What are the implications of disruption originating in firms using illegal practices, which we refer to as informal firms? Since its development by Clayton Christensen, there has been increasing interest in disruptive innovation theory among innovation and management scholars. Yet, the disruptive power of informal firms remains understudied. We theorize informal disruption, which we define as the process through which entrepreneurs engage in business model innovation based on new technology and avoidance of regulation. Institutional voids and institutional incongruence facilitate scaling of such new business models. We offer a process model of informal disruption emphasizing business model formalization as a key strategy for informal disruptors and non‐market strategies such as collective lobbying and consumer education as incumbent strategies when competing with informal disruptors. Our process model highlights the role of formal and informal institutions during informal disruption, which can both facilitate informal disruptors' scaling and limit incumbents' adaptation strategies. We discuss the implications of studying informal disruption for disruptive innovation, business model, and informal economy research.
{"title":"Towards a theory of informal disruption","authors":"Tom Neuhauser, Yuliya Snihur","doi":"10.1111/radm.12676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12676","url":null,"abstract":"What are the implications of disruption originating in firms using illegal practices, which we refer to as informal firms? Since its development by Clayton Christensen, there has been increasing interest in disruptive innovation theory among innovation and management scholars. Yet, the disruptive power of informal firms remains understudied. We theorize informal disruption, which we define as the process through which entrepreneurs engage in business model innovation based on new technology and avoidance of regulation. Institutional voids and institutional incongruence facilitate scaling of such new business models. We offer a process model of informal disruption emphasizing business model formalization as a key strategy for informal disruptors and non‐market strategies such as collective lobbying and consumer education as incumbent strategies when competing with informal disruptors. Our process model highlights the role of formal and informal institutions during informal disruption, which can both facilitate informal disruptors' scaling and limit incumbents' adaptation strategies. We discuss the implications of studying informal disruption for disruptive innovation, business model, and informal economy research.","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140155959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Environmental scanning is an important way for firms to realize disruptive innovation. However, how environmental scanning impacts disruptive innovation is still unclear. Based on resource orchestration theory and foresight theory, this study divides environmental scanning into prospective scanning and responsive scanning according to scanning time, explores the relationship between two types of environmental scanning and disruptive innovation, and tests the mediating role of resource orchestration and the moderating role of environmental dynamism. The results based on 284 intelligent manufacturing firms show that there are inverted U‐shaped effects not only between prospective scanning and new‐market disruption but also between responsive scanning and low‐end market disruption. Resource orchestration plays a mediating role in the inverted U‐shaped relationships between prospective scanning and new‐market disruption, responsive scanning, and low‐end market disruption. Moreover, environmental dynamism moderates and steepens the inverted U‐shaped relationship between prospective scanning, responsive scanning, and resource orchestration, and the mediating effect of resource orchestration is also moderated by environmental dynamism. The results reveal that environmental scanning can help firms achieve disruptive innovation to a certain extent, and firms must be alert to the “overload trap.”
环境扫描是企业实现颠覆性创新的重要途径。然而，环境扫描如何影响企业的颠覆性创新还不清楚。本研究以资源协调理论和前瞻理论为基础，将环境扫描按扫描时间分为前瞻性扫描和反应性扫描，探讨了两种环境扫描与颠覆性创新之间的关系，并检验了资源协调的中介作用和环境动态的调节作用。基于 284 家智能制造企业的研究结果表明，不仅前瞻性扫描与新市场破坏之间存在倒 U 型效应，而且反应性扫描与低端市场破坏之间也存在倒 U 型效应。在前瞻性扫描与新市场破坏、反应性扫描和低端市场破坏之间的倒 U 型关系中，资源协调起到了中介作用。此外，环境动态调节并陡化了前瞻性扫描、反应性扫描和资源协调之间的倒 U 型关系，而资源协调的中介效应也受到环境动态的调节。研究结果表明，环境扫描能在一定程度上帮助企业实现破坏性创新，企业必须警惕 "超载陷阱"。
{"title":"Environmental scanning, resource orchestration, and disruptive innovation","authors":"Shumo Jin, Juanru Wang, Peiyu Zhu","doi":"10.1111/radm.12681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12681","url":null,"abstract":"Environmental scanning is an important way for firms to realize disruptive innovation. However, how environmental scanning impacts disruptive innovation is still unclear. Based on resource orchestration theory and foresight theory, this study divides environmental scanning into prospective scanning and responsive scanning according to scanning time, explores the relationship between two types of environmental scanning and disruptive innovation, and tests the mediating role of resource orchestration and the moderating role of environmental dynamism. The results based on 284 intelligent manufacturing firms show that there are inverted U‐shaped effects not only between prospective scanning and new‐market disruption but also between responsive scanning and low‐end market disruption. Resource orchestration plays a mediating role in the inverted U‐shaped relationships between prospective scanning and new‐market disruption, responsive scanning, and low‐end market disruption. Moreover, environmental dynamism moderates and steepens the inverted U‐shaped relationship between prospective scanning, responsive scanning, and resource orchestration, and the mediating effect of resource orchestration is also moderated by environmental dynamism. The results reveal that environmental scanning can help firms achieve disruptive innovation to a certain extent, and firms must be alert to the “overload trap.”","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140155965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marianne Hock-Doepgen, Jana Sophia Montasser, Sascha Klein, Thomas Clauss, Adnan Maalaoui
