Summary
Managing
2024/2025
Technological
Change
Made by: Alexander Maatje
,Inhoud
Week 1: Eggers, J. P., & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent adaptation to technological change The past,
present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response...........................................2
Week 1: Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: a punctuated
socio-technical change model............................................................................................................4
Week 1: Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation
Augmentation Paradox.......................................................................................................................7
Week 2: Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital
Photography Company”....................................................................................................................11
Week 2: Singh, A., Klarner, P., & Hess, T. (2020). How do chief digital officers pursue digital
transformation activities? The role of organization design parameters............................................13
Week 2: Dąbrowska, J., Lopez‐Vega, H., & Ritala, P. (2019). Waking the sleeping beauty: Swarovski’s
open innovation journey..................................................................................................................16
Week 2: Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure
of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations..........19
Week 3: Zuzul, T., & Tripsas, M. (2020). Start-up inertia versus flexibility: The role of founder
identity in a nascent industry...........................................................................................................22
Week 3: Steinberg, P. J., Asad, S., & Lijzenga, G. (2022). Narcissistic CEOs' dilemma: The trade ‐off
between exploration and exploitation and the moderating role of performance feedback.............28
Week 3: Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2022). Regulating top managers’ emotions during strategy
making: Nokia’s socially distributed approach enabling radical change from mobile phones to
networks in 2007–2013....................................................................................................................30
Week 3: Neudert, P. K., Kreutzer, M., & Burmeister ‐Lamp, K. (2024). Selective revealing for building
ecosystems: A conjoint experiment with managers of established firms.........................................34
Week 4: Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view................................................................................37
Week 4: Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology: A synthesis and the road ahead....................................................................................40
Week 4: Wang, P. (2010). Chasing the hottest IT: Effects of information technology fashion on
organizations....................................................................................................................................43
Week 4: Krakowski, S., Luger, J., & Raisch, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the changing sources
of competitive advantage.................................................................................................................45
Week 5: Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of
trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use.....48
Week 5: Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information
Technology Implementation.............................................................................................................52
Week 5: Bagayogo, F. F., Lapointe, L., & Bassellier G. (2014). “Enhanced use of IT: A new perspective
on Post-Adoption..............................................................................................................................56
Week 5: Park, Y., Pavlou, P., & Saraf, N. (2020) Configurations for Achieving Organizational
Ambidexterity with Digitization........................................................................................................60
,Week 1: Eggers, J. P., & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent
adaptation to technological change The past, present,
and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent
response
Introduction
In this article, we focus on why some incumbents adapt and survive, whereas others are inert and
fail.
Key problems in existing literature:
1. Fragmented perspective: some studies explain adaptation, or lack thereof, by only focusing
on the type of technological change, and some only on the capabilities of the firm, and some
by focusing on the role of external actors such as suppliers, without providing a way to fully
explore all aspects of the incumbent adaptation process.
2. Loose definition of technological change: studies encompass various types of technological
change without clear distinctions, complicating the ability to draw comparisons.
3. Limited generalisability: most studies focus on a single industry with a single technological
change, it is unclear which of the findings from one context are likely to hold in another
industry with a different type of technological discontinuity
we view adaptation primarily through a resource-based view (RBV) lens, as successful adaptation
entails assembling a bundle of technological and complementary resources that facilitate the
development and commercialization of a new technology.
A barrier model of incumbent adaptation
In figure one, barriers to adaption.
We refer to these frictions as barriers in the sense that they impede the flow of technological (and
complementary) resources both from outside the firm to inside and within the firm’s boundaries.
Consider the challenge in Figure 1—the firm possessed a successful
product comprised of technological (T1 and T2) and complementary
(C1 and C2) resources. But technological change has devalued the
two technological resources, requiring their replacement with new
technologies T3 and T5. Even though T3 is already within the firm,
there may be frictions around reconfiguration that prevent the firm
from integrating T3 into the redesigned product. T5, meanwhile, is
beyond the firm’s control, so it must be acquired, assimilated, and
reconfigured into the product. This suggests multiple potential
barriers to adaptation, as articulated by the process laid out in
Figure 2. These barriers take many forms—they may be economic,
technological, organizational, cognitive, etc.—meaning that the
enabling mechanisms that allow some firms to overcome these
barriers may take many forms, as well.
Figure 1 identifies three barriers that may exist to organizational attempts to obtain and organize
both knowledge and commercialization ability.
