Search results

Family firms (FF) reveal a considerable heterogeneity in their innovation behavior. Due to the successful long-term preservation of their innovation capacity via special resources and routines, multi-generational FF are of special interest in terms of learning from good practices. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to ascertain principles for successful innovation behavior in long-term successful FF and to contribute to bridging the theory-practice gap.

Results are generated by analyzing innovation and innovation processes in five cases of long-term successful FF. On the basis of these good practice cases, the “rules of the game” of innovating are re-constructed using fine and system analyses based on narrative interviews with the FF CEOs.

Intense reflection on the innovation characteristics of the five good practice cases along with a critical examination of the literature on innovation in FF were used to derive practical suggestions for FF in the form of 11 principles for FF taking a proactive interest in innovation.

The 11 generated principles of successfully innovative FF were validated by FF CEOs who confirmed the practical relevance of these principles as valuable guidelines for successful innovation. Owners and managers may reflect on these principles against the background of the innovation behavior of their firms and adapt them to their contextual conditions.

These principles serve as tangible suggestions for developing adequate innovation management strategies for individual FF. Furthermore, two FF CEOs were invited to comment on the viability of principles based on their comprehensive practical experience.

The aim of the paper is to provide a systematic overview of the literature dealing with business‐related conflicts between family members in (their) family firms (FF). On the basis of this focus, the research questions are: Which delimitable topics with regard to contents can be identified in the literature on conflicts in FF? Which findings are available referring to this and how were they generated? Which options can be derived for future research?

The analysis is based on a systematic literature review including articles published in peer‐reviewed academic journals from January 1990 to June 2010.

It was found that three distinguishable topical areas can be identified: causes for conflicts in FF; effects of conflicts in FF; and management of conflicts in FF.

The small number of contributions calls for further studies with replication studies as a promising option. Due to the specific nature of the conflict dynamic and logic in FF, which can hardly be captured by quantitative studies alone (even with longitudinal designs), a promotion of qualitative studies is advisable, too. In this regard, a systems‐theoretical perspective could utilize the capability of this theory and strengthen the theoretical foundation of research on conflicts in FF.

This review shows three rather clearly distinguishable research streams and offers options for future research, with a special focus of modern systems theory which conceptualizes conflicts as a special system within the family business system.

The purpose of this paper is to identify different types of organizational innovativeness in Austrian hotels and analyze their connection to (innovation) success. In the face of growing international competition, innovation is becoming increasingly important for Austria’s hotel industry. A prerequisite for innovation is organizational innovativeness.

This paper is based on a quantitative survey of 255 Austrian hotel businesses with a minimum of five employees. Innovativeness was measured by three dimensions (willingness, ability and possibility to innovate) and success by five dimensions (overall performance: financial, market and employee-related success; innovation success: product and process innovations). Findings were obtained by combining an exploratory factor analysis with a cluster analysis.

Factor analysis reveals five factors determining organizational innovativeness: “cooperation as trigger for change”; “acceptance of change”; “resource based scope for change”; “pluralism as trigger for change”; and “loose coupling and error-tolerance”. The cluster analysis identifies four types of hotels regarding organizational innovativeness indicating differences regarding the success dimensions: “potential innovators hindered by scarce resources and unsupportive structures”, “well-resourced conservatives”, “potential innovators hindered by a haphazard approach” and “cautious idea hunters”. On the whole, results show that a balanced configuration of organizational innovativeness combined with a cautious approach is connected with greater (innovation) success.

Key-informant and survivor biases have to be considered as all items in the questionnaire were evaluated by self-assessment of the hotel management and only successful hotels (in the sense of survival) were analyzed. One important implication is that (innovation) success depends on the system that enables it; therefore, organizational innovativeness is a precondition of successful innovations. Nevertheless, there is little research on organizational innovativeness in the service sector so far.

This paper supports tourism businesses in understanding the concept of organizational innovativeness and its relation to (innovation) success. SMEs, which dominate the Austrian hotel industry, tend to focus on the financial aspect of innovativeness and, in general, do not consider the range of factors that constitute an organization’s innovativeness (willingness, ability and possibility to innovate) and the various outcomes.

By combining organizational innovativeness and (innovation) success, the paper applies an important element of innovation theory to the Austrian hotel industry. The characterization of different types of hotels regarding organizational innovativeness and success enables a (self-) assessment for hotel businesses and the deduction of customized implications.