While innovative work behavior sets the stage for organizational innovativeness, little is known about how innovative work behavior is related to business model innovation. This study analyzes how employees' innovative work behavior leads to business model innovation. Following the organizational support theory, we further examine that business model innovation is a function of individual innovative work behavior of the employee and the firm's ability to create an organizational environment in which these work behaviors can unfold and be translated into innovative output, such as business model innovation. Based on survey data from 154 firms, this study empirically finds that employee innovative work behavior is positively related to business model innovation. Further, we find that the effect of innovative work behavior on business model innovation is moderated through organizational support for innovation. However, the moderation reveals different results for low levels of innovative work behavior than for high values. For high values, we find that additional organizational support does not lead to more business model innovation.
{"title":"The role of innovative work behavior and organizational support for business model innovation","authors":"Marianne Hock-Doepgen, Jana Sophia Montasser, Sascha Klein, Thomas Clauss, Adnan Maalaoui","doi":"10.1111/radm.12671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12671","url":null,"abstract":"While innovative work behavior sets the stage for organizational innovativeness, little is known about how innovative work behavior is related to business model innovation. This study analyzes how employees' innovative work behavior leads to business model innovation. Following the organizational support theory, we further examine that business model innovation is a function of individual innovative work behavior of the employee and the firm's ability to create an organizational environment in which these work behaviors can unfold and be translated into innovative output, such as business model innovation. Based on survey data from 154 firms, this study empirically finds that employee innovative work behavior is positively related to business model innovation. Further, we find that the effect of innovative work behavior on business model innovation is moderated through organizational support for innovation. However, the moderation reveals different results for low levels of innovative work behavior than for high values. For high values, we find that additional organizational support does not lead to more business model innovation.","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140069999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Innovating for the Circular Economy: Driving Sustainable Transformation. Edited by RachnaArora, DieterMutz, and PavitraMohanraj. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2023. pp. 1–107. £44.95 (hbk). ISBN: 9781032063348","authors":"Daniela Moldoveanu","doi":"10.1111/radm.12684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12684","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140055689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Workforce Ecosystems: Reaching Strategic Goals, Partners and Technologies. Elizabeth J.Altman, DavidKiron, JeffSchwartz, and RobinJones. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London, UK, 2023, ISBN 9780262047777, hardcover, pp. 244, e‐pub available.","authors":"Peter R. A. Oeij","doi":"10.1111/radm.12683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12683","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140045516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter, Georgios Chatzichristos
In this study, we investigate how production Cooperatives with a Sharing Economy Business Model (CSE‐BMs) foster innovations in structurally weak rural places. Taking a place‐based social capital perspective, we argue that the strength of CSE‐BMs in developing process, service, product, and social innovation lies in their ability to reconfigure shared resources across communities and actors located on different levels of power and with different access to resources. Empirically, we reconstruct the mobilization and reconfiguration of shared resources across the network in an in‐depth case study of a CSE‐BM in rural Greece. We find that CSE‐BMs can mobilize resources across the network by offering value propositions that stakeholders regard as credible because decision‐makers show attachment to the place. To realize sufficient value for members to sustain their contributions to the CSE‐BM, product, service, and process innovations are complemented by social innovations. Mobilizing and reconfiguring shared resources across different interest groups unleashes the innovative potential of CSE‐BMs but causes tensions between different mindsets at the same time. Cooperatives offer an organizational structure to turn these tensions from a threat into an opportunity for innovation. Our findings contribute to the Sharing Economy Business Model (SE‐BM) literature on typology building and the construction of ideal types. We also advance the SE‐BM debate by shedding light on the potential of cooperative forms of organizing collaborative production in the sharing economy. Practically, we contribute to the discussion about the importance of physical vs. digital platforms as intermediaries in SE‐BMs.
