure 4………………….
4.5 Emergence of the Dominant Design: The Safety Bicycle
Although the Ordinary was the first commercially successful bicycle (Hounsell, 1984), it
did not diffuse throughout the world because of a fatal deficit: the lack of safety and fixed
gear ratio (Caunter, 1955). To overcome this deficit, English engineer Henry Lawson
invented the first model of the “Safety” bicycle with a chain drive in 1879. Although
Lawson’s model had a large front wheel and a small rear wheel, as did the Ordinary
bicycle, it was the prototype of the Safety bicycle (Sano, 1985).
In 1885, John Kemp Starley created the first true Safety bicycle. Called the“Rover” (Figure 6), this bicycle had the same function and features as the modern bicycle:
same-size wheels, a chain drive system, and rear-wheel drive (Herlihy, 2004). The next
model of the Safety bicycle contained a very important component in the history of thebicycle, the pneumatic tire. Before John Boyd Dunlop, a Scottish veterinary surgeon,
invented the pneumatic tire in 1888, bicycles had solid tires that provided for an
uncomfortable ride at a slow speed. Dunlop invented the pneumatic tire in response to his
son’s request to invent a device that would allow his solid-tired tricycle to ride moresmoothly and rapidly on granite streets. Use of the pneumatic tire dramatically improved
the comfort and speed of bicycles, as witnessed when the tires were first used in a bicycle
race in Belfast in 1889, where the pneumatic-tired bicycle won all four races (Lay, 1992).
Talk of this racing success spread the news that a new type of tire with striking newproperties was available for the bicycle (Tompkins, 1981). Despite having great
advantages, the pneumatic tire also had several setbacks. One setback was the difficultyof fixing the tire if it went flat. Each time the tire was punctured, the casing had to be
soaked apart with naphtha to reach the tube inside. After performing the necessary patch
repair, the tube had to be replaced and the casing built up again with solution before therepaired part was reattached to the wheel. Since this process was difficult, riders were notalways capable of making satisfactory repairs themselves (Tompkins, 1981).
Another model termed the “Whippet” bicycle (figure 6) was invented in
London in 1885. The most interesting feature of this bicycle was the attachment of avariety of springs on the frame to decrease ground vibration, a problem that engineers
had been struggling to resolve. While the attempt to resolve this problem by attaching
springs to the frame was revolutionary, the arrival of the pneumatic tire, another meansof decreasing ground vibration, shortly after the invention of the Whippet bicycle led to
the Whippet’s disappearance (Herlihy, 2004).
………………….
insert figure 5………………….
………………….
insert figure 6

9

………………….