, 1. External Barriers: Challenges in acquiring new knowledge or resources from the market
(hiring new employees or allying with a partner with downstream resources.) Some of these
could be labelled as barriers to ‘acquisition of relevant resources’.
2. Internal Barriers to Assimilation: Difficulties in integrating new resources into existing
structures. In other words, difficulties to integrate resources because internal barriers make it
difficult to use those resources (for example lack of the ability to recognize the value of new
information, assimilate it, and apply it).
3. Internal Barriers to Reconfiguration: Challenges in reorganizing resources and capabilities to
adapt to new technologies. Additional internal barriers may prevent an incumbent from
adapting even when it possesses both knowledge and resources. Adaptation is not only a
process of resource acquisition and assimilation but also the reconfiguration and organization
of those resources.
Other than adaptation, in the context of technological change, exaptation refers to innovations that
ultimately serve a purpose different than their intended function at the time of inception.
One antecedent can affect more than one stage. For instance, an incumbent firm’s experience can
increase its ability to assimilate the knowledge for the new technology.
These are various factors influencing adaptation:
- Firm size: small firms have a lower likelihood of survival than larger firms. Larger firms posses
more resources, aiding to adaptation.
- Firm Experience: prior experience increases the likelihood of survival in new markets.
Experience also affects innovative capabilities through previous technological choices. But in
a negative way, previous experience with losing technology makes a firm less likely to invest
again.
- Complementary Assets: existing assets can enhance the ability to commercialize new
technologies. For example, firms can also use their specialized complementary assets to serve
as appealing alliance partners for startups possessing requisite core knowledge but lacking
complementary assets.
- Cognitive and Identity Factors: management beliefs and organizational identity can
significantly impact adaptation efforts. Also, firms with managers who paid more attention to
the new technologies were more likely to begin investing in the new technologies. Also,
technological changes that challenge such an identity may be difficult for organizations to
adapt to.
- Commitments and cannibalization: When incumbents have strategic commitments to the
existing technology, they are less capable of changing strategies to the one that better suits
the new technology. These commitments prevent firms to cannibalise their existing sales and
operations.
Managing
2024/2025
Technological
Change
Made by: Alexander Maatje
,Inhoud
Week 1: Eggers, J. P., & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent adaptation to technological change The past,
present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response...........................................2
Week 1: Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: a punctuated
socio-technical change model............................................................................................................4
Week 1: Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation
Augmentation Paradox.......................................................................................................................7
Week 2: Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital
Photography Company”....................................................................................................................11
Week 2: Singh, A., Klarner, P., & Hess, T. (2020). How do chief digital officers pursue digital
transformation activities? The role of organization design parameters............................................13
Week 2: Dąbrowska, J., Lopez‐Vega, H., & Ritala, P. (2019). Waking the sleeping beauty: Swarovski’s
open innovation journey..................................................................................................................16
Week 2: Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure
of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations..........19
Week 3: Zuzul, T., & Tripsas, M. (2020). Start-up inertia versus flexibility: The role of founder
identity in a nascent industry...........................................................................................................22
Week 3: Steinberg, P. J., Asad, S., & Lijzenga, G. (2022). Narcissistic CEOs' dilemma: The trade ‐off
between exploration and exploitation and the moderating role of performance feedback.............28
Week 3: Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2022). Regulating top managers’ emotions during strategy
making: Nokia’s socially distributed approach enabling radical change from mobile phones to
networks in 2007–2013....................................................................................................................30
Week 3: Neudert, P. K., Kreutzer, M., & Burmeister ‐Lamp, K. (2024). Selective revealing for building
ecosystems: A conjoint experiment with managers of established firms.........................................34
Week 4: Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view................................................................................37
Week 4: Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology: A synthesis and the road ahead....................................................................................40
Week 4: Wang, P. (2010). Chasing the hottest IT: Effects of information technology fashion on
organizations....................................................................................................................................43
Week 4: Krakowski, S., Luger, J., & Raisch, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the changing sources
of competitive advantage.................................................................................................................45
Week 5: Ahuja, M. K., & Thatcher, J. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of
trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use.....48
Week 5: Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information
Technology Implementation.............................................................................................................52
Week 5: Bagayogo, F. F., Lapointe, L., & Bassellier G. (2014). “Enhanced use of IT: A new perspective
on Post-Adoption..............................................................................................................................56
Week 5: Park, Y., Pavlou, P., & Saraf, N. (2020) Configurations for Achieving Organizational
Ambidexterity with Digitization........................................................................................................60
,Week 1: Eggers, J. P., & Park, K. F. (2018). Incumbent
adaptation to technological change The past, present,
and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent
response
Introduction
In this article, we focus on why some incumbents adapt and survive, whereas others are inert and
fail.
