IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v150y2020ics0040162519310807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do you see what I see? How differing perceptions of the environment can hinder radical business model innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Egfjord, Kathrine Friis-Holm
  • Sund, Kristian J.

Abstract

Incumbent firms face the challenge of how to adapt to disruptive changes in the external environment. One way to solve this challenge is to allocate resources to identifying and exploring new trends and opportunities emerging from the environment that may affect existing business models, and guide the development of new ones. As has been widely acknowledged, many incumbents fail at more radical business model innovation. Few studies have examined the role of cognition in this context. We suggest that differences in strategic issue identification and interpretation can help to explain the cognitive barriers that emerge when incumbent firms try to engage with radical business model innovation. We propose and test a Delphi-based method to elicit and examine differences in the perception of industry trends, comparing innovators, core business employees, and external experts, in the context of a leading Nordic insurance firm. We find considerable disagreement between members of the innovation department and the core business, in this firm. We suggest this helps explain why internal innovators find it challenging to “sell” radically new business models to the core business. More generally, we contribute to the growing literature on business model innovation in incumbent firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Egfjord, Kathrine Friis-Holm & Sund, Kristian J., 2020. "Do you see what I see? How differing perceptions of the environment can hinder radical business model innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:150:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519310807
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162519310807
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119787?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beverly Virany & Michael L. Tushman & Elaine Romanelli, 1992. "Executive Succession and Organization Outcomes in Turbulent Environments: An Organization Learning Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 72-91, February.
    2. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    3. Raphael Amit & Christoph Zott, 2001. "Value creation in E‐business," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 493-520, June.
    4. Nicholas S. Argyres & Brian S. Silverman, 2004. "R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 929-958, August.
    5. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    6. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    7. Jiang, Ruth & Kleer, Robin & Piller, Frank T., 2017. "Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 84-97.
    8. Benn Lawson & Danny Samson, 2001. "Developing Innovation Capability In Organisations: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 377-400.
    9. Sarah Kaplan, 2011. "Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a Look to the Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 665-695, May.
    10. Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2001. "Patterns of innovation organisation in service firms: postal survey results and theoretical models," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 57-67, February.
    11. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    12. Karolin Frankenberger & Tobias Weiblen & Michaela Csik & Oliver Gassmann, 2013. "The 4I-framework of business model innovation: a structured view on process phases and challenges," International Journal of Product Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(3/4), pages 249-273.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paiola, Marco & Khvatova, Tatiana & Schiavone, Francesco & Jabeen, Fauzia, 2022. "Paths toward advanced service-oriented business models: A configurational analysis of small- and medium-sized incumbent manufacturers11A previous version of the present article was presented at the EI," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Zheng, Lu & Ulrich, Klaus & Sendra-García, Javier, 2021. "Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 83-93.
    3. Konstantina Ragazou, 2021. "Business Strategies in HR in Times of Crisis: The Case of Agri-Food Industry in Central Greece," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Lantano, Francesco & Petruzzelli, Antonio Messeni & Panniello, Umberto, 2022. "Business model innovation in video-game consoles to face the threats of mobile gaming: Evidence from the case of Sony PlayStation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    5. Gijón, Covadonga & Albarrán Lozano, Irene & Molina, José Manuel, 2021. "Perception of innovation in Spain," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238024, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    6. Sund, Kristian J. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Sahramaa, Meri, 2021. "Managing business model exploration in incumbent firms: A case study of innovation labs in European banks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 11-19.
    7. Boumediene Ramdani & Ahmed Binsaif & Elias Boukrami & Cherif Guermat, 2022. "Business models innovation in investment banks: a resilience perspective," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 51-78, March.
    8. Yela Aránega, Alba & Del Val Núñez, Mª Teresa & Castaño Sánchez, Rafael, 2020. "Mindfulness as an intrapreneurship tool for improving the working environment and self-awareness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 186-193.
