Suchergebnisse

PurposeStudies on inter-firm relationships have recently shifted their attention from dyadic networks to more globally driven network structures. This condition occurs because embeddedness in global network structures may improve firm innovation and performance. In addition, the improvement of firm innovativeness and performance seems higher when globally networked firms both compete and cooperate between and among them. In this paper, we categorize the simultaneous interplay of cooperation and competition in the global arena as global network coopetition (GNC). Under GNC, multinational enterprises act jointly with their global partners-rivals to improve performance, at the same time by sharing complementary resources (cooperation side) and by undertaking independent actions to enhance their own performance (competition side). This paper aims to expand existing research on network and global coopetition by shedding light on the effects of coopetition between and among firms belonging to global network structures on value capture and innovation performance.Design/methodology/approachUsing a sample of 100 firms belonging to 14 industries organized in 47 global networks of different sizes, the authors conducted a longitudinal empirical study over the period 2000-2014 covering 1,098 observations, 1,717 interfirm relationships and 78 inter-networks linkages. A multiple regression model on panel data with random effects was conducted on the sample of 1,098 observations related to the global automotive industry to test the research hypotheses.FindingsFindings show that GNC enhances firm performance and innovation outcomes. In addition to GNC, structural characteristics such as network size, network position and network diversity have significant positive or negative effects on innovation and performance outcomes of firms belonging to these global network structures.Research limitations/implicationsOur research offers a contribution to the literature dealing with global networked structures' effects on firm innovation performance. In fact, it effectively complements prior work on outcomes of coopetition between firms embedded in complex network structures. It also advances research in the area by introducing the notion of GNC as a network by which firms can enhance their innovation performance and, therefore, their global innovation performance. This study has some limitations. First, we acknowledge that it is focused only on 14 global coopetitive networks. It could be promising to extend the scope to integrate other networks. Second, our measures of firm actions as based on a content analysis of news reports related to firms. It would be important to complement this data collection by conducting a qualitative analysis (interviews). Atlast, it could be promising to include the study of customer needs in the new product development process.Practical implicationsOur study also offers some insights into the management of coopetition. In fact, by taking into account the existence of a context in which global coopetition networks play a role, managers may be better positioned to effectively deal with the paradox of being a partner of their direct rivals to improve their firms' innovativeness and, consequently, achieve good performance, on the one hand, and to maintain relationships within several networks by taking into account their structural properties such as centrality and diversity, on the other hand.Originality/valueWe contribute to extant network coopetition literature in two ways. First, we introduce the notion of GNC to detect coopetition occurrence in global network structures. GNC refers to a context where actors in various networks belonging to different industries and geographies cooperate in a one (or more) innovative project/s, while simultaneously keeping on competing within and between their networks. Second, we contribute to network coopetition by analyzing specific GNC effects on firm innovation performance. In so doing, we can provide a deeper analytical understanding of GNC performance effects on firms operating in global network contexts.

This state-of-the-art Research Handbook presents a comprehensive overview of the key strategic challenges that firms face when dealing with digital markets, platforms, and products and services, from old strategy questions in need of different solutions to entirely novel issues posed by the new competitive digital context. Bringing together contributions from international experts in digital strategy, the Research Handbook depicts the contours of the major threads of investigation that shape the digital transformation process at firm, platform, market, and industry levels. Chapters explore the fundamentals of digital strategy and digitization, the design of digital organizational architectures, how value is created and captured through data strategies, and the manifold challenges that firms face in the digital era. From the impact of Big Data analytics and AI on management thinking and practice to the nature of digital competition and user engagement on social media platforms, the Research Handbook takes stock of emerging issues and advancements in digital strategy research and ultimately considers how future digital strategy frameworks might be cultivated. This timely Research Handbook will be an invaluable tool for students and scholars of strategic management, international management, entrepreneurship, and technology and innovation management. Its discussion of how digital strategy relates to traditional strategy frameworks will also benefit executives, entrepreneurs, and consultants with an interest in better understanding the state of the art of digital strategy.