The annual Autumn Conference of the British Association for Brazing and Soldering offers a forum for discussions between scientists and engineers involved with two technologies which, because of their obvious similarities, would be expected to be of mutual benefit and learning. In reality both the science and the practice of brazing and soldering are quite different. I suspect, with some regret, the BABS Management Committee decided that for the first time this division be formally recognised by offering soldering as the subject of the first day and brazing and diffusion bonding the subjects of the second. This report covers the soldering day only, during which seven papers were presented:

Retail networks present new challenges in the business-to-business (B2B) collaboration between technology-based spinoffs and traditional businesses. This study aims to explore a public–private partnership (PPP) that leverages advanced digital technologies via spinoffs to tackle the key challenge of showrooming that retail shops are facing. Showrooming is the phenomenon in which shoppers go to the physical stores to gather in-depth product information, and later on, decide to buy the product from online retail competitors.

This research draws on a longitudinal qualitative study of a social context in which digital entrepreneurs are embedded. The empirical setting is a retail network in Italy, Germany and Finland with a particular focus on the process in which a PPP delivers innovation via spinoffs in the context of brick and mortar shops (B&M). The research design enables an understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon from a business and a social perspective.

New technology to tackle showrooming enables the creation of substantial hybrid value in retail partnerships. Spinoffs are key actors in leveraging digital technologies to create value faster and more tailored compared with large software companies. Spinoff entrepreneurs leverage on specific technologies (e.g. virtual reality and artificial intelligence) available inside organizations’ network (i.e. PPPs). Spinoffs are found to be a fundamental actor in the process of dealing with showrooming because of their time to market. Large software companies usually are not interested in approaching B&M shops because of the high operational costs of product customization for B&M shops.

Managers could use the success factors of the spinoffs in helping their B&M shops to improve both shopper experience and salesperson performance. For managers of B2B retail network, the results are useful towards increasing the involvement of shoppers while they are visiting physical stores, and it also improves salesperson performance. It also leads to the observation that cross-selling is one of the most effective responses to the phenomenon of showrooming. As practical implications for policymakers, the current research supports the view that PPPs should support the creation of spinoffs as a result of longitudinal innovation projects.

Retail technologies leveraged from a PPP and commercialized by spinoffs are powerful tools to enable a better quality of salespeople’s life in the working place. At the same time, these new technologies help shop owners increase the retention rates, conversion rates and reduce short-term loss, increasing the likelihood of B&M shops to survive in the condition of extreme competition caused by the showrooming phenomenon.

This research proposes a model of hybrid value creation from networks in digital retail. The model indicates that PPPs create spinoffs to explore showrooming and deliver substantial hybrid value (i.e. business and social) for physical retail shops, mainly because it influences the companies’ growth, employee performance and customer satisfaction. This model expands the field of B2B marketing by identifying factors that enable spinoff creation from retail networks and proposes success factors and research propositions in retail networks.

This study aims to explain and illustrate the character of Russian systems thinking and to show how it is different and similar to traditions in the West. This study’s second aim is to describe the contributions of some Russian scientists to developing systems thinking and the theory of evolution. This study introduces the predecessors of Charles Darwin in Russia, both supporters and critics of his ideas, as well as scientists who have made similar contributions to the development of systems thinking, particularly Vladimir Vernadsky and Alexander Bogdanov.

Philosophical and theoretical comparisons. In the Russian intellectual tradition, the terms “Russia” and the “West” are likely codes for signifying fundamental philosophical questions about the universality of thinking and culture. The term “West” means universal, rational truth without taking into consideration any differences in life and cultural practice. The term “Russia” means impossibility of such a universal truth and a necessity to look for solutions on the level of life, not only on the level of rational thinking.

Paying attention to differences in approaches to systems and cybernetics and the theory of evolution will enrich the further development of systems sciences in Russia and the West. The paper examines the philosophical underpinnings of science rather than just testing or extending an existing theory. The result is better mutual understanding among scientists with different backgrounds.

This study suggests new avenues for research and expands the range of conceptual possibilities. It improves mutual understanding among scholars and countries. Also, it adds to the topics discussed within the field of systems and cybernetics and the theory of evolution.

Examines the history of the Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR) 1969‐74 ‐ its origins, organization and policies ‐ and then evaluates its contribution as an agent of reform in the context of the perceived problems of the 1960s and 1970s. Considers whether there are any lessons to be learnt for the future given the possibility of a Labour Government, developments in Europe and the 1995 TUC policy document Your Voice at Work. Despite the drastic changes in industrial relations and in the economic, political and social environment, the answer is in the affirmative. In particular, the importance of a new third‐party agency having an independent governing body like the CIR and not a representative body like the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS); in its workflow not being controlled by government; and in its decisions on recognition being legally enforceable.