Strategies of innovation in an ancient business: cases of the fountain pen industry

nt. J. Economics and Business Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, 201

Strategies of innovation in an ancient business:

cases of the fountain pen industry

Marcos Ferasso*

Federal University of Parana,

Av. Lothário Meissner, 632, Jd. Botânico,

Curitiba – PR, 80210-170, Brazil

Email: admmarcos@admmarcos.adm.br

*Corresponding author

Ivan Antonio Pinheiro

Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul,

R. Washington Luiz, 855, Centro Histórico,

Porto Alegre – RS, 90010-460, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Christine da Silva Schröeder

Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre,

R. Sarmento Leite, 245, Porto Alegre – RS, 90050-170, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The introduction of the ballpoint pen and its consequent change in

the prevalent fountain pen industry is presented as an empirical evidence of

Christensen’s disruptive technology theory. This research paper analyses the

different innovation strategies adopted by the fountain pen industry to survive

to the attack of ballpoint pen spread. To meet this objective, case studies of

Waterman, Montblanc and Parker companies are discussed. The data, collected

from secondary sources, indicate that the fountain pen industry had a great

reduction in their sales and later stabilised at a lower level by stressing their

positioning at the luxury goods market, but also adopting and transforming the

new ballpoint technology. The analysis of this cases leads to the conclusion that

the ballpoint pen is truly a good example of Christensen’s disruptive

technology because it contains all of Schumpeter’s types of innovation.

Keywords: strategies of innovation; management of technology; ancient

business; fountain pen industry; luxury goods market; Parker Pen Co.;

Waterman Pen Co.; Montblanc Pen Co.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ferasso, M., Pinheiro, I.A.

and Schröeder, C.d.S. (2017) ‘Strategies of innovation in an ancient business:

cases of the fountain pen industry’, Int. J. Economics and Business Research,

Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.73–84.

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by Lume 5.8

. Ferasso et al.

Biographical notes: Marcos Ferasso earned his Bachelor Diploma in

Management from the University of the West of Santa Catarina, Brazil in 2002,

his specialisation Diploma in Business Management from the University of the

West of Santa Catarina, Brazil in 2005, specialisation Diploma in Local

Development from the International Labour Organization/United Nations, Italy

in 2006, and earned his MSc in Management from the Federal University of

Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil in 2009, with an exchange period as a Visiting

Researcher at the Euromed-Marseille Ecole de Management, France. Currently,

he is a PhD candidate at the Graduate Program in Management, Federal

University of Parana, Brazil with an exchange period as a Visiting Researcher

at the Forsyth Technical Community College, USA. His research interests

include innovation, knowledge management, clusters, small enterprises,

strategy, local/regional development, and luxury market.

Ivan Antonio Pinheiro received his Bachelor in Statistics, Bachelor in

Economics, MSc in Management in 1994 and Doctorate in Management in

2000 from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Currently, he is

a retired Professor from the School of Management – UFRGS. His current

research interests include innovation management and public management.

Christine da Silva Schröeder received her Bachelor in Management, MSc in

Management in 2005 and Doctorate in Management in 2009 from the Federal

University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Currently, she is a Professor at the

Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre. Her current research

interests include strategic management, distance learning and public

management.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Strategies

of innovation in an ancient business: cases of the fountain pen industry’

presented at The 17th International Conference on Management of

Technology – IAMOT, Dubai, UAE, 6–10 April 2008.

1 Introduction

The writing instruments market had a great change around the mid-20th century when the

fountain pen industry was attacked by introduction of the ballpoint pen. The objective of

this paper, based on theories of sustainable and disruptive innovations, is to analyse the

different innovation strategies adopted by the fountain pen industry to survive to the

attack of ballpoint pen spread.

The fountain pen industry started about the mid-19th century and sales continue to

grow until the 1950s, when they had a great decline with the appearance of the ballpoint

pen. Initially, the fountain pen industry reacted through a policy of price reduction. In the

meantime, the ballpoint pen industry also had a price decline while the fountain pen

seemed doomed to extinction. In fact, many enterprises did not survive, others were

bought and a few giant companies remained. The fountain pen industry was able to make

a comeback, not to the previous level, but to a steady level of sales that prevails until

today. The paper presents the survival strategies used by three of the most prestigious and

ancient fountain pen companies still in activity today (see Appendix).