5. Discussion
The previous section described the evolutionary process of bicycle design. This section
develops several propositions with the aim of generalizing the process underlying the
emergence of dominant design. Although a product concept tends to be created inside a
firm (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Krishnan and Ulrich, 2001), a value standard is sharedby the firm and users of its products. A value standard is defined as a uniform view of theevaluation criteria used to judge technology and products shared by various firms andusers within an industry. Although a product tends to take one form, many diverse
interpretations of the product and judgments regarding its performance may emerge
among users (Pinch and Bijker, 1987; Christensen, 1997). With repeated interaction
between a firm and users and with user learning, the concept generated inside a firm maychange over time (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991).
5.1 Value standard and dominant design
Within the bicycle industry, three dimensions comprise the value standard of
the bicycle: speed, safety, and comfort. Regarding speed, Karl Drais created the Draisine,
the prototype of the bicycle, to allow riders to arrive at a destination in less time than ifthey had walked. Whereas the Draisine could travel at 15 kilometers per hour, theOrdinary could travel at 30 kilometers per hour. The invention of the bicycle race, inwhich speed is the most important factor other than safety and comfort, increased theimportance of speed. To increase speed, engineers improved bicycle components andarchitecture, ultimately resulting in the invention of the Ordinary, the fastest bicycle.
Though the Ordinary could travel faster than the Boneshaker because of its extremely
large front wheel, many of its riders experienced injury because its design downplayed
safety. As a result, demand for a safe yet fast bicycle emerged. This characteristic of theOrdinary defined the reference of the value standard.
As for the second value standard of safety, riding a bicycle was dangerous
because the two wheels were in a straight line, posing the risk that riders would fall off
the bicycle and run over the obstacles if they made a mistake while steering. The Draisine,
Boneshaker, and Ordinary were not designed to be safe at a level that met rider’s demand,
especially the Ordinary, which downplayed the significance of safety. As riders of theOrdinary could not set their feet on the ground because of the large wheel, they would
often fall off the saddle when they slammed on the brakes. Therefore, a demand for abicycle that was both safe and fast emerged, creating the value standard of safety. In
response to this demand, Starley invented the Safety bicycle in 1885 to increase the safetyof the bicycle and allow riders to ride easily without constraints, regardless of genderdifferences.
Regarding the third value standard of comfort, high performance is necessary
when riding a bicycle for a long duration. The means used to suppress ground vibration,
as well as noise from the saddle and handles significantly affects the degree of comfort.
As reflected in the name of the Boneshaker, riders of this early model would feel a strong
jolt in their backbone while riding on stone-paved streets. Tires also play an importantrole in improving comfort. The Boneshaker had a crude tire, specifically an iron-coatedwooden wheel, which led riders to experience strong ground impact. Although engineers10introduced the solid (non-pneumatic) tire to increase comfort, it did not increase comfort
to a level sufficient to satisfy user needs. It was only with the development of thepneumatic tire by Dunlop in 1888 that the bicycle provided for a comfort level that met
user demand. Indeed, the comfort level provided by the Safety bicycle with pneumatic
tires exceeded the value standard level.
In this discussion of the emergence of a value standard, it is important to stressthat a value standard did not exist until the first bicycle had been created. In the fluid
phase of an industry, the image and concept of a product are ambiguous in the interaction
between firms and users (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). It is only with theadvancement of time that the value standard of a product is gradually generated. Although
the value standard is composed of several functions, those functions that are highlighted
depend on the era. For example, while the invention of the bicycle race highlighted thevalue of speed, women’s increased participation in society and the diffusion of the bicycle
among the masses highlighted the value of safety and comfort. With repeated societal
changes that highlight the significance of the value standard, a common understanding of
the value standard is generated within an industry. In the case of the bicycle industry, theSafety bicycle sufficiently satisfied the demand for speed, safety, and comfort, and thus
became the dominant design. Based on this analysis, the following propositions aredeveloped:
Proposition 1: Technological innovation and socio-political factors generate the value
standard within an industry.
Proposition 2: The dominant design is the design that exceeds threshold of the value
standard.
5.2. Evolution of components and architecture
In the process of emergence of dominant design, product innovation rather than process
innovation is likely to occur (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). A product is nested withina hierarchy system in which many components are intricately combined and evolves ineach level of component, subsystem, and system (Murmann and Frenken, 2006). A
product is likely to become a dominant design during architectural innovation (Henderson
and Clark, 1990), which changes the combination of components. Here, we describe how
the relationship between product components and architecture has changed over timewithin the bicycle industry.
The first innovation within the bicycle industry was the invention of theDraisine, which, as there had been no bicycle or bicycle industry before it, was a radical
innovation. The second innovation was the invention of the Boneshaker, which was amodular innovation. Although the Boneshaker had the same product architecture as theDraisine, the pedals were attached to the front wheel and it contained new components.
While these changes had little impact on the appearance of the bicycle, they generated alarge change in its use, as they allowed riders to travel without kicking the ground.
Propelling the bicycle by pedals allowed riders to travel much faster than before withmuch less effort, thereby not only increasing speed but also decreasing fatigue. The third
innovation was the invention of the Ordinary, which was an incremental innovation. The
Ordinary had the same architecture as the Boneshaker and its pedals, saddle, crank, andframe were similar in appearance, but it had a much larger front wheel, of a maximum