{"title":"How production cooperatives operating a sharing economy business model innovate in rural places","authors":"Matthias Fink, Daniela Maresch, Richard Lang, Ralph Richter, Georgios Chatzichristos","doi":"10.1111/radm.12679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12679","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we investigate how production Cooperatives with a Sharing Economy Business Model (CSE‐BMs) foster innovations in structurally weak rural places. Taking a place‐based social capital perspective, we argue that the strength of CSE‐BMs in developing process, service, product, and social innovation lies in their ability to reconfigure shared resources across communities and actors located on different levels of power and with different access to resources. Empirically, we reconstruct the mobilization and reconfiguration of shared resources across the network in an in‐depth case study of a CSE‐BM in rural Greece. We find that CSE‐BMs can mobilize resources across the network by offering value propositions that stakeholders regard as credible because decision‐makers show attachment to the place. To realize sufficient value for members to sustain their contributions to the CSE‐BM, product, service, and process innovations are complemented by social innovations. Mobilizing and reconfiguring shared resources across different interest groups unleashes the innovative potential of CSE‐BMs but causes tensions between different mindsets at the same time. Cooperatives offer an organizational structure to turn these tensions from a threat into an opportunity for innovation. Our findings contribute to the Sharing Economy Business Model (SE‐BM) literature on typology building and the construction of ideal types. We also advance the SE‐BM debate by shedding light on the potential of cooperative forms of organizing collaborative production in the sharing economy. Practically, we contribute to the discussion about the importance of physical vs. digital platforms as intermediaries in SE‐BMs.","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140036293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study mainly aims to analyse whether innovation related to the circular economy's principles, defined as ‘circular innovation’, is closely linked to environmental disclosure and contributes to the generation of improvements in environmental performance. The article also aims to test whether waste patents, as a specific indicator of circular innovation, are more valuable assets that need specific strategic management due to their level of novelty, complexity, and radicalness being higher than other green or conventional innovations. The empirical analysis uses a rich firm‐level dataset of worldwide companies for the 2011–2015 period, with 1330 observations to show that environmental disclosure and environmental performance are positively associated with circular innovation. This innovation is in fact, more intensive in patent claims and patent citation generation, indicating a higher economic value for companies. The article contributes to this new line of inquiry on defining circular innovation, as well as providing some environmental determinants and consequences from the stakeholders' perspective in relation to circular business models.
{"title":"Management of patented ‘circular innovation’ in view of the circular economy","authors":"Jesús Valero‐Gil, Sabina Scarpellini","doi":"10.1111/radm.12677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12677","url":null,"abstract":"This study mainly aims to analyse whether innovation related to the circular economy's principles, defined as ‘circular innovation’, is closely linked to environmental disclosure and contributes to the generation of improvements in environmental performance. The article also aims to test whether waste patents, as a specific indicator of circular innovation, are more valuable assets that need specific strategic management due to their level of novelty, complexity, and radicalness being higher than other green or conventional innovations. The empirical analysis uses a rich firm‐level dataset of worldwide companies for the 2011–2015 period, with 1330 observations to show that environmental disclosure and environmental performance are positively associated with circular innovation. This innovation is in fact, more intensive in patent claims and patent citation generation, indicating a higher economic value for companies. The article contributes to this new line of inquiry on defining circular innovation, as well as providing some environmental determinants and consequences from the stakeholders' perspective in relation to circular business models.","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"358 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140036539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Khuram Shahzad, Sorin Dan, Faisal Imran, Philipp Holtkamp, Mari K. Niemi, Martin Meyer
The literature on open innovation (OI) has mainly been focused on the ‘bright side’ of OI, thus neglecting the limits of OI implementation influencing innovation processes during organizational change. It requires to develop a better understanding about the limits of OI. Therefore, this study explores the limits of OI during organizational change and provides approaches that drive firms to offset these limits. The empirical analysis is based on an in‐depth single case study and data was collected through semi‐structured interviews with the representatives engaged with Partner Campus – an OI initiative developed by a multinational manufacturing company. We have found that during the change process of adapting collaborative and absorptive capabilities, and developing organizational readiness, several internal and external challenges limit the company's drive to open up. Internal challenges arise when organizations start the change process in unfreezing stage. The traditional organizational culture and structure challenge incumbent firms to break the existing silos and utilize knowledge and resources effectively for OI implementation, hindering intra‐organizational collaboration. While external challenges arise when organizations transform their endeavors across organizational boundaries and collaborate with external stakeholders. When firms lack knowledge integration and technological capabilities, OI creates collaborative complexity given the magnitude of involved diverse actors and activities at different levels, which challenges the organizations to maintain the longevity of OI practices, resulting in several risks that limit firms to open up. However, we have identified the capabilities and actions that firms can take to strengthen a collaborative environment by counterbalancing these challenges. We contribute to the literature on OI by identifying and assessing the limits of OI, embedded in the organizational change process, that hinder organizational drive for OI. We also contribute to organizational change literature by identifying specific changes related to organizational processes, structure, and culture, and outlining approaches that can support a smooth transition.
