24 research outputs found
Value capture and embeddedness in social-purpose-driven ecosystems : A multiple-case study of European digital healthcare platforms
We aim to answer the question of the effect of a social-purpose-driven ecosystem on value capture from digital health platforms. We call the social-purpose-driven ecosystem a phenomenon which seeks social impact before profits and aims to empower citizens for individual and collective well-being. Thus, capturing value from digital platforms embedded in a social-purpose-driven ecosystem fundamentally differs from profiting from purely commercial digital platforms and poses significant challenges to platform owners and public policy. Previous research has focused mainly on profiting from technological innovations but has yet to consider the contextual role of the social-purpose-driven ecosystem. We applied the Profiting from Innovation (PFI) framework to fill this gap. Furthermore, based on the results of the multiple-case study of five European digital healthcare platforms, we extend the PFI framework. As a result, we define four unique contingencies which enable value capture from digital healthcare platforms embedded in a social-purpose-driven ecosystem: 1) multilayer value creation, (2) multipurpose complementary assets, (3) emerging dominant design, and (4) distributed socio-economic returns mechanisms. The study offers two managerial and policy contributions. First, it calls on platform owners and policymakers to acknowledge the contextual effect of a social-purpose-driven ecosystem. Second, multilayer value creation, multiple complementary assets, dominant design and distributed socio-economic returns mechanisms can positively affect capturing value from digital healthcare platforms.publishedVersionPeer reviewe
How to Produce and Realize Value in Digital Healthcare Platforms.
International audienceIndustry Forum as a signature event for the IEEE-TEMS conference series around the world will be hosted by the 2021 IEEE ICTE Conference âLeading Digital Transformation in Business and Societyâ. The forum invites speakers from industry leaders worldwide to speak on technology and engineering directions along with digital transformation management. This brings the needs of industry into the conference and opens doors for researchers to engage with industry
Les stratégies de coopétition et leur management : partager, protéger et/ou capturer des connaissances
We investigate how does a focal firm strategize and manage coopetition through the specific lens of knowledge sharing. Based on two case studies of two firms considered as masters in the management of coopetition, we identify three ways to create and pursue the focal firmâs current and future advantage in coopetitive project. The two first ways confirm the dominant research approach of coopetition which argues that a focal firm should obstruct or reduce to its strict minimum the coopetitorâs potential for internalizing the knowledge shared for the project success (i.e. reduce or restrict the focal firmâs knowledge transparency). Indeed, the value creation of a coopetitive project success can be jeopardized by the fear of knowledge sharing between competitors. The reduction or restriction of its knowledge transparency is a key organizational solution to overcome this fear of knowledge sharing and thus this fear of collaborating with a competitor. Alternatively, we identified a third way of strategizing and managing coopetition which goes one step further in coopetition. Indeed, by building on our empirical results, Deutschâs theory of conflict resolution and Nonakaâs organizational knowledge creation theory, we argue that the creation and pursuit of current and future advantage for a focal firm in coopetitive project can also consist in implementing a strategy and management based on greater and freer transparency. In that case, the dominant coopetitive knowledge sharing adages of âprotectingâ or even âsharing and protectingâ shift into âsharing and enabling for constructive capturing.â This third way opens academic research opportunities based our boarder theoretical roots than Hamelâs approach of inter-firm relationships in which the strategic intent is a learning race and one of the key organizational element is a minimized transparency. It also has managerial contributions. Indeed, it increases top management analytical capability by generating a new counter-intuitive insight: enabling a competitor in a coopetitive project can be strategic tool to create and pursue current and future advantage for themselves. Moreover, our integrated framework can be reused to train the analytical coopetitive capabilities of top managers by making them aware about three ways of strategizing and managing coopetition.Cette thĂšse explore la question suivante : comment les entreprises gĂšrent-elles la coopĂ©tition par le prisme du partage de connaissances ? et Ă quelles intentions stratĂ©giques rĂ©pondent ces choix managĂ©riaux ? Notre principal rĂ©sultat consiste en lâidentification de trois stratĂ©gies de coopĂ©tition, chacune reposant sur un management particulier du partage de connaissances. Les deux premiĂšres sâinscrivent dans la continuitĂ© des travaux existants sur la coopĂ©tition. Elles adoptent une approche Hamelienne de course Ă lâapprentissage, dans laquelle la gestion du partage consiste Ă trouver des techniques pour partager la connaissance critique pour le succĂšs du projet commun, sans permettre au partenaire dâinternaliser la connaissance. Ces techniques consistent à « protĂ©ger » ou « partager & protĂ©ger ». En revanche, la troisiĂšme stratĂ©gie identifiĂ©e, Ă lâinverse des prĂ©dictions de la littĂ©rature sur la coopĂ©tition, encourage un partage plus ouvert et intensif qui peut mĂȘme aller jusquâĂ renforcer le coopĂ©titeur avec sa connaissance. Mais si lâentreprise sâengage dans cette stratĂ©gie ce nâest pas par altruisme ou par volontĂ© dâaider lâautre, mais parce quâelle perçoit une opportunitĂ© pour capturer de nouvelles connaissances. Ainsi, les entreprises ont conscience de la dynamique positive de crĂ©ation de connaissances qui va ĂȘtre gĂ©nĂ©rĂ©e en partageant de maniĂšre transparente au lieu de rĂ©duire la transparence (i.e., processus de capture de valeur constructif). Cette troisiĂšme stratĂ©gie permet dâaller plus loin dans notre comprĂ©hension des stratĂ©gies de coopĂ©tition et de leur management. Elle ouvre la voie Ă de nouvelles recherches se basant sur des fondements intĂ©grant Deutsch et Nonaka. Notre contribution nâest pas uniquement acadĂ©mique, elle est aussi managĂ©riale. Elle ouvre les champs des possibilitĂ©s dâactions des dirigeants, en identifiant une stratĂ©gie contre-intuitive, pour maximiser les opportunitĂ©s liĂ©es Ă une relation de coopĂ©tition. De plus, notre modĂšle intĂ©grateur peut ĂȘtre rĂ©utilisĂ© pour former les individus Ă la coopĂ©tition en leur permettant dâidentifier trois stratĂ©gies et leurs implications organisationnelles
La coopétition technologique : pourquoi et comment partager sa technologie avec son concurrent ?
