Over the last 15 years, business model innovation (BMI) has gained an increasing amount of attention in management research and among practitioners. The emerging BMI literature addresses an important ...phenomenon but lacks theoretical underpinning, and empirical inquiry is not cumulative. Thus, a concerted research effort seems warranted. Accordingly, we take stock of the extant literature on BMI. We identify and analyze 150 peer-reviewed scholarly articles on BMI published between 2000 and 2015. We provide the first comprehensive systematic review of the BMI literature, include a critical assessment of these research efforts, and offer suggestions for future research. We argue that the literature faces problems with respect to construct clarity and has gaps with respect to the identification of antecedent conditions, contingencies, and outcomes. We identify important avenues for future research and show how the complexity theory, innovation, and other streams of literature can help overcome many of the gaps in the BMI literature.
Microfoundations have become an important theme in recent macromanagement research. However, the international management (IM) field is an exception to this. We document the lack of attention on ...microfoundations in IM research by focusing on knowledge sharing – a key IM research field – which we investigate by means of a keyword-based literature study of the leading IM and general management journals. We discuss possible reasons why microfoundations have so far met with less resonance in IM research. We point to the training and background of IM scholars as possible reasons. We also highlight the significance that IM scholars place on context and structure in explanation. These may be seen as contrary to a microfoundations perspective, a view that we show is incorrect. We end by identifying several microfoundational issues in IM research, calling for a sustained effort with respect to theory, heuristics, and empirics.
What can strategic management research do to help to make sense of the COVID-19 disruption, and what are the implications of the disruption for the strategy field? I argue that among the streams in ...strategy research, behavioral strategy is uniquely situated in terms of providing a psychologically based interpretive lens that could lend great insight into decision making in extreme conditions. However, the disruption also points to weakness in current behavioral strategy thinking, notably with respect to the role of models vis-à-vis judgment in strategic decision making, the deeply social (political, institutional) nature of strategy making, and the treatment of fundamental uncertainty.
We review the literature that links institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth outcomes, focusing in particular on empirical research. Most of the literature has an economics orientation, ...but we also review relevant literature from other social sciences, including management research. The review helps identify a number of conceptual, theoretical, and empirical gaps, calling for further research. For example, the literature narrowly identifies entrepreneurship with start-ups and self-employment; does not theorize many potentially relevant inter-level links and mechanisms; and suffers from sample limitations, omitted variable biases, causality issues, and response heterogeneity. We argue that theories in management research, such as the resource-based view, transaction cost economics, and strategic entrepreneurship theory, can fill some of the conceptual and theoretical gaps.
One of the important events in the development of resource-based theory (RBT) over the past decade has been the call for establishing micro-foundations for RBT. However, the micro-foundations project ...is still largely an unfulfilled promise. This article clarifies the nature of the micro-foundations project, discusses what it may add in terms of additional explanatory leverage, and specifically addresses micro-foundations in the context of knowledge-based value creation, a key theme in RBT.
Entrepreneurship, long neglected by economists and management scholars, has made a dramatic comeback in the last two decades, not only among academic economists and management scholars, but also ...among policymakers, educators and practitioners. Likewise, the economic theory of the firm, building on Ronald Coase's (1937) seminal analysis, has become an increasingly important field in economics and management. Despite this resurgence, there is still little connection between the entrepreneurship literature and the literature on the firm, both in academia and in management practice. This book fills this gap by proposing and developing an entrepreneurial theory of the firm that focuses on the connections between entrepreneurship and management. Drawing on insights from Austrian economics, it describes entrepreneurship as judgmental decision made under uncertainty, showing how judgment is the driving force of the market economy and the key to understanding firm performance and organization.
Research on open innovation suggests that companies benefit differentially from adopting open innovation strategies; however, it is unclear why this is so. One possible explanation is that companies' ...business models are not attuned to open strategies. Accordingly, we propose a contingency model of open business models by systematically linking open innovation strategies to core business model dimensions, notably the content, structure, and governance of transactions. We further illustrate a continuum of open innovativeness, differentiating between four types of open business models. We contribute to the open innovation literature by specifying the conditions under which business models are conducive to the success of open innovation strategies.
•Employee characteristics predict firms’ use of external knowledge for innovation.•Employees’ knowledge diversity increases firm-level openness.•Diversity of educational background positively relates ...to firm-level openness.•Diversity of work history and firm-level openness do not directly relate.•Educational background diversity positively moderates work history-openness link.
The use of external knowledge for innovation (i.e., inbound or outside-in open innovation) has received substantial attention in the innovation literature. However, the “human side” of open innovation is still poorly understood. We consider the role of employee characteristics with respect to predicting firm-level openness. Drawing on the human capital, learning and creativity literatures, we theorize that knowledge diversity of the firm’s employees is positively associated with employees’ ability to identify and absorb external knowledge, which aggregates to increased firm-level openness—that is, firms’ use of external knowledge in their pursuit of innovation. Based on a combination of three data sources, namely, two survey data sources and register data, we find support for our hypothesis that employees’ educational diversity is positively associated with firm-level openness. However, we find no direct association between employees’ work history diversity and firm-level openness but rather—as also hypothesized—a conditional relationship based on educational background, which implies that diverse work history only has a positive impact at higher levels of educational diversity. To reduce endogeneity concerns, we undertake a series of robustness checks.
We discuss and examine recent claims that research on knowledge processes has paid insufficient attention to micro (individual) level constructs and mechanisms and to the role of formal organization ...in governing knowledge processes. We review knowledge sharing research published in 13 (top academic plus top practitioner‐oriented) journals in the period 1996–2006 in relation to these two propositions. The review confirms the claim that the knowledge sharing literature is preoccupied with constructs, processes, and phenomena defined at a macro (collective, organizational) level and pay comparatively little attention to micro level constructs. The review provides less support for the proposition that formal governance mechanisms have been under‐researched in comparison to formal organization. Still, the multiple ways in which formal governance mechanisms may interact in influencing knowledge sharing outcomes have been under‐researched, as has the interaction between more informal aspects of the firm and formal governance mechanisms. We argue that future research on knowledge sharing needs to fill these gaps.
PDF