This paper discusses Schumpeter’s (1985) concepts of innovation, the theories of

sustainable innovation (Christensen, 1999; Christensen and Raynor, 2003; Christensen,

Strategies of innovation in an ancient business 75

2004) and disruptive innovation (Utterback and Acee, 2005). It is followed by a brief

presentation of the fountain pen and ballpoint history. Then, we present the three case

studies of the strategies used by Waterman, Montblanc, and Parker. The data was

collected from academic articles, industry history books, websites, and published

interviews. It considers what can happen with long established enterprises when a new

product is introduced in the market, forcing them to adopt new innovation strategies for

products and markets. The final section presents the conclusions.

2 Sustainable and disruptive innovation

Schumpeter (1985) said that innovation can occur in the introduction of a new product,

new production method, opening of a new market, acquisition of a new source of raw

material or the half-manufactured goods or reorganise an industry. Meanwhile,

Christensen (1999) classified innovations as sustainable and disruptive.

Sustainable innovation maintains a development trajectory on the established market

by offering new attributes to products already known by consumers. This innovation

tends to maintain a constant level of sales growth. According to Christensen and Raynor

(2003), sustainable innovation occurs to meet the exigencies of sophisticated customers.

There are some sustainable innovations in form of periodically improvements that

enterprises can introduce on its own products.

Disruptive innovation introduces new and different products valued by consumers

and tends to create new markets. A disruptive technology is typically cheaper, simpler to

use versions of existing products that target low-end or entirely new customers. The

theory of disruptive innovation underlines the situations in which organisations may

utilise innovations in a relatively simple and convenient way and with low costs to

generate growth to win over the powerful established enterprises (Christensen, 2004).

The disruptive technology theory presented by Christensen and modified by

Utterback and Acee (2005) states that when there is a new entrant placing a new product

in the market, established firms have greater survival odds. The basic problem seems to

be that although they have competence to adopt the new technology they continue to

make their heaviest commitments to the old technology, which reaches the zenith of their

development only after they are mortally threatened. Those firms continue to make added

commitments to developing old products even after their sales had begun to rapidly

decline. Their explanation for this difficulty is that, decisions about allocating resources

to old and new technologies within the organisation are loaded with implications for the

decision makers; not only are old product lines threatened, but also old skills and

positions of influence (Utterback and Acee, 2005).

Utterback and Acee (2005, p.4) said that “… to some extent the renewal of the old

may in part be a function of its adopting and incorporating the new, but as a defensive

measure …”. A second explanation is that: “… the resurgence of the old may be a

function of picking up opportunities that have lain fallow when just incremental

improvement seemed to suffice”. They also present another alternative explanation: “…

many market niches for an older technology may be protected for a long period of time.

These would necessarily be the niches in which it has the greatest advantages over the

disruptive technology … Since improvement would have greater value in these niches,

. Ferasso et al.

one might actually observe more rapid advance in the traditional technology for that

reason”.

All those concepts and theories can be applied to the fountain pen industry to explain

what happened with this sector to be seeing in the next sections.

3 Fountain pen versus ballpoint pen industry

The fountain pen’s design came after a thousand years of using quill-pens.

Lewis Waterman patented the first practical fountain pen in 1884 (Lambrou, 2005). There

were previous models but Waterman’s was the first one not plagued by ink spills and

other failures that left them impractical and hard to sell. The ink cartridge introduced

around 1950 was a disposable, pre-filled plastic or glass cartridges designed for clean and

easy insertion. They were an immediate success (Pennenlux, 2007). Around the same

year, the ballpoint pen was launched in the market.

The decades that followed saw many technological innovations in the manufacture of

fountain pens. Celluloid gradually replaced hard rubber, which enabled production in a

much wider range of colours and designs. At the same time, manufacturers experimented

with new filling systems. The inter-war period saw the introduction of some of the most

notable models, such as the Parker Duofold and Vacumatic, Sheaffer’s Lifetime Balance

series, and the Pelikan 100 (Lambrou, 2005).

