IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/poicbe/v11y2017i1p1009-1019n105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of silo mentality on corporate ITC’s business model

Author

Listed:
  • Mohapeloa Tshidi

    (Rhodes Business School, Grahamstown, South Africa)

Abstract

Background & orientation: The existence of silo mentality has direct effect on the business model used by any ITC company. Its contribution slows service delivery whilst increasing customer’s despondency. However mitigation could help overcome barriers within divisions, improve customer experience and increase productivity. But when different units as components of a company fail to integrate, collaborate and work together to achieve a common objective goal, not only are performances affected but also operations at all levels. A business model canvas can help determine how a company intends to create value for customers whilst it makes money. Thus deliverance of an effective value proposition for efficient customer needs, can be affected through silos. Purpose: This study explore the effects of silo mentality within an ITC company (at organisational level) using the 9 elements of the business model canvas as framework. Methodology and research questions: As an exploratory study qualitative methods were used where in-depth interview questions looked at how silo mentality within the organisation affects the core business model elements and why. Twelve participants were selected from an enterprise business unit through a convenience sampling method. Content analysis helped with the development of core themes that looked at the how silos affect each element (process) and why (meaning). Findings: Silo mentality affects not only the individuals but team, products, value proposition, relations with partners, customers, stakeholders. Thus undermines internal capabilities and key resources. Absence of teamwork within the divisions leads to conflicts which delays achievements of common goals. Bottlenecks affect inter-divisional progress and relations, customer output and relations and compromise the quality of service. Implications: Silo mentality is a bottleneck that not only weakens firms’ capabilities and growth potential but destroys any value created by the firm.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohapeloa Tshidi, 2017. "Effects of silo mentality on corporate ITC’s business model," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 1009-1019, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:1009-1019:n:105
    DOI: 10.1515/picbe-2017-0105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/picbe-2017-0105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/picbe-2017-0105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chad Syverson, 2011. "What Determines Productivity?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 326-365, June.
    2. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    3. Michael A. Diamond & Seth Allcorn, 2009. "Private Selves in Public Organizations," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-62009-4.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simeon D. Alder, 2016. "In the Wrong Hands: Complementarities, Resource Allocation, and TFP," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 199-241, January.
    2. Mingfeng Tang & Grace Sheila Walsh & Cuiwen Li & Angathevar Baskaran, 2021. "Exploring technology business incubators and their business incubation models: case studies from China," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 90-116, February.
    3. Joachim Wagner, 2012. "Exports, R&D and productivity: a test of the Bustos-model with German enterprise data," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 1942-1948.
    4. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    5. Becker, Sascha & Hvide, Hans V, 2013. "Do entrepreneurs matter?," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 109, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    6. Bonatti, Alessandro & Hörner, Johannes, 2017. "Learning to disagree in a game of experimentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 234-269.
    7. Kim, Hyungtai & Ahn, Sanghoon & Ulfarsson, Gudmundur F., 2021. "Impacts of transportation and industrial complexes on establishment-level productivity growth in Korea," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 89-97.
    8. Balázs Égert, 2016. "Regulation, Institutions, and Productivity: New Macroeconomic Evidence from OECD Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 109-113, May.
    9. MORIKAWA Masayuki, 2015. "Service Trade and Productivity: Firm-level evidence from Japan," Discussion papers 15030, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    10. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    11. Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank & Schymura, Michael, 2015. "Peeling the onion: Analyzing aggregate, national and sectoral energy intensity in the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 63-75.
    12. Amitabh Chandra & Amy Finkelstein & Adam Sacarny & Chad Syverson, 2016. "Health Care Exceptionalism? Performance and Allocation in the US Health Care Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2110-2144, August.
    13. Richard Hunt & Lauren Ortiz-Hunt, 2018. "Deinstitutionalization through Business Model Evolution: Women Entrepreneurs in the Middle East and North Africa," Chapters, in: Ladislav Mura (ed.), Entrepreneurship - Development Tendencies and Empirical Approach, IntechOpen.
    14. Alessandra Bonfiglioli & Rosario Crinò & Gino Gancia, 2018. "Firms and Economic Performance: A view from Trade," Working Papers 1034, Barcelona School of Economics.
    15. Jose Garcia-Louzao & Linas Tarasonis, 2023. "Productivity-enhancing reallocation during the Great Recession: evidence from Lithuania," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 729-749.
    16. N. N., 2019. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 12/2019," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 92(12), December.
    17. Li, Linjie & Liu, Xiaming & Yuan, Dong & Yu, Miaojie, 2017. "Does outward FDI generate higher productivity for emerging economy MNEs? – Micro-level evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 839-854.
    18. Stefania Lovo & Gonzalo Varela, 2022. "Internationally Linked Firms and Productivity in Pakistan: A Look at the Top End of the Distribution," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(10), pages 2110-2131, October.
    19. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    20. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian S. Silverman, 2017. "On the Genesis of Interfirm Relational Contracts," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 234-245, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:11:y:2017:i:1:p:1009-1019:n:105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.