Key problems in existing literature:
1. Fragmented perspective: some studies explain adaptation, or lack thereof, by only focusing
on the type of technological change, and some only on the capabilities of the firm, and some
by focusing on the role of external actors such as suppliers, without providing a way to fully
explore all aspects of the incumbent adaptation process.
2. Loose definition of technological change: studies encompass various types of technological
change without clear distinctions, complicating the ability to draw comparisons.
3. Limited generalisability: most studies focus on a single industry with a single technological
change, it is unclear which of the findings from one context are likely to hold in another
industry with a different type of technological discontinuity
we view adaptation primarily through a resource-based view (RBV) lens, as successful adaptation
entails assembling a bundle of technological and complementary resources that facilitate the
development and commercialization of a new technology.
A barrier model of incumbent adaptation
In figure one, barriers to adaption.
We refer to these frictions as barriers in the sense that they impede the flow of technological (and
complementary) resources both from outside the firm to inside and within the firm’s boundaries.
Consider the challenge in Figure 1—the firm possessed a successful
product comprised of technological (T1 and T2) and complementary
(C1 and C2) resources. But technological change has devalued the
two technological resources, requiring their replacement with new
technologies T3 and T5. Even though T3 is already within the firm,
there may be frictions around reconfiguration that prevent the firm
from integrating T3 into the redesigned product. T5, meanwhile, is
beyond the firm’s control, so it must be acquired, assimilated, and
reconfigured into the product. This suggests multiple potential
barriers to adaptation, as articulated by the process laid out in
Figure 2. These barriers take many forms—they may be economic,
technological, organizational, cognitive, etc.—meaning that the
enabling mechanisms that allow some firms to overcome these
barriers may take many forms, as well.
Figure 1 identifies three barriers that may exist to organizational attempts to obtain and organize
both knowledge and commercialization ability.
, 1. External Barriers: Challenges in acquiring new knowledge or resources from the market
(hiring new employees or allying with a partner with downstream resources.) Some of these
could be labelled as barriers to ‘acquisition of relevant resources’.
2. Internal Barriers to Assimilation: Difficulties in integrating new resources into existing
structures. In other words, difficulties to integrate resources because internal barriers make it
difficult to use those resources (for example lack of the ability to recognize the value of new
information, assimilate it, and apply it).
3. Internal Barriers to Reconfiguration: Challenges in reorganizing resources and capabilities to
adapt to new technologies. Additional internal barriers may prevent an incumbent from
adapting even when it possesses both knowledge and resources. Adaptation is not only a
process of resource acquisition and assimilation but also the reconfiguration and organization
of those resources.
Other than adaptation, in the context of technological change, exaptation refers to innovations that
ultimately serve a purpose different than their intended function at the time of inception.
One antecedent can affect more than one stage. For instance, an incumbent firm’s experience can
increase its ability to assimilate the knowledge for the new technology.
These are various factors influencing adaptation:
- Firm size: small firms have a lower likelihood of survival than larger firms. Larger firms posses
more resources, aiding to adaptation.
- Firm Experience: prior experience increases the likelihood of survival in new markets.
Experience also affects innovative capabilities through previous technological choices. But in
a negative way, previous experience with losing technology makes a firm less likely to invest
again.
- Complementary Assets: existing assets can enhance the ability to commercialize new
technologies. For example, firms can also use their specialized complementary assets to serve
as appealing alliance partners for startups possessing requisite core knowledge but lacking
complementary assets.
- Cognitive and Identity Factors: management beliefs and organizational identity can
significantly impact adaptation efforts. Also, firms with managers who paid more attention to
the new technologies were more likely to begin investing in the new technologies. Also,
technological changes that challenge such an identity may be difficult for organizations to
adapt to.
- Commitments and cannibalization: When incumbents have strategic commitments to the
existing technology, they are less capable of changing strategies to the one that better suits
the new technology. These commitments prevent firms to cannibalise their existing sales and
operations.