Laszlo Biro invented the ballpoint pen in 1938. Biro had noticed that the type of ink

used in newspaper printing dried quickly, leaving the paper dry and smudge-free. He

decided to create a pen using the same type of ink. The thicker ink would not flow from a

regular pen nib and Biro had to devise a new type of point. He did so by fitting his pen

with a tiny ball bearing in its tip. As the pen moved along the paper, the ball rotated

picking up ink from the ink cartridge and leaving it on the paper. This principle of the

ballpoint pen dates to an 1888 patent owned by John J. Loud for a product to mark

leather. However, this patent was commercially unexploited. Laszlo Biro first patented

his pen in 1938, and applied for a fresh patent in Argentina on June 10, 1943. Laszlo Biro

and his brother Georg Biro immigrated to Argentina in 1940. The British Government

bought the licensing rights to this patent for the war effort. The British Royal Air Force

needed a new type of pen, one that would not leak at higher altitudes in fighter planes as

the fountain pen did. Their successful performance for the Air Force brought the Biro

pens into the limelight. Laszlo Biro had neglected to get a US patent for his pen and so,

even with the ending of World War II, another battle was just beginning (Pennenlux,

2007).

Ballpoint pens guaranteed to write for two years without refilling, claimed to be

smear proof. Reynolds advertised it as the pen ‘to write under water’. Eversharp sued

Reynolds for copying the design it had acquired legally. Nevertheless, the Reynolds’ pen

leaked, skipped and often failed to write. Eversharp’s pen did not live up to its own

advertisements. A very high volume of pen returns occurred for both Eversharp and

Reynolds. The ballpoint pen fad ended – due to consumer unhappiness (Pennenlux,

2007).

BIC dominates the market. Parker, Sheaffer and Waterman, capture the smaller

upscale markets of fountain pens and expensive ballpoints. Biro is still the generic name

used for the ballpoint pen in most of the world. The Biro pens used by the British Air

Force in World War II worked (Pennenlux, 2007).

Strategies of innovation in an ancient business 77

The fountain pen and ballpoint pen history had a different trajectory (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Sales of fountain pens and ballpoint pens – in millions of units (1929–1999)

(see online version for colours)

Source: Modis (2003, p.26)

The substitution of fountain pens for ballpoint pens as main writing instrument went

through four distinct stages that we identified in Modis’ (1997) figure data from various

sources and that are explained according to our review of the literature.

1 Period 1929–1949 – Fountain pen was the most important writing instrument. After

the crash of 1929, sales of fountain pen started to increase.

2 Period 1950–1958 – There was a decrease in the sales of fountain pens followed by a

growth period that culminated in 1958 with largest ever number of fountain pen sold.

It was during this period that the ballpoint pen market started to grow, mainly due

the sales of the BIC Company.

The ballpoint pen can be characterised as what Christensen would call a disruptive

technology that was introduced in the writing instruments market. The reaction of the

fountain pen industry was to try with the same technology solely by decreasing the

prices to win over the new competitor. Utterback and Acee (2005) explained long

established industries tend to ignore the signs of the market and avoid changing an

old and familiar technology. This fact is highlighted in the next period.

3 Period 1959–1974 – The fountain pens sales decreased to the lowest performance in

1974. Among the most prestigious companies listed by Narayanan (2005), five of

them – Conklin, Thomas de la Rue, Kaweco, Mabie Todd, Moore – disappeared

from the market (see the Appendix). This period showed a change in the strategy

used by the surviving fountain pen companies which started to incorporate ballpoint

pens among their products.

As Utterback and Acee (2005) explained, the incorporation of the new technology

can be a defensive strategy that helps to survive the attack of a disruptive technology.

This was the case of the fountain pen companies that survived.

. Ferasso et al.

4 Period 1987–present – The fountain pen industry positions itself in the luxury goods

market niche and their sales stabilised. Presently, according to Pennenlux (2007),

“The highly popular modern version of Laszlo Biro’s pen, the BIC Crystal, has a

daily worldwide sales figure of 14,000,000 pieces”.