PurposeDrawing upon the importance of research and development (R&D) alliances in driving firm innovation performance, extant research has analyzed individually the impact of R&D alliance partner attributes on firm innovation performance. Despite such analyzes, research has generally underestimated the configurations of partner attributes leading to firm innovation performance. This research gap is interesting to explore, as firms involved in R&D alliances usually face a combination of partner attributes. Moreover, gaining a better understanding of how R&D partner attributes tie into configurations is an issue that is attracting particular interest in coopetition research and alliance literature. This paper aims to obtain a better knowledge of this underrated, but important, aspect of alliances by exploring what configurations of R&D alliance partner attributes lead firms involved in R&D alliances to achieve high innovation performance. To tackle this question, first, this study reviews the extant literature on R&D alliances by relying on the knowledge-based view of alliances to identify the most impactful partner attributes on firms' innovation performance. This paper then applies a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore the configurations of R&D alliance partner attributes that lead firms involved in R&D alliances to achieve high innovation performance.Design/methodology/approachThis study selects 27 R&D alliances formed worldwide in the telecom industry. This paper explores the multiple configurations of partner attributes of these alliances by conducting a fsQCA.FindingsThe findings of the fsQCA show that the two alternate configurations of partner attributes guided the firms involved in these alliances to achieve high innovation performance: a configuration with extensive partner technological relatedness and coopetition, but no experience; and a configuration with extensive partner experience and competition, but no technological relatedness.Research limitations/implicationsThe research highlights the importance of how partner attributes (i.e. partner technological relatedness, partner competitive overlap, partner experience and partner relative size) tie, with regard to the firms' access to external knowledge and consequently to their willingness to achieve high innovation performance. Moreover, this paper reveals the beneficial effect of competition on the innovation performance of the firms involved in R&D alliances when some of the other knowledge-based partner attributes are considered. Despite these insights for alliance and coopetition literature, some limitations are to be noted. First, some of the partners' attributes considered could be further disentangled into sub-partner attributes. Second, other indicators might be used to measure firms' innovation performance. Third, as anticipated this study applies fsQCA to explore the combinatory effects of partner attributes in the specific context of R&D alliances in the telecom industry worldwide and in a specific time window. This condition may question the extensibility of the results to other industries and times.Practical implicationsThis study also bears two interesting implications for alliance managers. First, the paper suggests that R&D alliance managers need to be aware that potential alliance partners have multiple attributes leading to firm innovation performance. In this regard, partner competitive overlap is particularly important for gaining a better understanding of firm innovation performance. When looking for strategic partners, managers should try to ally with highly competitive enterprises so as to access their more innovative knowledge. Second, the results also highlight that this beneficial effect of coopetition in R&D alliances can be amplified in two ways. On the one hand, when the partners involved in the alliance have not yet developed experience in forming alliances. Partners without previous experience supply ideal stimuli to unlock more knowledge in the alliance because new approaches to access and develop knowledge in the alliance could be explored. On the other hand, this paper detects the situation when the allied partners are developing technologies and products in different areas. When partnering with firms coming from different technological areas, the knowledge diversity that can be leveraged in the alliances could drive alliance managers to generate synergies and economies of scope within the coopetitive alliance.Originality/valueExtant research has analyzed individually the impact of R&D alliance partner attributes on firm innovation performance but has concurrently underestimated the configurations of partner attributes leading to firm innovation performance. Therefore, this paper differs from previous studies, as it provides an understanding of the specific configurations of R&D alliance partner attributes leading firms involved in R&D alliances to achieve high innovation performance.

AbstractResearch Question/IssueThis paper disentangles how the modes of ownership distribution among multiple blockholders and their heterogeneity shape principal–principal conflicts and, in turn, affect firm performance. The paper offers empirical evidence from a panel of Italian closely held firms over the period 2009–2014.Research Findings/InsightsWe explore the principal–principal conflicts among blockholders across two distinct control structures. When a single blockholder controls the firm, principal–principal conflicts are shaped by the trade‐off between the alignment effect and the monitoring effect. In this scenario, we find that the relationship between the two largest blockholders' ownership concentration and firm performance is U‐shaped. Furthermore, we show that heterogeneity across the two largest blockholder types has a negative effect on performance. In the absence of a controlling blockholder, firm control is usually obtained by forming coalitions, and principal–principal conflicts involve the blockholders inside the controlling coalition and the other shareholders. We find that the ownership distribution and heterogeneity across blockholder types are negatively related to the size of controlling coalitions, and in turn, the size of controlling coalitions is positively correlated with firm performance.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsWe contribute to principal–principal segment of agency theory by showing that the presence of a controlling blockholder is a key variable that alters the relationship between blockholders' ownership concentration and corporate performance, as well as the relationship between heterogeneity across the largest blockholders and firm performance.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsOur findings across control structures in which multiple blockholders are present suggest that blockholders take different roles depending on the control structure in which they are involved. The implications of these findings relate to the design of the ownership structure of a firm.