11

diameter of about 170 centimeter. Owing to this innovation, the Ordinary allowed riders
to travel much faster than the older model bicycles.
The fourth innovation was the invention of the Safety bicycle. As the Safetybicycle differed widely from the Ordinary in terms of its components and architecture, its
invention was a radical innovation. Specifically, its chain and gear were assembled within
the frame, and its architecture altered to allow for rear wheel rather than front wheel drive.
Furthermore, the position of the saddle, which was located between the front and rear
wheel, affected the shape of the frame. Of all the changes and innovations in this era, themost important was the invention of the pneumatic tire, which greatly reduced groundvibration and determined the shape of the frame.
As shown in the case of bicycle, the components themselves evolved
dramatically until the dominant design, that of the Safety bicycle, ultimately emerged.
This component evolution generated architectural evolution, particularly in the transition
from the Ordinary to the Safety bicycle, in which both components and architecture canbe clearly seen to have evolved. The following proposition is developed on this basis:
Proposition 3: Dominant design emerges via evolution of both components andarchitecture.
5.3. Path of Design Evolution
Product design evolves along an industry’s design hierarchy and between competing
design paths (Suarez and Utterback, 1995). Although a variety of designs are created toembody a product concept, most are eliminated during the process of natural selection.
Simultaneously, product design outside the mainstream may have a significant impact on
the emergence of a dominant design. In the case of the bicycle industry, several important
product designs did not become dominant, among which three were particularly notable.
The first was the Kangaroo, which was invented as an evolution of the Ordinary with agear and chain drive system. While the Ordinary, thanks to its large front wheel, wassuperior in terms of speed relative to previous models, it lacked safety. To resolve thisproblem, the designer of the Kangaroo made the front wheel smaller and used a chain
drive system that enabled changing the gear ratio. Despite its partial success in decreasing
the number of complaints compared with former models, the Kangaroo disappeared after
a decade because it did not sufficiently satisfy the value standard of speed, safety, andcomfort.
The second model was the Whippet bicycle, which used an exceptionally uniquedesign, namely seven pivot points in its suspension design, to decrease ground vibration.
Although the Whippet bicycle was popular for about five years, it suddenly became
obsolete with the invention of the pneumatic tire, whose use in later models better
absorbed ground vibration compared with the use of the spring frame in the Whippet
bicycle. The third model was the tricycle, created in the era of the Ordinary by the additionof a wheel to a normal bicycle. Although the addition of a third wheel increased safety, it
increased the weight, thus compromising speed, as well as size, creating difficulty in its
easy storage in a typical rider’s garage. Due to these problems, the tricycle did not become
the dominant design.
As revealed in the discussion above, before a dominant design emerges, many
product designs are created to embody a product concept. However, almost all theseproduct designs are rendered obsolete because they do not exceed the threshold of the12value standard. On the basis of this observation, we developed the following proposition:
Proposition 4: In the emergent process of dominant design, many designs outside themainstream are generated and selected. The evolution of design is thus more of double
linear process rather than a singular linear process.
6. Conclusion
In summary, we analyzed the emergent process of dominant design using the case of thebicycle industry and developed several propositions based on the findings. Perhaps ourmost important contribution is clarification of the value standard as a concept that playsa critical role in the building of a dominant design and that it is affected by bothtechnological innovation and socio-political factors. We also clarified how a design thatexceeds the threshold of the value standard becomes the dominant design; how bothcomponent innovation and architectural innovation generate various designs, among
which one may emerge as the dominant design; and how alternative designs converge
with the dominant design under selection pressure.
This study faced several limitations that present opportunities for further research.
To address the focus on dominant design within a single industry, future research should
consider the applicability of the findings to other industries. Srinivasan, Lilien, andRangaswamt (2006) pointed out that the emergence of a dominant design is not common
across all industries. Another intriguing research direction is investigation of how thevalue standard is created or how technological innovation and socio-political factors
affect the value standard in an industry that does not have a dominant design.

13

References
Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative
destruction. Research policy, 14(1), pp. 3-22.
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology
review, 80, pp. 40-47.
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant
designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative science quarterly,
pp.604-633.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). MIT
Press.
Baum, J. A., Korn, H. J., & Kotha, S. (1995). Dominant designs and population dynamics intelecommunications services: Founding and failure of facsimile transmission service
organizations, 1965-1992. Social Science Research, 24(2), pp. 97-135.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnicalchange. The MIT Press.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: past research, present
findings, and future directions. Academy of management review, 20(2), pp. 343-378.
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms
to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Christensen, C. M., Suárez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. (1998). Strategies for survival in fastchanging industries. Management science, 44(12-part-2), pp. S207-S220.
Clark, K. B. (1985). The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts intechnological evolution. Research policy, 14(5), pp. 235-251.
Clark, K. B. & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy,organization, and management in the world auto industry. Harvard Business Press.
Counter, C. (1955). The History and Development of Cycles, London: Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office.
Cusumano, M. A., Mylonadis, Y., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1992). Strategic maneuvering andmass-market dynamics: The triumph of VHS over Beta. Business history review, 66(01),pp. 51-94.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy ofmanagement review, 14(4), pp. 532-550.
Galvin, P. (1999). Product modularity, information structures and the diffusion of innovation.
International Journal of Technology Management, 17(5), pp. 467-479.
Galvin, P., & Morkel, A. (2001). The effect of product modularity on industry structure: thecase of the world bicycle industry. Industry and Innovation, 8(1), pp. 31-48.
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: Thecase of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3), pp. 344-362.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Henderson, R. and K. Clark (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of
Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35 (1), pp. 9-30.
Herlihy, D. (2004). Bicycle: The History, New Haven: CT, Yale University Press.
Hounshell. D (1984) From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932: The
Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hughes, T. P. (1993). Networks of power: electrification in Western society, 1880-1930. JHU
Press.