Although data was not found for sales in recent years it is quite probable that the

number of sold fountain pens stabilised, while their unit price substantially increased

justified by the number of incremental innovations presented annually by the

industry. The innovations in the ballpoint pen industry are also substantially

numbered but the price is continually going down. These differences are determined

by the different market niches that the two types of pens are in whose details are

discussed in the following sections when we explore how the fountain pen sector

reacted to the introduction of the ballpoint pen. For this purpose, as announced, we

review the history of three companies that are widely known as giants of the fountain

pen industry: Waterman, Montblanc, and Parker.

4 Cases of the fountain pen industry

4.1 Waterman Company

Before setting up his first ‘factory’ in 1883, Lewis Edson Waterman invented what he

called a ‘real’ fountain pen (Waterman Co., 2007). In the course of one year, six dozen

pens were handmade, to which Waterman personally signed a five-year guarantee against

any defects. In June, Waterman applied for a US patent on his invention, which was

granted on February 12, 1884 (Joonpens, 2007a).

In 1890, Waterman continued experimenting and creating new designs for his pens

that became more than just reliable writing instruments; they were objets d’art. In the

year 1901, at age 64, Waterman passed away. Frank D. Waterman, Lewis Waterman’s

nephew, decided to carry on and extend the Waterman name by crossing the Atlantic to

conquer Europe (Joonpens, 2007a).

In the 1930s, having been slow to respond to technical and stylistic innovations by the

competition, Waterman began to lose ground. During the later ‘40s and the ‘50s, the

company really ran out of gas, and the remains of the US Waterman operations were

finally sold to BIC in 1959, forming the basis of that French firm’s American production

facilities (Conner, 2007a).

When BIC paid $1 million, in 1958, to acquire a 60% stake in the Waterman, it had

fallen on hard times with the skyrocketing sales of ballpoint pens in the 1950s. Following

the acquisition, BIC discovered the full extent of Waterman’s financial problems – and

added the remaining 40% as part of the original purchase price. The US operation then

took on the name of Waterman-BIC Pen Corporation. The company’s entry into the

USA, where the BIC was launched as the BIC Stick, was backed by a highly successful

advertising campaign based on the slogan, ‘writes first time, every time’ (Answers.com,

2007a). This show that the new American owners stressed practicality rather than design

or craftsmanship, Waterman’s pen lost its image of objets d’art.

The same marketing orientation was followed by Gillette, which bought the pen

manufacturer in 1987 and has been selling the pens at discount outlets in the USA. Wise

(1988) informs that although the sales increased by 40% since the Gillette takeover,

Strategies of innovation in an ancient business 79

Mrs. Gomez, the resigning Waterman’s CEO, complained that Gillette’s American

marketing strategy is devaluing the image of luxury that she had carefully crafted for

Waterman in France.

In 2000, Waterman was bought by Sanford Corporation that presents itself as a global

leader in the writing instrument and art supply industry (Sanford, 2007). Sanford

Corporation belongs to the segment of Office Products of the Newell Rubbermaid Inc.

(Newell Rubbermaid, 2007).

Waterman brand is still treasured by collectors and small class of users of high quality

pens but by its insertion in a mass market oriented group, it is selling its pens not only in

high class outlets as used to be, but also in retailers that can assure more volume of sales.

4.2 Montblanc Company

In 1906, in Hamburg, Claus-Johannes Voss, Alfred Nehemias, and August Eberstein

founded the Simplo Filler Pen Company, to produce fountain pens. In 1909, a technically

improved fountain pen called Montblanc was introduced, and was registered as a

trademark, used for all writing instruments produced by the company (Montblanc, 2007).

In 1913, the Montblanc star, representing the snow-covered peak of Mont Blanc,

becomes the brand signet for all the writing instruments produced by the Simplo Filler

Pen Company. This artisan’s device stood for commitment to the highest quality and

finest European craftsmanship (Montblanc, 2007).

The launch of the Meisterstück, what would come to be the world’s most famous and

easily recognised writing instrument, took place in 1924. Montblanc (2007) kept pace,

swiftly expanding into more than 60 different countries as an almost ubiquitous name.

