Intraorganizational evolution

Intraorganizational evolution (iOE) is a relatively new, emergent area of research. Although evolutionary metaphors have often surfaced in organization theory, attempts to analyze the evolutionary dynamics unfolding within organizations have been quite sparse and systematic only in recent years. The basic concepts and tools of iOE are thus still in the process of being shaped. As a subject of analysis, iOE is the set of processes through which intraorganizational entities of different types (e.g. routines, jobs, formal rules) reproduce and modify themselves, and change their relative frequency in populations of individuals carrying them. As a theoretical perspective, it is the attempt to apply the lens of evolutionary thinking to the observation and understanding of these processes

Collective performance: modeling the interaction of habit-based actions

Recurring patterns of action are essential in our efforts to explain central properties of business firms and other organizations. However, the development of systematic theory has been hampered by the difficulty of adequately specifying foundational assumptions. We address this problem by defining a concept of collective performance, which brings together a range of recurring organizational action patterns that have been studied under labels such as “routine,” “practice,” standard operating procedure, or “genre of action.” All these forms of organizational action are based on human habit to a significant degree. We propose a conceptual framework for such habit-based organizational action patterns. The framework is a set of core principles and desirable model properties that can serve as a guide in the development of formal models of collective performance. It provides micro-foundations for the modeling of collective performance that are aligned with contemporary developments in psychology. Finally, we present a series of examples, developed in Supplementary Materials, that shows how our framework leads to new classes of formal models that can aid the analysis of collective performance

An Examination of the Antecedents and Implications of Patent Scope

This paper focuses on the concept of patent scope, and contributes to existing research in three ways. First, it offers a re-examination of the construct and identifies two dimensions of patent scope, (1) the number of variations of the core inventive idea identified in the patent, reflected in the number of claims in the patent (e.g. Merges and Nelson, 1994); and (2) the positioning of those variations in the inventive space, which is reflected in the number of technological classes in which patent examiners classify those claims. Second, it investigates the implications of patent scope for the firm’s subsequent inventive performance, and finds that, when the scope of a patents spans across a higher number of technological classes, the extent to which the inventing firm itself succeeds in building on the knowledge underlying its own patent is lower. Third, it investigates the antecedents of scope, and suggests that prior investment in scientific knowledge and in related inventive experience are two factors that affect the scope of the patents that firms develop. The theoretical predictions elaborated in this paper are supported by an empirical examination of a longitudinal sample of firms in the photonics industry

Sources of Selection in Strategy Making

Peer reviewedPostprin

How managers can build trust in strategic alliances: a meta-analysis on the central trust-building mechanisms

Trust is an important driver of superior alliance performance. Alliance managers are influential in this regard because trust requires active involvement, commitment and the dedicated support of the key actors involved in the strategic alliance. Despite the importance of trust for explaining alliance performance, little effort has been made to systematically investigate the mechanisms that managers can use to purposefully create trust in strategic alliances. We use Parkhe’s (1998b) theoretical framework to derive nine hypotheses that distinguish between process-based, characteristic-based and institutional-based trust-building mechanisms. Our meta-analysis of 64 empirical studies shows that trust is strongly related to alliance performance. Process-based mechanisms are more important for building trust than characteristic- and institutional-based mechanisms. The effects of prior ties and asset specificity are not as strong as expected and the impact of safeguards on trust is not well understood. Overall, theoretical trust research has outpaced empirical research by far and promising opportunities for future empirical research exist

Industry cognitive distance in alliances and firm innovation performance

This paper focuses on the role of industry cognitive distance in innovation alliances on firm innovation performance. Drawing from the literature on technological cognitive distance in alliances, we elaborate on the role of industry cognitive distance between partners and its impact on managerial attention to investigate the role of numbers of alliances of low (intra‐industry) and high (inter‐industry) industry cognitive distance on firm innovation performance. Intra‐industry alliances offer lower opportunities for innovation compared to inter‐industry alliances and are less demanding on firm management due to higher cognitive similarity between partners from the same industry. We propose that trade‐offs between innovation opportunities and management efforts result in an inverted U and a U‐shaped relationship between the number of intra‐ and inter‐industry alliances and innovation performance, respectively. We find support for both hypotheses in the context of the UK bio‐pharmaceutical sector