Innovation as Guided Coevolution: The Trend Micro Case (1998 – 2005)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovation is considered crucial for firms to compete effectively. The extant research on innovation has provided significant insights, but, however, the majority examined innovation in the context of technology. Only a few exceptions have explored how social and behavioral factors influence firms in the innovation processes. Based on the coevolution perspective, this study examines innovation process of a software firm participating in the ever-changing information security software industry. We focused on how the firm guided its offerings to coevolve with new technologies and relevant changes among different groups of human actors. Our data reveals that the firm developed different offerings in different periods to cope with the changing driving forces—technologies, users, and hackers—in each period. Effectively identifying the driving forces and guided its offerings to coevolve with them, the firm successfully sustained its competitive advantage in the period characterized with turbulence in the environment.Keywords: innovation, coevolution, software, high-tech
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it