In 1934, the company officially assumed the appellative that had already become an

internationally known brand, and took the corporate name, Montblanc Simplo GmbH.

The company took over a producer of fine leather goods in Offenbach, Germany:

Thenceforth, desk accessories were produced under the Montblanc (2007) name.

Montblanc launched in 1955 the ‘60 Line’ that represented an entirely new design

style, constituting the first major success in the post-war period alongside the traditional

Meisterstück series. Several years of commercial business consolidation were to follow.

Then, as other industries, and even sister pen manufacturers, seemed to have been

anesthetised by emerging computerisation technologies, a breakthrough marketing

concept leapt out of Montblanc’s corporate offices (Joonpens, 2007b).

The introduction of the ballpoint pen in 1951 must have had an impact on Montblanc

that is not recognised even today in Montblanc’s history. Fans of the brand, such as

Renfer (2007), say that Montblanc was hesitant to enter the ballpoint market, so it hired

an outside firm Ballograf to produce its pens. The company did not start to produce its

own ballpoints until 1957. The ‘70s brought some aggressive styles to the Montblanc pen

range (Renfer, 2007).

Montblanc made less expensive pens under ‘junior’ brands like Monterosa, but by the

1970s, the Montblanc name found its way onto pens at most price points. The year 1977

was a turning point for Montblanc, as they were taken over by Dunhill of London.

Thenceforth, the lower-priced pens were dropped from the line as the company focused

on its luxury offerings. In 1988, both Dunhill and Montblanc were absorbed by the Swiss

luxury-goods combine Richemont (Answers.com, 2007b).

. Ferasso et al.

As the new millennium opened, Montblanc has a characteristic, its frequently

launching of new collections of writing instruments. Over the decades, Montblanc has

created limited masterpieces and special editions with precious materials, such as

mother-of-pearl, little pieces of meteorites, gold, silver, precious stones, and many others.

Montblanc Company associates its pens to jewels.

4.3 Parker Company

George Parker had a simple yet ambitious aim: to make a better pen. And that single,

simple vision has powered the Parker Pen Company ever since. In 1888, the Parker Pen

Company was founded. In the following year, the first Parker Pen was produced and

patented. However, that was only the beginning. Parker’s dream of creating better pens

led to the major innovation in 1894: the ‘Lucky Curve’. This system dramatically reduced

the leakage that was a hazard of early fountain pens. 1921 was the year in which Parker’s

famous icon was born – the Parker Duofold. Although it was considerably larger and

more expensive than pens of the time, the Duofold was an instant success (Joonpens,

2007c).

During the Great Depression, many smaller pen companies disappeared as others fell

into bankruptcy. Many pen companies decided the next best move was to sell their pens

at huge discounts, flooding the markets with cheap pens. Parker decided not to

compromise and continued to sell their pens at the price it’s had originally set. Many of

its older customers appreciated this move as Parker believed its pens had to hold an

image – this image which reflected Parker’s vision and dreams. In 1939, the first Parker

51 was produced and went on to be a global best-seller, topping the other three American

pen companies of that time which survived the Great Depression: Sheaffer, Waterman,

and Eversharp (Joonpens, 2007c).

In 1954, Parker’s first ball pen, the Jotter, was produced. It was the reaction of

Parker’s company against the introduction of the ballpoint pen in 1951. After waiting

almost nine years to enter the ballpoint market Parker put the Jotter into production in

just 90 days (Pentrace, 2007; Parker Co., 2007).

In 1964, the Parker 75 brought a new level of craftsmanship to pens of the era,

combining the latest technologies with traditional skills. In celebration of its 100 years of

history, 1987 marked the time when Parker returned to its famous icon, the Duofold, by

creating the Duofold Centennial Edition. 1993 saw the introduction of the Sonnet

Collection, which has since become as much a signature of Parker as the Duofold before

it. In 2002, Parker Special Edition 51 combined the classic futuristic styling of the ‘51’

with the very latest pen technology. In 2004, Parker 100 became the face of Parker for the

21st century, with a combination of avant-garde looks and an affectionate reinterpretation

of the styling of its predecessor, the ‘51 (Joonpens, 2007c; Parker Co., 2007).

