TCI 2016 How Institutional Logics Constrain Alignment in Innovation Ecosystems
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like247 views
The document summarizes a presentation about alignment challenges in innovation ecosystems. It discusses how organizational diversity is necessary for innovation but can also lead to misalignment if stakeholders' expectations, interests and strategies are not well-aligned. As a case study, it examines the Dutch public charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, which has struggled to expand due to misalignment among stakeholders like grid operators, local governments, and charging station providers. The presentation recommends that managers understand differences between organizations, adopt an open mindset, communicate clearly, and partner with similar organizations to improve alignment.
![Titel presentatie
[Naam, organisatienaam]
Working Day - Track: Academic Track
Collaborative Learning
Dr. Sharon Dolmans
Wouter van Galen - PhD Candidate
Dr. Bob Walrave
One For All or All For One?
How Institutional Logics Constrain
Alignment in Innovation Ecosystems](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tci2016working10novsharondolmans-161114160501/85/TCI-2016-How-Institutional-Logics-Constrain-Alignment-in-Innovation-Ecosystems-1-320.jpg)
![12
Dimension Explanation [measure] Private organizations α* Private organizations β** Semipublic organizations** Public organizations**
CPO; MSP; Charging station
manufacturer
Energy provider; Car
manufacturer
Grid operator
Local government; National
government
Core focus Center of interests and daily activities Commercial Commercial Mandatory responsibilities Society
Span of control
Setting of activities and peoples/organizations
that the organization can influence
Internal Internal Both internal and local
Both internal and
national/regional/local
Driver to innovate Main reason to be innovative
Possibility to exploit
opportunities
Possibility to explore
opportunities
Changing setting, legislation,
regulations
Changing setting, societal
interests, legislation
,regulations
Primary aim of
innovation
Desired outcome of innovation activities Profit Learning
Safeguard responsibilities
and legislation compliance
Comply with societal
interests and policies
Collaboration
attitude
Focus of interests and decisions making while
working jointly on an activity
Self-interest Self-interest
Self-interest and social
interest
Social interest
Innovation
behavior
Course of action to achieve innovation
objectives
Fiercely compete for market
share and (mutually)
collaborate for the
development of standards
Participate in (pilot) projects
(mutually) collaborate for
the development of
standards
Participate in (sizeable) pilot
projects and mutual
cooperation for the
development of standards
Supportive and (mutual)
cooperation for the
development of standards
Business
relationship
characteristics
The way in which the association between the
organizations entered into for innovative
purposes can be characterized
Businesslike Businesslike
According strict rules and
agreements
Based upon mutual trust,
transparency and policy
Implementation
process
Process of putting innovation related
decisions or plans into practice
Efficient implementation Effective implementation
Coordinated and effective
implementation
Coordinated and effective
implementation
Innovation
planning
Usual period for planning and performing
innovation activities [Short-Medium-Long]
Short term Long term Long term Medium term
Risk attitude
Attitude toward exposing the organization to
dangerous, harmful or failing situations
Risk taking Risk considerations Risk avoiding Risk considerations
Decision making
attitude
Main aspects of how (important) decisions are
made
Opportunity based decisions Opportunity based decisions
Comprehensive and
thoughtful decisions
Comprehensive and
thoughtful decisions
Decision making
speed
The rate of decision taking[Rapid-Average-
Slow]
Rapid Average Slow Slow
Proactiveness
Creating or controlling a situation by causing
something to happen rather than responding
to it after it has happened [Proactive-Reactive-
Waiting]
Proactive
Ranging from waiting to
proactive
Ranging from waiting to
proactive
Ranging from waiting to
proactive
Open-minded
attitude
Willingness to consider new initiatives and
ideas
[High-Medium-Low]
High Medium Low Medium
Flexibility
The degree to be able to adapt and respond to
(un)foreseen environmental change [Flexible-
Inflexible]
Highly flexible
In between flexible and
inflexible
Inflexible Inflexible
Need for
organization
Short term necessity of a structured and clear
environment in which all organizations follow