International audienc
A Platform to "Grade Your Doctor": from a Threat to a Dynamic Capability Tool
International audienc
Implementing Open Innovation in collaboration with competitors: A novel additional mode to attract startups
International audienc
Managing Open-Innovation between Competitors: A Project-Level Approach
International audiencePast research on Business-to-Business (B2B) Open innovation is mainly on firm decisions to open their boundaries to allow knowledge to flow in and out at the firm level. An emerging group of studies seeks to switch the unit of analysis from the firm level to the project level, stressing a deeper understanding of how knowledge is purposely managed. This paper contributes to this latter group by investigating how knowledge is purposely managed in one of the most "high-risk" B2B open-innovation projects: Open Innovation between competitors. Our analysis reveals that (1) knowledge flow is a dynamic process that can gradually involve additional stakeholders; (2) knowledge flow is not purposely managed only outside and inside external boundaries to create value through a project; it must also continue to be managed outside and inside internal boundaries to capture value from the project; and (3) there are two types of knowledge flow that enable middle managers to ensure that their business units capture value from Open Innovation projects (i.e., a shopping list that brings the new innovation from the project to the business unit and a wish list that influences the direction of the innovation toward a firm's business unit needs)
FEAR OF LOOKING FOOLISH: Business Models, Cognition, and Open Innovation
International audienc
Implementing Open Innovation in collaboration with competitors: A novel additional mode to attract startups
International audienc
Coopérer pour publier. Une check-list collaborative pour éviter le desk reject
International audienceL'urgence guide lâactivitĂ© de recherche. Elbow (1998) parle mĂȘme de panique, celle que le chercheur connaĂźt toujours Ă la veille dâune date limite ou le lendemain, quand il a le sentiment de ne pas avoir fini sa recherche, que la lecture de certains articles supplĂ©mentaires ou la collecte de nouveaux matĂ©riaux auraient pu encore amĂ©liorer sa vision et ses rĂ©sultats. MalgrĂ© ce sentiment de panique que Elbow (1998, p. 64) nomme « the 3 A.M. writing panik night before the due date », câest bien la date limite qui pousse le chercheur Ă arrĂȘter sa rĂ©flexion et Ă Ă©crire son papier. Or lors du travail dâĂ©criture, le chercheur aura du mal Ă occulter le fond pour ne relire que la forme (surtout sâil sâagit de la cinquiĂšme relecture au petit matinâŠ). Dans lâurgence, il est alors possible dâoublier les fondamentaux en termes de rĂ©daction et de structuration â faire apparaitre clairement la problĂ©matique ou numĂ©roter les pages, par exemple. Des fondamentaux qui sont par ailleurs bien intĂ©grĂ©s par la communautĂ© et que le chercheur reproche aux autres de ne pas respecter lorsquâil est relecteur.De nombreux travaux mettent en avant la difficultĂ© Ă rĂ©diger et structurer correctement un article acadĂ©mique, et ces travaux formalisent des conseils pour aider les auteurs Ă publier. Le Libellio de 2005 donne par exemple des conseils sur la rĂ©daction phrase aprĂšs phrase dâun rĂ©sumĂ© pour Organization Studies (Maniak, 2005). Duguid (2007) explique les erreurs qui conduisent Ă ne pas ĂȘtre publiĂ© dans une revue amĂ©ricaine. Et de nombreux Ă©diteurs donnent des conseils pour Ă©viter «dâĂȘtre touchĂ© par le retour de flamme [dâun desk reject] » (Craig, 2010) souvent trĂšs douloureux.Si ces travaux permettent de se dĂ©tacher de son article une fois celui-ci rĂ©digĂ©, ils ne permettent pas de gĂ©rer le sentiment de panique et dâurgence qui peut conduire Ă certains oublis ou maladresses. Dans ces conditions, il peut ĂȘtre utile de mettre en place une procĂ©dure de sĂ©curitĂ©, permettant de vĂ©rifier mĂ©thodiquement et rapidement si un article respecte les attentes de la communautĂ© sur sa conception.La question est donc : comment rĂ©ussir en tant que chercheur Ă prendre du recul de maniĂšre mĂ©thodique sur son propre article