Content uploaded by Marcos Ferasso
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcos Ferasso on Jan 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
International Association for Management of Technology
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
STRATEGIES OF INNOVATION IN AN ANCIENT BUSINESS:
CASES OF THE FOUNTAIN PEN INDUSTRY
MARCOS FERASSO
PPGA/EA-UFRGS, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Rua Washington Luis, 855 – Porto Alegre – RS, 90010-460, Brazil.
E-mail: mferasso@ea.ufrgs.br
EDI MADALENA FRACASSO
PPGA/EA-UFRGS, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Washington Luis, 855 – Porto Alegre – RS, 90010-460, Brazil.
E-mail: emfracasso@ea.ufrgs.br
IVAN ANTONIO PINHEIRO
PPGA/EA-UFRGS, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Washington Luis, 855 – Porto Alegre – RS, 90010-460, Brazil.
E-mail: iapinheiro@ea.ufrgs.br
The introduction of the ballpoint pen and its consequent change in the prevalent fountain pen industry is also presented as an
empirical evidence of Christensen’s disruptive technology theory. In this article besides discussing the Schumpeterian’s concepts
of innovation, it is mainly concerned with the different strategies adopted by the fountain pen industry to survive the attack by the
ballpoint pen. Meeting this objective, the case studies of Waterman, Montblanc and Parker are discussed in the light of
innovation theories and their survival strategies. The data was collected from secondary sources such as academic articles,
writing instruments industry history books, websites and published interviews. The data indicate that the fountain pen industry
had a great reduction in their sales and later stabilized at a lower level by stressing their positioning at the luxury goods market,
but also adopting and transforming the new ballpoint technology. More recently, Montblanc with continuous innovations in
design and materials continued in the luxury goods while Waterman and Parker also with innovations in both technologies have a
niche in the high class office products segment. The analysis of these 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 reorganization 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.
Keywords: Strategies of innovation. Management of technology. Ancient business. Fountain pen industry.
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 explain the survival of the fountain pen industry.
The fountain pen industry started about the mid-19th century and sales continue to grow until the 1950’s,
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
Marcos Ferasso, Edi Madalena Fracasso & Ivan Antonio Pinheiro
bought and a few giant companies remained. The fountain pen industry was able to make a return, 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 A.1).
This paper discusses Schumpeter’s concepts of innovation (1985), the theories of sustainable innovation
(Christensen, 1999, 2003, 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, web sites 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 some new innovation strategies for products
and markets. The final section presents the conclusions.
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 reorganize 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 (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
organizations may use innovations in a relatively simple and convenient way and also with low costs to generate
growth to win over the powerful established enterprises (CHRISTENSEN et al., 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 organization 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
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
the niches in which it has the greatest advantages over the disruptive technology … Since improvement would
have greater value in these niches, one might actually observe more rapid advance in the traditional technology
for that reason” (Utterback and Acee, 2005, p. 4).
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.
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 colors and
designs. At the same time, manufacturers experimented 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 (Wikipedia, 2007).
The ballpoint pen was invented by a Laszlo Biro, 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 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
actually dates back 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 U.S. 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).
Marcos Ferasso, Edi Madalena Fracasso & Ivan Antonio Pinheiro
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.
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’ Figure (1997) data from various sources and that are explained
according to our review of the literature.
(i) Period 1929-1949 – Fountain pen was the most important writing instrument. After the crash of 1929, sales
of fountain pen started to increase.
(ii) 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 characterized 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.
(iii) 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
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
Todd, Moore – disappeared from the market (see A.1). 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.
(iv) Period 1987-present – The fountain pen industry positions itself in the luxury goods market niche and their
sales stabilized. Presently, according to Pennenlux (2007), “The highly popular modern version of Laszlo Biro's
pen, the BIC Crystal, has a daily world wide 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 stabilized, 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. Those 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.
Cases of the fountain pen industry
Waterman Company
Before setting up his first “factory” in 1883, Lewis Edson Waterman invented what he called a “real”
fountain pen (Waterman, 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, 2007[a]).
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, 2007[a]).
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 U.S. Waterman operations were finally sold to BIC in 1959, forming the basis of that French
firm's American production facilities (Rickconner, 2007).
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 U.S. operation then took on the name of Waterman-BIC Pen Corporation. The company's entry into the
United States, 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, 2007[a]). This shows that the new
American owners stressed practicality rather than design or craftsmanship, Waterman’s pen lost its image of
objets d´art.
Marcos Ferasso, Edi Madalena Fracasso & Ivan Antonio Pinheiro
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 United States. Wise (1988) informs that although the
sales increased by 40% since the Gillette takeover, 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.
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
signed 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, that would become the world's most famous and easily recognized
writing instrument, took place in 1924. Montblanc kept pace, swiftly expanding into more than 60 different
countries as an almost ubiquitous name (Montblanc, 2007).
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
name (Montblanc, 2007).
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 anesthetized by emerging computerization technologies, a breakthrough marketing concept
leapt out of Montblanc’s corporate offices. (Joonpens, 2007[b]).
The introduction of the ballpoint pen in 1951 must have had an impact on Montblanc that is not
recognized 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 70's 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 thought 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
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
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, 2007[b]).
As the new millennium opened, Montblanc has a frequently characteristic on launching 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.
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. The year of 1921 was the date 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, 2007[c]).
