Search results

There is a growing need for measures assessing technological changes in systemic contexts as business ecosystems replace standalone products. In these ecosystem contexts, organizations are required to manage their innovation processes in increasingly networked and complex environments. In this paper, we introduce the technology and ecosystem clockspeed measures that can be used to assess the temporal nature of technological changes in a business ecosystem. We analyze systemic changes in the personal computer (PC) ecosystem, explicitly focusing on subindustries central to the delivery of PC gaming value to the end user. Our results show that the time-based intensity of technological competition in intertwined subindustries of a business ecosystem may follow various trajectories during the evolution of the ecosystem. Hence, the technology and ecosystem clockspeed measures are able to pinpoint alternating dynamics in technological changes among the subindustries in the business ecosystem. We subsequently discuss organizational considerations and theoretical implications of the proposed measures.

In this chapter, the authors conceptualize corporate entrepreneurship as a mental model that allows firms to adapt to new competitive landscapes by facilitating the development of new cognitive scripts and schemas. The authors begin by explaining what it means for a firm to be competitively bewildered, or lost, in a rapidly changing competitive domain. The authors also describe five stages of being lost competitively. The authors then map the attributes of an entrepreneurial firm – adaptability, speed, flexibility, aggressiveness, and innovativeness – to stages of the bewilderment process wherein they may be most helpful to realign competitive realities and entrepreneurial scripts and schemas. The authors conclude by proposing contributions resulting from conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship as a bewilderment schema and also explain how this represents a novel perspective.

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to investigate how a focal market actor may design or redesign business models for improved value co-creation.

Findings – We posit that value is co-created in use as actors integrate resources in practices, which makes practices a fundamental unit of value creation. Greater density of resources, relevant to a specific practice and to the goals or mission of the actor, corresponds to greater value. The role of a provider is to support other actors in their value-creation processes by providing resources that ‘fit’ into their practices.

We identify 12 categories of business model design elements that need to be defined and developed in parallel. We conclude that a focal actor needs to strive for both intra-actor and inter-actor (meso-level) configurational fit of business model elements in order to enable purposeful co-creation in specific practices.

Finally, we propose that meso-level configurations develop in a three-phase process of origination, mobilization and stabilization. A focal actor wishing to improve co-creation in a network needs to develop value propositions not only for customers but also for other actor domains. Overall, the performative power of a market actor is dependent on its network position, the relative strength of its business model and the actor's ability to author compelling meanings.

Originality – The research contributes to the discussion on value co-creation by identifying three shifts in the unit of analysis: (1) we argue that use-value is co-created as actors integrate resources in practices, rendering practices a fundamental unit of analysis, (2) as practices are outcomes of business models, we identified business model design as a key unit of analysis for the improvement of value co-creation and (3) our view on business models is network-centric and we focus on how to introduce new business model elements in a specific actor network.

Practical implications – The realization of the fact that value creation occurs in networks of interdependent actors pinpoints the need for increased transparency both between functional silos and between actors. The business model framework identifies 12 design elements, which can act as a ‘checklist’ for managers wanting to engage in co-creative business models.

At the level of a cognitive schema, a business model is a mental map of a firm’s value-creating, value-delivering, and value-capturing activities and the linkages between them. An important question in the study of business models as cognitive schemas is whether and how schemas differ across industry actors and whether the differences are connected to the variation observed in actual business models in the industry. This chapter examines, in particular, the ways in which business model schemas of industry insiders differ from those of industry outsiders. Using data from interviews with chief executive officers (CEOs) of 30 legal-tech firms, we graphically construct and analyze the CEOs’ schemas of important causal interdependencies between their firms’ activities. The analysis shows systematic differences between insiders and outsider CEOs’ schemas. We theorize that these differences underlie insider and outsider CEOs’ distinct approaches to opportunity recognition, expertise perception, and value framing, and have consequences for actual business model evolution in the industry.

We argue that our understanding of how institutions matter has been undermined by a piecemeal approach to temporality in institutional analyses. This paper addresses this shortcoming in the literature. We bring temporality to the fore by conceptualizing practices, which constitute institutions, as understood, situated, and coordinated in time by temporal structures. We elaborate an integrated framework of temporal structures that consist of three types: temporal patterns, temporal conceptions, and temporal orientations – and outline how each type contributes to the reproduction of practices. We discuss the implications of this framework for sustainability initiatives and conclude by suggesting future avenues of research on the temporal foundations of institutions.

This study investigates the role of functional area-specific managerial schemas on the attempt of strategic renewal at a large medical devices developer and manufacturer during a period of high environmental dynamism. Using data from a 16-month field study on managerial work related to the strategy process, I examine how functional area managers attempted to (re)configure organizational capabilities in response to various environmental challenges. While I did not find any disagreement between functional area managers related to what those challenges were, I did find fundamental disagreements related to what capabilities the organization can muster as a response. More specifically, disagreements surfaced in relation to how these capabilities should be assembled, and ultimately acted as triggers for the contestation of existing shared frames between functional area managers. These findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that there exist large differences between how managers within an organization interpret what the organization is capable of, and more specifically link these differences to the organization’s ability to adapt to environmental changes by showing how they impact the assembly of new capabilities deemed necessary for a successful response.

In this paper we develop a model for researching the influence that a board of directors can have on improving an organization’s sustainability performance. Our model explores sources of cognitive flexibility of boards needed to recognize and respond to the need for improved sustainability performance. We first define concepts of sustainability, sustainability competence, and sustainability performance. We then analyze two forms of board capital (a board’s human capital and its social capital) and three aspects of a board’s information processing (its patterns of information search, discussion and debate, and information absorption) that we suggest affect a board’s cognitive flexibility and thereby influence whether a board decides to adopt sustainability performance goals. Our model also suggests that an organization’s strategic flexibility – as represented by its current endowments of resource flexibilities and coordination flexibilities – will moderate the relationship between a board’s decision to adopt sustainability performance goals and an organization’s subsequent achievement of those goals. We also suggest that our model is generally relevant to any research seeking to predict the influence of boards on strategic change in many forms, not just to research focused on sustainability issues.

The flexibility of corporations to adapt their strategy to a fast-changing environment can be a major source for competitive advantage and survival. While research mainly focuses on outcomes of this ability, little is known of how to foster it in organizations. Thus, by building on the upper echelons theory, the authors assume that the strategic flexibility of the company depends on the willingness and permission to change of the chief executive officer (CEO). To support the hypotheses, the authors apply the dimensions of commitment to change and work autonomy to the CEO and test for moderation under conditions of technological turbulence. The authors’ results based on medium-sized organizations in Germany show significant effects of both dimensions on strategic flexibility. In particular, under conditions of high technological turbulence, commitment based on loyalty and not on pressure together with autonomy on control and evaluation criteria is best suited to increase strategic flexibility. These insights extend the research literature and provide guidelines for CEOs and their supervisors alike.