Dynamics of Reverse Salience as Technological Performance Gap: An Empirical Study of the Personal Computer Technology System


  • Ozgur Dedehayir Tampere University of Technology
  • Saku Juhani Mäkinen Tampere University of Technology




echnology system, personal computer, reverse salient, computer games


The evolution of technological systems is hindered by systemic components, referred to as reverse salients, which fail to deliver the necessary level of technological performance thereby inhibiting the performance delivery of the system as a whole. This paper develops a performance gap measure of reverse salience and applies this measurement in the study of the PC (personal computer) technological system, focusing on the evolutions of firstly the CPU (central processing unit) and PC game sub-systems, and secondly the GPU (graphics processing unit) and PC game sub-systems. The measurement of the temporal behavior of reverse salience indicates that the PC game sub-system is the reverse salient, continuously trailing behind the technological performance of the CPU and GPU sub-systems from 1996 through 2006. The technological performance of the PC game sub-system as a reverse salient trails that of the CPU sub-system by up to 2300 MHz with a gradually decreasing performance disparity in recent years. In contrast, the dynamics of the PC game sub-system as a reverse salient trails the GPU sub-system with an ever increasing performance gap throughout the timeframe of analysis. In addition, we further discuss the research and managerial implications of our findings.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Ozgur Dedehayir, Tampere University of Technology

Ozgur Dedehayir, M.Sc., is a Ph.D. candidate at the Tampere University of Technology (TUT), Finland. Currently he is a researcher at the Center for Innovation Technology and Research (CITER), at TUT. He holds a M.Sc. (Ind. Mngt.) from TUT and a B.Sc. (Eng.) from the University of Melbourne, Australia. His research interests include theory of technology and technology management.

Saku Juhani Mäkinen, Tampere University of Technology

Saku J. Mäkinen, PhD, is a Professor of Technology Management at the Department of Industrial Management, TUT. He received his M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and his PhD in Technology Strategy from TUT. Dr. Mäkinen has previously been at the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore and at the Australian Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales, Australia. His research interests include technology strategy, innovation management, and technology and industry co-evolution. He is Head of the Department and Director of the Center for Innovation and Technology Research (CITER, http://www.tut.fi/citer) at TUT.


ANDERSEN, B., 1998.The evolution of technological trajectories 1890-1990. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9, p.5-34.

ANDERSEN, B., 1999.The hunt for S-shaped growth paths in technological innovation:a patent study. Thejournal of Evolutionary Economics, 9, p.487-526.

ANDERSON J. & Tushman, M.L, 1990.Technological discontinuities and dominan designs: A cyclical model oftechnological change. Administrative Science Quarterly,35 (4), p.604-633.

BAYUS, B. L, 1998. An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in aTechnologically Dynamic Industry. Management Science, 44 (6), p.pp. 763-775.

CARLSSON, B. & Stankiewicz , R., 1991. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. The journal of Evolutionary economics, 1, p.93-118.

CHRISTENSEN, C. M., 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma,When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

CIBORRA, C. U. & Hanseth, O., 1998. From tool to Gestell Agendas for managing the information infrastructure. Information Technology & People. West Linn, 11(4).

DAHMÉN, E., 1989. Development blocks in industrial economics. In B. Carlsson, ed. Industrial dynamics. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 332.

DEN HOND, F, 1998.The 'similarity' and 'heterogeneity' theses in studying innovation: Evidence from the end-of-life vehicle case. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Abingdon, 10 (4).

DOSI, G., 1982.Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, p. 147-162.

DOSI, G., 1988. Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26 (3), p. 1120-1171.

DOSI, G. & Grazzi, M., 2006.Technologies as problem-solving procedures and technologies as input-output relations: some perspectives on the theory of production. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15 (I).

FOSTER, R.N., 1986. lnnovation:The Attacker's Advantage. New York, USA: Summit Books.

FRANSMAN, M., 2001. Analysing the evolution of industry. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 10 (2), p. 109-141.

GAWER, A. & Cusumano, M.A., 2002. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

GEELS, F.W., 2006. Co-evolutionary and multilevel dynamics in transitions: The transformation of aviation systems and the shift from propeller to turbojet (1930-1970). Technovation, 26 (9), p.999-1016.

GEYER,A. & Davies, A., 2000. Managing project-system interfaces: case studies of railway projects in restructured UK and German markets. Research Policy, 29 (7), p. 991 -1013.

HEIDEGGER, M., 1977. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

HUGHES J. R, 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. USA:The John Hopkins University Press.

HUGHES, T R, 1987. The Evolution of Large Technological Systems. In W. E. Bijker J. R Hughes & T R Pinch, eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. USA:The MIT Press. p. 51 -82.

HUGHES J. R, 1994.Technological Momentum. ln M.R. Smith & L Marx, eds. DoesTechnology Drive History? USA:The MIT Press. p. 101-113.

KATZ, M. L. & Shapiro, C, 1985. Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. The American Economic Review, 15 (3), p.424-440.

KEIL,T.,Autio, E. & Robertson, R, 1997. Embeddedness, power, control and innovation in the telecommunications sector.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9 (3), p.299-316.

MACKENZIE, D, 1987. Missile accuracy: a case study in the social processes of technological change. In W E. Bijker J. R Hughes & T. J. Pinch, eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. USA:The MIT Press. p. 195-222.

MARKARD J. & Truffer, B., 2006. Innovation processes in large technical systems: Market liberalization as a driver for radical change? Research Policy, 35 (5), p.609-625.

MULDER, K. & Knot, M., 2001. PVC plastic: a history of systems development and entrenchment. Technology in Society, 23, p.265-286.

MURMANN J. R & Frenken, K., 2006.Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs,technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy, 35, p.925-952.

NELSON, R. R. & Winter, S. G., 1982. An EvolutionaryTheory of Economic Change. Harvard:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

ROSENBERG, N., 1976. Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SCHUMPETER J.A., 1939. Business cycles. A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process, vol I and vol. II. New York: McGraw-Hill.

TAKEISHI,A. & Lee, K.-J., 2005. Mobile music business in Japan and Korea: copyright management institutions as a reverse salient. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14, p.291-306.

TEECE, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, p.285-305.




How to Cite

Dedehayir, O., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2008). Dynamics of Reverse Salience as Technological Performance Gap: An Empirical Study of the Personal Computer Technology System. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3(3), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242008000100006



Research Articles