Parker, with Sheaffer, was one of the few US firms left standing after the winnowing

of the fountain pen industry during the 1950s and ‘60s, thanks to its remaining active in

the low-price market. Most recently, Parker has changed hands a couple of times;

first, they were acquired by Gillette – who had previously purchased Waterman

(Conner, 2007b).

In 2000, Parker was bought by Sanford Corporation, which presents itself as a global

leader in the writing instrument and art supply industry (Sanford, 2007). Sanford

Corporation belongs to the segment of Office Products of the Newell Rubbermaid Inc.

(Newell Rubbermaid, 2007). Parker’s pens are more related to the design and comfort in

Strategies of innovation in an ancient business 81

writing. There are new and recent collections that pay attention to the ergonomics,

design, and modern forms to attract young customers.

5 Discussion and conclusions

In this section, we analyse the three cases and the impact of the introduction of the

ballpoint pen in the writing instruments industry in what is concerned with technological

and marketing strategies. The final statement presents the relationship between

Schumpeter’s concepts of innovation and Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory.

5.1 Technological strategies

Regarding to the technology, the three companies first reacted by a remaining with the

old technology but with a price reduction and, later, on by incorporating new lines of

products with the ballpoint technology. However, to stay in line with their positioning in

the market, they transform the ballpoint in to luxury goods.

The fountain pen industry competed with a price reduction, but it was impossible to

produce a fountain pen with all advantages and facility of usage of the ballpoint pen. Few

giants survived such as Waterman, Montblanc, and Parker. These industries needed to

change their strategic focus by changing the essence’s product (fountain pens) to others

associations. Montblanc associated their products to jewels in form of a pen or an object

of art, Waterman stressed craftsmanship and design, and Parker maintained the

production of luxury pens with high technical quality. However, since sales continued to

decrease, the three companies had to adopt the ballpoint technology adapting it to their

luxury segment.

In order to maintain its position, Montblanc had to introduce frequent innovations in

design and new and expensive materials, what Schumpeter considers as innovation.

Innovation is also in order in the two other companies, not only in the fountain pen

but also in the ballpoint pen technology since they are in the highly competitive market.

5.2 Marketing strategies

Among the writing instruments, the fountain pen was in the luxury goods niche since its

invention in the 19th century. Most of the small number of literate people used pencils

since only rich people could buy fountain pens. The invention of the ballpoint pen in the

‘50s with its low price for the first time made an ink writing instrument available to all

classes making a dent on the fountain pen market.

The introduction of the ballpoint pens its very good empirical evidence of what

Christensen call disruptive technology. It is also evidence of different types of

innovation, as defined by Schumpeter (1985), since the fountain pen industry had to

change the focus from product innovation to consciously pursue a marketing innovation

opening of a new market and reorganising the industry.

Although, after the attack of the ballpoint pen, all the three fountain pen companies

positioned themselves in the luxury goods segment and stabilised their sales but in order

to maintain their sales position they still had to make new adjustments.

. Ferasso et al.

After the acquisition of Waterman and Parker by Sanford Corporation, they entered in

the segment of high quality office products (see Figure 2). It is important to notice the

influence of the corporate group in the marketing strategy of both companies, changing

their distribution channels and the product technology.

Montblanc, acquired by the Richemont Group a corporation group oriented to the

luxury goods market, continued in its niche.

Figure 2 Reorganisation of the writing instruments industry: acquisitions of Waterman, Parker,

and Montblanc

The analysis of this cases leads to the conclusion that the ballpoint pen is truly a good

example of Christensen’s disruptive technology because it contains all of Schumpeter’s

types of innovation. There was a new product in the writing instruments industry with the

introduction of the ballpoint pen; introduced new processes of production of ink writing

instruments; opened a new market; forced the search of new materials both for fountain

and ballpoint pens; and forced the reorganisation of the writing instruments industry

creating two main market sectors of in the fountain pen industry: the luxury goods and

the high-quality office products.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to valuable contribution and ideas of Professor Emeritus

Edi Madalena Fracasso.