    9. Antonio Sianes & Rocío Vela-Jiménez, 2020. "Can Differing Opinions Hinder Partnerships for the Localization of the Sustainable Development Goals? Evidence from Marginalized Urban Areas in Andalusia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Shoukohyar, Sajjad & Seddigh, Mohammad Reza, 2020. "Uncovering the dark and bright sides of implementing collaborative forecasting throughout sustainable supply chains: An exploratory approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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. John Joseph & Alex J. Wilson, 2018. "The growth of the firm: An attention‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1779-1800, June.
    2. Belinda Wade & Andrew Griffiths, 2022. "Exploring the Cognitive Foundations of Managerial (Climate) Change Decisions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 15-40, November.
    3. Payam Hanafizadeh & Mohammad Mehrabioun & Kambiz Badie & Jahanyar Bamdad Soofi, 2018. "A Systemic Framework for Business Model Design and Development -Part A: Theorizing Perspective," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 437-461, August.
    4. Liang, H. & Marquis, C. & Renneboog, L.D.R. & Li Sun, Sunny, 2014. "Speaking of Corporate Social Responsibility," Other publications TiSEM 92732b13-3daf-45d1-99a1-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Günther, Elmar & Greven, Gunther, 2019. "Geschäftsmodellinnovationen etablierter Unternehmen: Eine literaturbasierte Darstellung der Herausforderungen und Ansätze am Fallbeispiel der BMW Impact Ventures," PraxisWISSEN Marketing: German Journal of Marketing, AfM – Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Marketing, vol. 4(01/2019), pages 32-44.
    6. Zeeshan Asim & Shahryar Sorooshian, 2019. "Exploring the Role of Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Management (KNIT) Capabilities that Influence Research and Development," JOItmC, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-47, April.
    7. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    8. Megan F. Hess & Andrew M. Hess, 2016. "Stakeholder-Driven Strategic Renewal," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(3), pages 53-67, March.
    9. Tim Heubeck & Reinhard Meckl, 2022. "Antecedents to cognitive business model evaluation: a dynamic managerial capabilities perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(8), pages 2441-2466, November.
    10. Choi, Jaeho & Rhee, Mooweon & Kim, Young-Choon, 2019. "Performance feedback and problemistic search: The moderating effects of managerial and board outsiderness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 21-33.
    11. Tulin Dzhengiz, 2018. "The Relationship of Organisational Value Frames with the Configuration of Alliance Portfolios: Cases from Electricity Utilities in Great Britain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-29, November.
    12. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2015. "Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 831-850, June.
    13. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    14. Gavin M Schwarz & Karin Sanders & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2020. "In the driving seat: Executive’s perceived control over environment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 317-342, May.
    15. Best, Bernadette & Miller, Kristel & McAdam, Rodney & Maalaoui, Adnane, 2022. "Business model innovation within SPOs: Exploring the antecedents and mechanisms facilitating multi-level value co-creation within a value-network," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 475-494.
    16. Stea, Diego & Foss, Nicolai J. & Christensen, Peter Holdt, 2015. "Physical separation in the workplace: Separation cues, separation awareness, and employee motivation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 462-471.
    17. Zhiwei Yan & Xuerong Peng & Seoki Lee & Leibao Zhang, 2023. "How do multiple cognitions shape corporate proactive environmental strategies? The joint effects of environmental awareness and entrepreneurial orientation," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 1592-1617, September.
    18. Joseph McManus, 2021. "Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 153-168, February.
    19. Charles H. Cho & Jonathan Maurice & Emmanuelle Nègre & Marie-Anne Verdier, 2016. "Is environmental disclosure good for the environment? A meta-analysis and research agenda," Post-Print halshs-01369422, HAL.
    20. Xue, Jinjie & Liu, Junqi & Geng, Zizhen & Yuan, Hongping & Chao, Lei, 2023. "Why and when do paradoxical management capabilities matter to paradoxical pressure? An empirical investigation of the role of coopetition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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:eee:tefoso:v:150:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519310807. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.