Suchergebnisse

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a typology of institutions enabling or constraining customer centricity and value co-creation in service ecosystems; illustrate the various types of institutions with examples from healthcare; and provide case study evidence on how pharmaceutical companies react to and induce institutional change. Design/methodology/approach – First, a typology of institutions enabling or constraining customer centricity and value co-creation is proposed and illustrated with examples from healthcare. Next, to clarify how companies deal with these institutions by reacting to or inducing institutional change, two case companies from the pharmaceutical industry are described. Findings – The research identifies and illustrates nine types of institutions (culture, structure, processes, metrics, language, practices, IP, legislation and general beliefs) grouped by three levels of analysis (micro, meso and macro). Furthermore, the findings of the two case studies indicate that companies react to, but also proactively induce, institutional change. Research limitations/implications – The investigation is limited to two case studies. Practical implications – Organizations need to understand the micro-, meso- and macro-level institutions of their service ecosystem; react to institutional changes imposed by other actors; and proactively change institutions by breaking, making or maintaining them. Social implications – Pharmaceutical companies can improve patient well-being by inducing institutional change. Originality/value – This research develops a mid-range theory of service ecosystem institutions by developing a typology. This typology is empirically examined in a healthcare context.

Virtually all our social institutions, public and corporate, are suffering paroxysms of restructuring. Waves of institutional agitation are sweeping across our social structure. This article explores some of the causes and consequences of the present frenzy of institutional change, finding that much of it is not the inevitable result of social, economic and technological pressures beyond our control, but rather is largely prompted by a developing cultural addiction to change as a good in itself. A lot of so-called restructuring, it concludes, amounts to unnecessary institutional vandalism.

Many philosophers regard collective behavior and attitudes as the ground of the whole of social reality. According to this popular view, society is composed basically of collective intentions and cooperative behaviors; this is so both for informal contexts involving small groups and for complex institutional structures. In this article, I challenge this view, and propose an alternative approach, which I term institutional externalism. I argue that institutions are characterized by the tendency to defer to elements that are external to the content of collective intentions—such as laws, declarations, and contracts. According to institutional externalism, those elements are the grounds of institutional statutes, rights, and duties.

Since the inception of market reforms until the present day Russian institutions have been shaped primarily by economic and political elites, with minimal involvement of the rest of the society in this process. Outcomes of such "institutional outsourcing" for the society depend on the affinity between elites' preferences and societal needs. Low quality of Russian institutions is explained in the paper by a substantial conflict of interests between the society and unaccountable elites. Prospects of Russian modernization are thus contingent on the accumulation of civic culture and more effective representation of the society in the process of institutional change.