Search results

Disruptive technologies in the global logistics industry are often regarded as a threat to the existing business models of incumbents’ companies. Existing research, however, focuses mainly on whether technologies have disruptive potential, thereby neglecting when such disruptive transitions occur. To understand the timing of potential disruptive technological change, this paper aims to investigate the elements of the underlying ecosystem shaping these transitions.

Building on the established ecosystem framework from Adner and Kapoor (2016a), this paper constructs four categories of technology substitution to assess how quickly disruptive change may occur in the global logistics industry and defines key technology substitution determinants in logistics to emphasize the role of ecosystems for further consideration into disruptive innovation theory.

Based on the key determinants, this paper proposes first definitions of distinctive ecosystems elements linked to the three types of innovations, namely, sustaining innovations, low-end disruptions and new-market disruptions, thereby integrating ecosystems into Christensen’s (1997) disruptive innovation theory.

By developing a framework that conceptualizes the pace of technology substitution, this paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how logistics managers and academics can better predict disruptive transitions and develop strategies to allocate resources.

COVID-19 has immensely disrupted business dynamism, providing catalyst innovation opportunities and transposing society's perception of disruptive technology (DT). This research increases the understanding of the impact of the pandemic in influencing the way organizations perceive DT and whether any mitigating factors were considered when deciding to adopt new technology during the pandemic.

A qualitative approach was adopted in this research, consisting of 14 semi-structured interviews with eight senior managers and six employees, representing both the private and public sectors in New Zealand. All participants had in-depth knowledge of organizational DT adoption during the pandemic. Two separate sets of semi-structured interviews were used to enable comparison between senior managers' and employees' experiences of organizational adoption of DT post-emergence of COVID-19. Due to the nature of this research being conducted on organizational adoption of DT during the pandemic, time constraints and sample size were two of the key limitations of this research. Specifically, potential participants widely cited unavailability due to additional pressure from COVID-19. Given the limited research in this area, this study is explorative by nature and adds significant insights to the literature.

The findings suggest that COVID-19 has contributed towards an increased acceptance of, reliance on and adoption of DT across both organizational and social landscapes. The authors found that one of the reasons COVID-19 expedites the adoption of DT correlates with the notion of technology dependency, with organizations citing DT as a viable part of a business continuity plan (BCP) to counter the unpredictability of ongoing disruptive events associated with COVID-19 or any similar disruption which may be on the horizon. These findings are highly relevant as they suggest that the labor market in New Zealand is flexible so organizations and employees can adapt to DT and COVID-19.

This research adds much-needed insight into the emerging field of research that examines COVID-19's impact on the adoption of DT from both management and employee perspectives.

This paper aims to ascertain whether and to what degree universities are becoming organizational actors globally. Utilizing an original dataset of a sample of 500 globally oriented universities, we explore how universities have increasingly become organizational actors as is the case of American universities. We consider the following indicators of university transformation into organization actors: development or institutional advancement, diversity or inclusion, legalization, and internationalization goals and structures. We find that these globally oriented universities have created international, development, and legal offices. Surprisingly, nearly half of the universities in our sample also have diversity offices. These “getting organized” indicators are somewhat similar to what holds for American universities, suggesting that there is globalization of organizational actorhood among universities. At the same time, however, we find that there are pronounced regional differences, especially when it comes to organizing around diversity and legal affairs.

The study discusses the professionalization of academic leadership in Israel by analyzing and comparing two different training programs: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s (HUJI) program and the CHE-Rothschild program. The HUJI program began in 2016 to train the professoriate to take charge of leadership positions alongside a separate program for administrative staff, while the CHE-Rothschild program was launched in 2019 to train academic leaders, both professors and administrators from universities and colleges nationwide. The analysis reveals two “ideal types” of collegiality: While Model A (exemplified by the HUJI program) bifurcates between the professoriate and administrative staff, Model B (exemplified by the CHE-Rothschild program) binds administrative and academic staff members through course composition, pedagogy, and content. The study suggests a pattern of redefinition of collegiality in academia: we find that while academic hierarchies are maintained (between academic faculty and administrative staff and between universities and colleges), collegiality in academia is being redefined as extending beyond the boundaries of the professoriate and emphasizing a partnership approach to collegial ties.