14

Jenkins, M., & Floyd, S. (2001). Trajectories in the evolution of technology: A multi-levelstudy of competition in Formula 1 racing. Organization Studies, 22(6), pp. 945-969.
Khazam, J., & Mowery, D. (1994). The commercialization of RISC: strategies for the creationof dominant designs. Research Policy, 23(1), pp. 89-102.
Kobayashi, K. (2009). The history of Draisine and Michaux: 1817-1870. Bicycle Culture
Center Research Report, 2, pp. 31-90. (in Japanese)
Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of theliterature. Management science, 47(1), pp. 1-21.
Lay, M. G. (1992). Ways of the World: A History of the World's Roads and of the Vehicles
that Used Them. Rutgers university press.
Miller, R., Hobday, M., Leroux-Demers, T., & Olleros, X. (1995). Innovation in complex
systems industries: the case of flight simulation. Industrial and corporate change, 4(2),pp. 363-400.
Miyazaki, M. (2006). The Value change innovation process: an introduction to innovator’s
propaganda research, The Journal of science policy and research management, 31(3/4),
pp. 252-168, (in Japanese).
Murmann, J. P., & Frenken, K. (2006). Toward a systematic framework for research on
dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy,
35(7), pp. 925-952.
Nierop, O, A. Blankendaal and C. Overbeeke (1997). The Evolution of the Bicycle: A
Dynamic Systems Approach, Journal of Design History, 10 (3), pp. 253-267.
Pen, R. (2010). It’s All About the Bicycle, New York: Bloomsbury.
Pinch, T. and W. Bijker (1987). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How theSociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other, inBijker, W. T. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds) The Social Construction of Technological
System, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.19-50.
Rosenbloom, R. S., & Cusumano, M. A. (1987). Technological Pioneering and Competitive
Advantage: The Birth of the VCR Industry. California management review, 29(4), pp.
51-76.
Rosenkopf, L. Nerkar, A.(1999). On the complexity of technological evolution: Exploringcoevolution within and across hierarchical levels in optical disc technology. Variations
in Organization science. In: Honor of D. T. Campbell. Sage Publications, pp. 169-183.
Roy, R. (1986). Introduction: Design Evolution, Technological innovation and Economic
Growth, In Roy, R. and D. Wield. (eds) Product Design and Technological Innovation,
Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 2-7.
Sano, Y. (1980). Cultural history of a Bicycle, Bun-ichi. Co., Ltd. (in Japanese)
Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamt, A. (2006). The emergence of dominant designs.
Journal of Marketing, 70(2), pp. 1-17.
Suarez, F. and J. Utterback (1995). Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms, Strategic
Management Journal, 16 (6), pp. 415-430.
Tegarden, L. F., Hatfield, D. E., & Echols, A. E. (1999). Doomed from the start: What is thevalue of selecting a future dominant design?. Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), pp.
495-518.
Tompkins, E. (1981) The History of Pneumatic Tyre, Suffolk: the Lavenham Press Limtied.
Tushman, M. L., & Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational Determinants of TechnologicalChange-toward a Sociology of Technological Evolution. Research in organizational
behavior, 14, pp. 311-347.
Ulrich, K. (1995). The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm, Research
Policy, 24 (3), pp. 419-440.

15

Utterback, J. (1994) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston: Harvard University
Press.

16

Figure 1. Six early models of the bicycle in the 19th century. The Draisine is shown in the
middle figures and the Michaux bicycle in the bottom right figure. Reprinted withpermission of Science and Society Picture Library.

17

Figure 2. The “Rudge” Ordinary bicycle, 1884. Reprinted with permission of Science andSociety Picture Library.

18

Figure 3. Early models of the bicycle in the late 19th century. The tricycle is shown in thebottom figures. Reprinted with permission of Science and Society Picture Library.

19

Figure 4. The “Kangaroo” bicycle, 1878. Reprinted with permission of Science andSociety Picture Library.

20

Figure 5. The “Rover” Safety bicycle, 1885. Reprinted with permission of Science andSociety Picture Library.

21

Figure 6. The “Whippet” spring frame Safety bicycle, 1885. Reprinted with permissionof Science and Society Picture Library.

22