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and the Diffusion of Startups addresses, for the first time, the emerging notion of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Chapters from leading scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship and strategy explore new ideas and provoke debate in both academia and practice. Covering the emergence, dynamics and management of entrepreneurial ecosystems and offering conceptual tools, experimental evidence and practical examples, this book will be invaluable to those seeking a greater understanding of entrepreneurship and startup strategies, both practitioners and students

The volume presents and discusses a variety of recent developments and achievements in research on entrepreneurship. It aims at taking a systematic analysis of the theory and practice of entrepreneurship, especially in regard to nurturing strategic systems, governance arrangements, and evolutionary paths in organizations. Bringing together the insights of an international recognized array of academics, entrepreneurs, and executives, New Frontiers in Entrepreneurship focuses on two key themes: (1) connecting developments in entrepreneurship to current strategy thinking and practice; and (2) generating new and innovative ways to cultivate and develop entrepreneurial processes in new ventures and established enterprises. Exploring such topics as the integration of entrepreneurial and strategic thinking, corporate governance of new ventures and spin-offs, business-university alliances, IPO performance, the impact of Open Source, the role of science and technology in new firm formation, and the emergence of the entrepreneurial society. In the process, the authors demonstrate how entrepreneurship promotes organizational genesis, growth, and rejuvenation on a practical level, and consider on the research side how entrepreneurship has developed from a peripheral sub-field of management studies into one of the most relevant spheres of strategic management

AbstractIndustrial clusters are perceived as potential drivers of small and medium‐sized enterprises development and efficient policy instruments to lead national and regional innovation and growth. However, these clusters in developing economies are typically placed in complex environments that impose a mix of serious challenges that adversely affect their overall performance. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the nature of these challenges and understand their dynamics using a case study of a carpet industry cluster in Iran. Using multiple sources of evidence, the study reveals two distinct, yet interrelated, levels of challenges: micro and macro. Under each level, a number of key dimensions were identified and theoretically linked which helped to conceptualize the structure of these challenges and model their dynamics.

The "entrepreneurial ecosystem†metaphor is capturing attention in academia, industry, and government. The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach is used in corporate, national, or local contexts, and has grown in prominence given the vital need to transform economies around the creation of innovative ideas, products, services, and technologies. Entrepreneurial ecosystems involve a network, a system, of interactions of individuals and organizations, like financial intermediaries, universities and research institutions, suppliers and customers, multinational companies, or the government. The entrepreneurial ecosystem literature has thus mainly focused on identifying the relevant stakeholders like entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurs and how they interact with other stakeholders within a more or less defined system. Despite the popularity of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach, the literature has almost overlooked and largely ignored the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This special Issue of Small Business Economics critically examines issues concerning the governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Purpose– This paper aims to explore the latent structure of the literature on interorganizational network and innovation as well as to map the main themes and empirical advances in this research stream.Design/methodology/approach– Using bibliometric coupling, the authors analyze the citation patterns in 67 management studies regarding innovation networks, published in ISI-journals from January 1996 to October 2012.Findings– The authors identify the conceptual orientations that studies share. Bibliometric analysis allows us to draw an overview of how this field of research has developed, recognizing in essence six main clustered research themes: networks as a framework that sustains firm innovativeness in specific contexts; network dimensions and knowledge processes; networks as a means to access and share resources/knowledge; the interplay between firm and network characteristics and its effects on innovative processes; empirical research on networks in highly dynamic industries; and the influence of industry knowledge domain's peculiarities on network dimensions and characteristics.Research limitations/implications– By providing a comprehensive survey of current trends in the literature on interorganizational network and innovation, the authors eventually identify the major gaps in our knowledge and help refocusing the current research agenda in this increasingly relevant research stream.Practical implications– The systematic introduction to the field of innovation networks is of notable interest to scholars and practitioners, who have (or desire to have) some awareness in the topic. Here, practitioners may find their compass to acquire some knowledge on innovation networks and orient their choices.Originality/value– First, the spatially organized picture of the intellectual structure of the literature the authors offer is the initial thought-out comprehensive introduction to the field of on interorganizational network and innovation. Second, by developing a thorough bibliometric analysis of the extant bulk of the innovation networks literature, the authors develop specific methodological contribution. Third, we are able to map the intellectual structure in a two-dimensional space to visualize spatial distances between intellectual themes.