Search results
1 – 5 of 5Annika Tidström, Paavo Ritala and Kirsi Lainema
The purpose of this paper is to explore interactional and procedural practices in managing tensions of coopetition (simultaneous collaboration and competition between firms).
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore interactional and procedural practices in managing tensions of coopetition (simultaneous collaboration and competition between firms).
Design/methodology/approach
Through an in-depth literature review of prior research within coopetition and strategy-as-practice fields, and by using two illustrative empirical examples, the authors develop a framework for preventing and managing coopetitive tensions through combinations of procedural and interactional practices.
Findings
The authors identify tensions related to strategizing, task and resource allocation, as well as knowledge sharing. Furthermore, they demonstrate potential ways of how these tensions can be prevented, resolved and managed.
Research limitations/implications
The findings show that the analysis of tensions in coopetition would benefit from a holistic, multilevel approach that recognizes practices that are interactional (i.e. face-to-face interactions) as well as procedural (i.e. organizational routines). Coopetitive tensions and their resolution are related to the use or neglect of both types of practices. Furthermore, interactional and procedural practices are mutually interdependent and can complement each other in tension management in various ways.
Practical implications
The findings of this study shed light on the roles and activities of actual practitioners involved in coopetition, and shows how their work and practices in-use contribute to coopetition, related tensions and their resolution.
Originality/value
By adopting the strategy-as-practice approach, this study generates valuable insights into the practices and tensions in coopetition, as well as illuminates the roles of the practitioners involved in managing coopetition relationships.
Details
Keywords
Paavo Ritala, Mika Ruokonen and Laavanya Ramaul
This paper aims to demonstrate how the new generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT changes knowledge work for individuals and what are the implications of this change…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to demonstrate how the new generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT changes knowledge work for individuals and what are the implications of this change for companies.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on 22 interviews from informants across different industries, the authors conducted an inductive analysis on the use and utility of ChatGPT in knowledge work. Based on this initial analysis, they discovered different ways in which ChatGPT either augments human agency, makes it redundant or lacks capability in that regard.
Findings
The authors develop a 2 × 2 framework of algorithmic assistance, which demonstrates four ways in which ChatGPT (and generative AI in general) interacts with knowledge workers, depending on the usefulness of ChatGPT in particular tasks and the type of the task (routine vs creative).
Practical implications
Based on the insights from the interviews, the authors propose a set of actionable questions for individual knowledge workers and companies from four viewpoints: skills and capabilities; team structure and workflow coordination; culture and mindset; and business model innovation.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to identify and analyze the use of ChatGPT by knowledge workers across different industries.
Details
Keywords
Paavo Ritala, Aino Kianto, Mika Vanhala and Henri Hussinki
Firms need to constantly renew themselves to keep up with the pace of competition and proactively establish innovations to the markets. This requires capabilities in learning and…
Abstract
Purpose
Firms need to constantly renew themselves to keep up with the pace of competition and proactively establish innovations to the markets. This requires capabilities in learning and renewing of the firm’s knowledge base, conceptualized as renewal capital of the firm. On the other hand, firms that acquire high levels of competitiveness by renewing their knowledge base also need to protect that knowledge from unwanted spillovers. This study aims to examine how renewal capital affects incremental and radical innovation performance of the firm, moderated by the firm’s protection of its strategic knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach
The study is based on a multi-industry survey study with a time-lagged data set, with independent variables collected in the first wave, followed by a second wave four years later for the dependent variables. The authors test the hypotheses using partial least squares structural equation modeling.
Findings
The authors find that firms’ renewal capital is positively associated with the level of incremental and radical innovation. Furthermore, the authors find that knowledge protection negatively moderates the relationship between renewal capital and incremental innovation performance of the firm. In case of radical innovation performance, similar moderating effect is not statistically supported.
Originality/value
With a time-lagged research design, this study study reveals the interdependent roles of renewal capital and knowledge protection for firm’s innovation performance, and provides insights of when (and when not) it would be beneficial for a firm to seek renewal and protective oriented approaches.
Details
Keywords
Jimmi Normann Kristiansen and Paavo Ritala
Firms frequently struggle with measuring the performance of their radical innovation activities. Due to the uncertainty and ambiguity involved, key performance indicators (KPIs…
Abstract
Purpose
Firms frequently struggle with measuring the performance of their radical innovation activities. Due to the uncertainty and ambiguity involved, key performance indicators (KPIs) used for incremental innovation projects are often not useful in this context. The purpose of this paper is to explore suitable KPIs particularly useful for radical innovation projects.
Design/methodology/approach
This study first reviews commonly used measures for innovation projects, which is then followed by case-study evidence from three industry-leading international firms. This study includes 13 in-depth interviews with innovation managers and directors in these firms, providing insights on how they measure the progress and performance of radical innovation projects.
Findings
KPIs used commonly in incremental innovation showed lackluster results in the case firms and were problematic for radical innovation context. A key finding was that radical innovation project performance should be evaluated based on the process rather than on the expected outcome. Concurrently, based on the literature review and the cases, three sets of KPIs with 13 specific KPIs useful for radical innovation projects are proposed.
Originality/value
The paper addresses a core challenge in using established KPIs in a radical innovation context. The paper gathers and synthesizes a range of measurement points suitable for radical innovation projects and provides specific suggestions for appropriate metrics that innovation managers can use.
Details
Keywords
Mika Ruokonen and Paavo Ritala
The purpose of this paper is to identify the potential and the challenges for different firms in adopting an AI-first strategy. The study attempts to discern if any company can…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify the potential and the challenges for different firms in adopting an AI-first strategy. The study attempts to discern if any company can prioritize AI at the forefront of their strategic plans.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing from illustrative examples from well-known AI-leaders like Netflix and Spotify, as well as from upcoming AI startups and industry incumbents, the paper explores the strategic role of AI in core business processes and customer value creation. It also discusses the advent and implications of generative AI tools since late 2022 to firms’ business strategies.
Findings
The authors identify three types of AI-first strategies, depending on firms’ starting points: digital tycoon, niche carver and asset augmenter. The authors discuss how each strategy can aim to achieve data, algorithmic and execution advantages, and what the strategic bottlenecks and risks are within each strategy.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to systematically describe how companies can form “AI-first” strategies from different starting points. This study includes actionable examples from known industry players to more emerging startups and industrial incumbents.
Details