Search results

Corporate incubation is a type of business incubation designed to assist small firms to develop using know-how available in large companies. The purpose of this paper is to explicate how incubation services can be co-produced and describe the contributions and conditions influencing learning and firm development.

The study used a longitudinal single-case method to analyze a small firm’s development process during four years of incubation. The authors recorded and analyzed interviews with the incubator manager and the entrepreneur, and with incubator staff and external stakeholders.

The incubator provided knowledge- and network-based services. These services emphasized the need for the entrepreneurs to be both proactive and receptive to counseling. Although the incubator and the entrepreneurs made progress in developing the company, a dispute over ownership shares threatened to break down the incubation process.

Taking evidence from a longitudinal case study, this paper exemplifies and emphasizes that incubation can be a process of interdependent service production in which entrepreneurs are active contributors. Future research should explore how managers and entrepreneurs handle the ambiguities of valuation of incubator contributions.

For managers it is important to take seriously the key task of communicating the value of the incubator’s contribution to the companies they recruit. For entrepreneurs it is important to find ways to estimate potential for value added from the incubator.

This paper provides a processual understanding of the dynamics of incubator co-production, not found in extant literature.

The “fuzzy front end” of new product development (NPD) is characterized by considerable uncertainty and ambiguity, but detailed studies of ambiguity specifically related to NPD are missing. This paper aims to establish a classification of ambiguity in NPD processes.

The authors' research design is a holistic multiple‐case‐study design with the NPD project as the unit of analysis. A model is developed through a grounded theory approach, using qualitative analysis of case data from four medical‐device companies.

The authors present a model that classifies ambiguity along two dimensions: subject and source. The subjects of ambiguity include product, market, process, and organizational resources, whereas the sources of ambiguity include multiplicity, novelty, validity, and reliability.

As the study is based on just four case studies in a single industry segment, further research is needed to determine the model's wider applicability. Further research is also suggested, exploring how and in what contexts ambiguity should be managed as a balance between reducing or sustaining it.

The model presented helps practitioners to better understand the origins and character of ambiguity in NPD, thereby improving their ability to manage it in their NPD projects.

The model provides an improved theoretical understanding of ambiguity as a component of “fuzziness” in NPD by providing a detailed account of how ambiguity is related to specific elements of the NPD process in terms of where and why it occurs.

The purpose of the study is to investigate how the processes of exploration and exploitation have developed in parallel in the literature of organizational ambidexterity and organizational learning, since James March published his seminal paper in 1991. The goal of the paper is to provide a synthesis of exploration and exploitation based on the two areas of literature.

The study is conceptual and no empirical data have been used.

The study advances current understanding of exploration and exploitation by building a new model for organizational ambidexterity that takes into account multiple levels of learning, perspectives from absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning.

The study’s novelty lies in the creation and discussion of a synthesis of exploration and exploitation stemming from organizational ambidexterity and organizational learning.

The purpose of this paper is to examine what it means to be resilient in the context of environmental turbulence, complexity, and uncertainty, and to suggest how organizations might develop strategic resilience.

Sampling from the theoretical and empirical contributions to the understanding of resilience within the management and organizational literatures, this conceptual paper presents a model of strategic resilience and theoretical propositions are developed that suggest directions for future research.

It is proposed that strategic resilience is an emergent and dynamic characteristic of organizations whereby organizational legacy is a defining antecedent, top management team future orientation is a fundamental belief system, and problem formulation is a key deliberate process.

Although the conceptual inquiry of strategic resilience offers clarity on a complex phenomenon, empirical evidence is needed to provide a test of the concepts and their relations.

By asserting that the environment is turbulent, complex, and uncertain, this paper opens up new possibilities for the understanding and study of strategic resilience, whereby metamorphosis and innovation are requisites, and entrepreneurship is part and parcel of strategy. As such it highlights the importance of managerial beliefs and behaviors that facilitate proactively and deliberately challenging of the status quo.

The proposed conceptualization of strategic resilience in this paper connotes action rather than just reaction, and in so doing highlights the importance of the synergy between strategic management and entrepreneurship. As such, it proposes factors that may help organizations persist and create value within a context and future that they themselves also shape.