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 its pens at the originally price 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, 2007[c]).
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, 2007).
In 1964, the Parker 75 brought a new level of craftsmanship to pens of the age, 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. In 1993, there was 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,
2007[c]; Parker, 2007).
Parker, with Sheaffer, was one of the few U.S. 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 (Rickconner, 2007[b]).
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
Marcos Ferasso, Edi Madalena Fracasso & Ivan Antonio Pinheiro
the design and comfort in writing. There are new and recent collections that pay attention to the ergonomics,
design and modern forms to attract young customers.
Discussion and conclusion
In this section, we analyze 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.
Technological strategies
Regarding to the technology, the three companies first reacted by a remaining with the old technology
but with a price reduction and latter on 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.
Marketing strategies
Among the writing instruments, the fountain pen was in the luxury goods niche since its invention in the
XIX 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 50’s 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 is a very good empirical evidence of what Christensen call
disruptive technology. It is also evidence of different types of innovation, as defined by Schumpeter (1985),
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
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 reorganizing the industry.
Although, after the attack of the ballpoint pen, all the three fountain pen companies positioned
themselves in the luxury goods segment and stabilized their sales but in order to maintain their sales position
they still had to make new adjustments.
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 – Reorganization 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 reorganization 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.
Acknowledgement
Marcos Ferasso thanks to CNPq for financial support through graduate scholarship.
References
Waterman
1883 BIC
1958
Sanford –
Newell Rubbermaid
2000
Parker
1888 Gillette
1993
Montblanc
1908 Dunhill
1977 Richemont
1993
Gillette
1987
Marcos Ferasso, Edi Madalena Fracasso & Ivan Antonio Pinheiro
Answers.com (2007[a]). Société BIC. Available at: <http://www.answers.com/topic/soci-t-bic?cat=biz-fin>.
Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Answers.com (2007[b]). Montblanc International GmbH. Available at: <http://www.answers.com/topic/
montblanc-international-gmbh?cat=biz-fin >. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Christensen, CM (1999). Innovation and the General Management. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Christensen, CM (2004). Seeing What’s Next: using the theories of innovation to predict industry change.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, CM and ME Raynor (2003). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful
Growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Joonpens (2007[a]). Waterman history. Available at: <http://www.joonpens.com/upload/Waterman_
history.php>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Joonpens (2007[b]). Montblanc history. Available at: <http://www.joonpens.com/upload/Montblanc_
history.php>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Joonpens (2007[c]). Parker history. Available at: <http://www.joonpens.com/upload/Parker_history.php>.
Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Lambrou, A (2005). Fountain pens of the world. Los Angeles: Classic Pens.
Modis, T (1997). Genetic re-engineering of corporations . Technological forecasting and social change. New
York: Elsevier, 56, p. 107-118.
Modis, T (2003). A scientific approach to managing competition. The industrial physicist. American Institute of
Physics. Freb./Mar.
Montblanc (2007). Montblanc history. Available at: <http://www.montblanc.com>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Renfer, M (2007). History of the Montblanc firm. Available at: < http://www.montblancs.net/history.html>.
Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Narayanan, V (2005). Patent and trademark history in the fountain pen industry. Available at:
<http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/narayana/Academics/Intellectual_Property/termpaper.pdf>. Accessed in:
20/Dec./2007.
Newell Rubbermaid (2007). Segment overview. Available at: <http://www.newellrubbermaid.com/newellco/
global/segment.jhtml?id=id1>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Parker (2007). Available at: <http://www.parkerpen.com/en/discovery/making_of/timeline>. Accessed in:
20/Dec./2007.
Pennenlux (2007). History of writing instruments. Available at: <http://www.pennenlux.com/History%
20of%20Writing%20Instruments_part2.htm>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Pentrace (2007). Parker Jotter 50th Anniversary. Available at: <http://www.pentrace.net/penbase/
Data_Returns/full_article.asp?id=450>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Rickconner (2007[a]). Waterman’s. Available at: <http://www.rickconner.net/penoply/wa.0.html>. Accessed in:
20/Dec./2007.
Rickconner (2007[a]). Parker pens. Available at: <http://www.rickconner.net/penoply/park.0.html>. Accessed
in: 20/Dec./2007.
Sanford (2007). Sanford. Available at: <http://www.sanfordcorp.com/sanford/consumer/jhtml
/aboutus/sanford_about_us_22.jhtml>.
Schumpeter, JA (1985). A teoria do desenvolvimento econômico. São Paulo: Abril.
Utterback, JM and HJ Acee (2005). Disruptive technologies: an expanded view. International Journal of
Innovation Management. 9(1), 1-17. Imperial College Press [20 December 2007].
Waterman (2007). Available at: <http://www.waterman.com>. Accessed in: 20/Dec./2007.
Wikipedia (2007). Fountain pen. Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_pen>. Accessed in:
20/Dec./2007.
Wise, D (1988). Waterman Rift: A Tearful Farewell. The New York Times. December, 16. Available at: <
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DB1F38F935A25751C1A96E948260&sec=&spo
n=>.
IAMOT 2008 Proceedings
Appendix A
Company Year of foundation Present status Country
Waterman 1882 Active France
Parker 1891 Active UK
Montblanc 1908 Active Germany
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
Figure 3 – Major fountain pen companies
Source: adapted from Narayanan, 2005.
