From Acting What’s next to Speeding Trap: Co-Evolutionary Dynamics of an Emerging Technology-Leader
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: How does technological innovation emerge and evolve? We approach such an inquiry by synthesizing the perspectives of dynamic capabilities and co-evolutionary dynamics to portray organizational routines and multi-phase strategic renewals of an emerging technology-leader. To untangle the emergence of technological innovation, we conducted a longitudinal case study on the first and the largest dedicated semiconductor foundry, TSMC, located in the emerging economy of Taiwan. The firm-case of TSMC illustrates two unique co-evolutionary paths, that is, transforming from industry-latecomer to technology-leader and from process innovation to product innovation. We found multi-motor co-evolutionary dynamics between TSMC and the semiconductor industry, where its co-evolutionary mechanism of managed selection in its creating phase of mature process-innovation (1987-1998) has migrated to hierarchical renewal in its extending phase of advanced process-innovation (1999-2001), and then to holistic renewal in its modifying phase of product-innovation (2002-2007). During such paths, our research discovered a unique type of organizational routines, acting what’s next because TSMC has proactively searched for potential problems sooner than its competitors. However, such routines, although driving technological innovation, also lead to a unique type of success-trap, that is, speeding trap. When
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".