Search results

A widespread consensus in strategy literature argues that firms acquire positions of advantage and competitive capability by assembling or “organizing” sets of uniquely complementary resources, activities, or assets. In this regard, value is created not only in identifying unique and valuable combinations of existing resources, but also in seeing unique and valuable ways to modify or cospecialize these assets. With the envisioned strategic bundle defined, the manager must then determine how to form, organize, and create this bundle. In particular, the manager must decide which assets, activities, and resources must be “owned” and which can be accessed contractually. We argue that although integration does have certain advantages over market transactions, it does not necessarily lead to the expansion of the scale and scope of the firm, because firms would also fail, particularly as they become larger in size. While established theories articulate this organizational failure puzzle in terms of incentive explanations and measurement difficulties, recent advancement in organizational economics and business strategy sees this as a result of influence activities, and social comparison and social attachment processes. These elements can serve as new building blocks for a more comprehensive theory of the nature and the boundary of the firm. Three future research trajectories – both theoretical and empirical in this realm – are suggested.

To assess the impact of TCE on the field of strategy, we first quantified the distribution of TCE-related research articles across all disciplines and fields. Specifically, we identified every article that appeared in a journal included in the Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI's) Web of Knowledge between 1975 and 2008 and that included among its keywords some variation of “transaction costs.” We then removed those articles for which this term clearly did not refer to transaction costs of the Coasean kind (primarily articles in finance and computing, for which “transaction cost” has a different meaning). Finally, we categorized each journal according to its discipline or field. Granted, this requires some judgment, but we attempted to be objective in our categorizations.¹ As Table 1 shows, articles that are self-described as part of the TCE research stream have appeared more frequently in strategy journals than in the journals of any other discipline or field. We interpret this as evidence of TCE's impact on strategy, and of the importance of the strategy field to TCE.

Taking a business lens of telehealth, this article aims to review and provide a state-of-the-art overview of telehealth research.

This research conducts a systematic literature review using the scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol and a collection of bibliometric analytical techniques (i.e. performance analysis, keyword co-occurrence, keyword clustering and content analysis).

Using performance analysis, this article unpacks the publication trend and the top contributing journals, authors, institutions and regions of telehealth research. Using keyword co-occurrence and keyword clustering, this article reveals 10 major themes underpinning the intellectual structure of telehealth research: design and development of personal health record systems, health information technology (HIT) for public health management, perceived service quality among mobile health (m-health) users, paradoxes of virtual care versus in-person visits, Internet of things (IoT) in healthcare, guidelines for e-health practices and services, telemonitoring of life-threatening diseases, change management strategy for telehealth adoption, knowledge management of innovations in telehealth and technology management of telemedicine services. The article proposes directions for future research that can enrich our understanding of telehealth services.

This article offers a seminal state-of-the-art overview of the performance and intellectual structure of telehealth research from a business perspective.