{"title":"Limits of open innovation during the organizational change: a case study of a Partner Campus","authors":"Khuram Shahzad, Sorin Dan, Faisal Imran, Philipp Holtkamp, Mari K. Niemi, Martin Meyer","doi":"10.1111/radm.12675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12675","url":null,"abstract":"The literature on open innovation (OI) has mainly been focused on the ‘bright side’ of OI, thus neglecting the limits of OI implementation influencing innovation processes during organizational change. It requires to develop a better understanding about the limits of OI. Therefore, this study explores the limits of OI during organizational change and provides approaches that drive firms to offset these limits. The empirical analysis is based on an in‐depth single case study and data was collected through semi‐structured interviews with the representatives engaged with Partner Campus – an OI initiative developed by a multinational manufacturing company. We have found that during the change process of adapting collaborative and absorptive capabilities, and developing organizational readiness, several internal and external challenges limit the company's drive to open up. Internal challenges arise when organizations start the change process in unfreezing stage. The traditional organizational culture and structure challenge incumbent firms to break the existing silos and utilize knowledge and resources effectively for OI implementation, hindering intra‐organizational collaboration. While external challenges arise when organizations transform their endeavors across organizational boundaries and collaborate with external stakeholders. When firms lack knowledge integration and technological capabilities, OI creates collaborative complexity given the magnitude of involved diverse actors and activities at different levels, which challenges the organizations to maintain the longevity of OI practices, resulting in several risks that limit firms to open up. However, we have identified the capabilities and actions that firms can take to strengthen a collaborative environment by counterbalancing these challenges. We contribute to the literature on OI by identifying and assessing the limits of OI, embedded in the organizational change process, that hinder organizational drive for OI. We also contribute to organizational change literature by identifying specific changes related to organizational processes, structure, and culture, and outlining approaches that can support a smooth transition.","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140036394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the increase in institutional investor shareholdings in emerging market firms, their impact on R&D investments has received scant attention in the literature. By integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives, we examine the role of different types of institutional investors and their interactions with board interlocks in shaping their preference for R&D investment in their portfolio firms. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 2,478 Indian firm-year observations from 2005 to 2019, using various estimation techniques. Our results indicate that different categories of institutional investors have distinct preferences for R&D investment. Specifically, we find that ownership by both foreign institutional investors and mutual fund investors negatively impacts R&D investments in firms. While board interlocks positively moderate the impact of institutional investors such as banks and financial institutions and foreign institutional investors on R&D investments in firms, this moderation is negative in the case of mutual fund investors and R&D investments in firms. We contribute to the understanding of the determinants of R&D investments in emerging market firms, with a specific focus on institutional investor ownership and add to the nascent literature on the interaction between two forms of governance, i.e., ownership and board characteristics, in shaping this firm strategy.
{"title":"R&D investments in emerging market firms: the role of institutional investors and board interlocks","authors":"Saneesh Edacherian, Vidya Sukumara Panicker, Amon Chizema","doi":"10.1111/radm.12678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12678","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the increase in institutional investor shareholdings in emerging market firms, their impact on R&D investments has received scant attention in the literature. By integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives, we examine the role of different types of institutional investors and their interactions with board interlocks in shaping their preference for R&D investment in their portfolio firms. We test our hypotheses on a sample of 2,478 Indian firm-year observations from 2005 to 2019, using various estimation techniques. Our results indicate that different categories of institutional investors have distinct preferences for R&D investment. Specifically, we find that ownership by both foreign institutional investors and mutual fund investors negatively impacts R&D investments in firms. While board interlocks positively moderate the impact of institutional investors such as banks and financial institutions and foreign institutional investors on R&D investments in firms, this moderation is negative in the case of mutual fund investors and R&D investments in firms. We contribute to the understanding of the determinants of R&D investments in emerging market firms, with a specific focus on institutional investor ownership and add to the nascent literature on the interaction between two forms of governance, i.e., ownership and board characteristics, in shaping this firm strategy.","PeriodicalId":21040,"journal":{"name":"R&D Management","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139945770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：