References

Answers.com (2007a) Société BIC [online] http://www.answers.com/topic/soci-t-bic?cat=biz-fin

(accessed 20 December 2007).

Answers.com (2007b) Montblanc International GmbH [online] http://www.answers.com/topic/

montblanc-international-gmbh?cat=biz-fin (accessed 20 December 2007).

Christensen, C.M. (1999) Innovation and the General Management, Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Christensen, C.M. (2004) Seeing What’s Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry

Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, M.E. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining

Successful Growth, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Conner, R.C. (2007a) Waterman’s [online] http://www.rickconner.net/penoply/wa.0.html (accessed

20 December 2007).

Strategies of innovation in an ancient business 83

Conner, R.C. (2007b) Parker Pens [online] http://www.rickconner.net/penoply/park.0.html

(accessed 20 December 2007).

Joonpens (2007a) Waterman History [online] http://www.joonpens.com/upload/Waterman_

history.php (accessed 20 December 2007).

Joonpens (2007b) Montblanc History [online] http://www.joonpens.com/upload/Montblanc_

history.php (accessed 20 December 2007).

Joonpens (2007c) Parker History [online] http://www.joonpens.com/upload/Parker_history.php

(accessed 20 December 2007).

Lambrou, A. (2005) Fountain Pens of the World, Classic Pens, Los Angeles.

Modis, T. (1997) ‘Genetic re-engineering of corporations’, Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp.107–118.

Modis, T. (2003) ‘A scientific approach to managing competition’, The Industrial Physicist,

February/March, pp.22–23.

Montblanc (2007) Montblanc History [online] http://www.montblanc.com (accessed 20 December

2007).

Narayanan, V. (2005) ‘Patent and trademark history in the fountain pen industry’ [online]

http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/narayana/Academics/Intellectual_Property/termpaper.pdf

(accessed 20 December 2007).

Newell Rubbermaid (2007) Segment Overview [online] http://www.newellrubbermaid.com/

newellco/global/segment.jhtml?id=id1 (accessed 20 December 2007).

Parker Co. (2007) Parker History [online] http://www.parkerpen.com/en/discovery/making_of/

timeline (accessed 20 December 2007).

Pennenlux (2007) History of Writing Instruments [online] http://www.pennenlux.com/History%

20of%20Writing%20Instruments_part2.htm (accessed 20 December 2007).

Pentrace (2007) Parker Jotter 50th Anniversary [online] http://www.pentrace.net/penbase/Data_

Returns/full_article.asp?id=450 (accessed 20 December 2007).

Renfer, M. (2007) History of the Montblanc Firm [online] http://www.montblancs.net/history.html

Sanford (2007) Sanford [online] http://www.sanfordcorp.com/sanford/consumer/jhtml/aboutus/

sanford_about_us_22.jhtml (accessed 20 December 2007).

Schumpeter, J.A. (1985) A teoria do desenvolvimento econômico, Abril, São Paulo.

Utterback, J.M. and Acee, H.J. (2005) ‘Disruptive technologies: an expanded view’, International

Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.1–17.

Waterman Co. (2007) Waterman History [online] http://www.waterman.com (accessed

20 December 2007).

Wise, D. (1988) ‘Waterman rift: a tearful farewell’, The New York Times [online] http://query.

nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DB1F38F935A25751C1A96E948260&sec=

&spon= (accessed 16 December 2007).

. Ferasso et al.

Appendix

Table A1 Major fountain pen companies

Company Year of foundation Present status Country

Waterman 1882 Active France

Parker 1891 Active UK

Montblanc 1906 Active Germany

Montegrappa 1912 Active Italy

Omas 1919 Active Italy

Aurora 1919 Active Italy

Namiki 1924 Active Japan

Mabie Todd 1860s 1958, closed Anglo-American

Thomas de la Rue 1881 1957, closed UK

Kaweco 1892 1970, closed Germany

Moore 1898 1950s, closed USA

Conklin 1898 1940s, closed USA

Whitworth 1910 1915, closed UK

Le Boeuf 1918 1936, closed USA

Dunn 1921 1924, closed USA

Source: Adapted from Narayanan (2005)