Search results

Despite increasing interest in business model innovation (BMI), there is only limited scholarship that examines how business model (BM) innovators present and explain their innovations to various stakeholders. As BMI often involves the creation of a new ecosystem, understanding how innovators can gain support of future ecosystem members is important. Based on a longitudinal case study of Salesforce, a pioneer in cloud computing, the authors show how the innovator’s skillful framing to different audiences fosters the emergence of an ecosystem around the new BM. The authors suggest that effective framing constitutes an important strategic process that enables BM innovators to shape new ecosystems due to the performative power of words.

In the late 1970s, the much beloved tradition of Asilomar began. But then, of course, it was not even located at Asilomar. Rather it was a much smaller event that was held at Pajaro Dunes. Nonetheless, it featured what ultimately became the traditional blend of informal sessions that mixed students and faculty from around the University. The most memorable conference of that time featured working papers by Jeff Pfeffer and Jerry Salancik, John Meyer and Brian Rowan, and Mike Hannan and John Freeman. Each of these pairs of authors presented fledgling work that would go on to become keystone statements for three highly influential theories: resource dependence (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), “new” institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and population ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1977).

This paper reviews 16 empirical studies of the impact of technological change upon incumbent firms. While all 16 studies have strong internal validity, their external validity is unclear. These studies employ different definitions, use different taxonomies, and rely on differing causal mechanisms. Their evidence, though extensive, draws largely upon U.S. contexts. This complicates an assessment of their cumulative external validity. An overall analysis concludes that there is a need to expand our research to other countries, because the impact of technical change may differ across countries. The paper integrates these phenomena into a new paradigm with three dimensions that condition the impact of technical change: the management of complexity, the external linkages of innovating firms, and the institutional environment.

Biotechnology revolutionized drug discovery in the pharmaceutical industry, making adoption a key determinant of long-term survival in the industry. In the U.S., where and when firms adopted biotechnology was largely determined by location of actively publishing academic “star” bio-scientists. The location of “stars” in Japan had a similar effect but significantly lower impact. Restrictions on stars in national universities on holding equity interest or founding roles in new firms (in contrast to their American colleagues) were especially important. In general, Japanese institutions reduced the importance of star scientists in developing a biotechnology industry in Japan compared to the U.S.

This paper compares the evolution of the venture capital industries in the U.S., Germany and Japan. Private initiatives, a competitive science infrastructure and a favorable legal environment contributed to an early success of the industry in the U.S. Early public efforts to create venture capital firms in Germany and Japan failed. Only when the regulatory environment changed did venture capital firms evolve in both countries with Japan adjusting its regulatory environment about ten years later than Germany. At this point the industry in the U.S. is highly developed, the industry in Germany is growing rapidly, and the industry in Japan is ‘budding’. Future convergence to the U.S. industry model seems likely.