the same rules and get equal opportunity to
compete
[High-Medium-Low]
High
Ranging from low to
medium
Ranging from low to
medium
Ranging from low to high
Location of
innovation
challenges
Position of innovation challenges and
corresponding focus[In-house-External]
External In-house and external In-house and external In-house
Employee
influence
Employee’s ability to affect (internal) business
by means of new ideas/innovations [High-
Medium-Low
High Low Low
Ranging from low to
medium](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tci2016working10novsharondolmans-161114160501/85/TCI-2016-How-Institutional-Logics-Constrain-Alignment-in-Innovation-Ecosystems-12-320.jpg)
TCI 2016 How Institutional Logics Constrain Alignment in Innovation Ecosystems
- 1. Titel presentatie [Naam, organisatienaam] Working Day - Track: Academic Track Collaborative Learning Dr. Sharon Dolmans Wouter van Galen - PhD Candidate Dr. Bob Walrave One For All or All For One? How Institutional Logics Constrain Alignment in Innovation Ecosystems
- 2. One For All or All For One? How Institutional Logics Constrain Alignment in Innovation Ecosystems (article in development) Dr. Sharon Dolmans Wouter van Galen - PhD Candidate Dr. Bob Walrave
- 3. One for all or all for one? 3 “Instead of struggling for an unattractive dry tea biscuit, organizations should collaborate to make the tea biscuit into a much more valuable cream cake” – Consulting Firm TCI 2016
- 4. Path-breaking Technological innovations Dependent on complementary inter-organizational activities beyond ordinary exchange relationships(e.g. Möller & Halinen, 1999; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a; Adner, 2006; Teece, 2007; Dougherty & Dunne, 2011) Introduction of innovations is a process shaped by the efforts of many actors (Van de Ven, 1993; Van de Ven et al., 1999; Garud and Karnøe, 2003) An ecosystem is composed of differentiated, yet highly interdependent stakeholders Organizational diversity is a necessary condition for innovation ecosystem development 4 “Innovation Ecosystem is a network, in which organizations combine their individual offerings in order to create and provide an overarching value proposition (Adner, 2006, 2012).” TCI 2016
- 5. One for all: The performance of the innovation ecosystem as a whole is dependent on its individual stakeholders and vice versa Alignment of stakeholders is essential for the development of the ecosystem Failure of any (key) stakeholder to successfully contribute to and align with the innovation ecosystem negatively impacts every organization in the system (Brusoni and Prencipe, 2013; Moore, 1993; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a; Adner, 2006, 2012; Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012; Overholm, 2014). 5 TCI 2016
- 6. Or All for one? • In practice it is difficult to achieve alignment given the multitude of stakeholders involved (Wilkinson & Young, 2002; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012; Sharapov et al., 2013; Kapoor & Lee, 2013) • Apart from the path-breaking innovation, organizations typically pursue a diversity of local goals and strategies, based on prior vested interests (Moore, 1993; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012; Sharapov, Thomas, & Autio, 2013; Kapoor & Lee, 2013) • Such diversities increase the risk that decisions and actions among stakeholders follow divergent or misaligned paths (Adner, 2006, 2012; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012) 6 TCI 2016
- 7. One for all or all for one? While organizational diversity is a necessary condition for innovation ecosystem development, it can be a risk if stakeholders are not well- aligned… How do diversities influence (the emergence of) stakeholder misalignment in innovation ecosystems? 7
- 8. In-depth case study Theoretical sampling – stagnated ecosystem (Eisenhardt 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) “Dutch Public charging infrastructure for Electric Vehicles (EVs)" 2016: 0,08 public charging point per EV** klimaatmonitor 2020: 0,33 public charging point per EV 8 TCI 2016 2. Method & Research Setting 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Aantal Periode Totaal EV Publieke laadpunten
- 9. Data collection Archival data 30 semi-structured interviews Grid Operator / national government / local government / energy provider / mobility service provider / charge point manufacturer / charge point operators / knowledge institutions / car manufacturer Data analysis Verbatim transcription & clustering quotes Template approach (expectations & visions, interests, strategies) Triangulation to verify the findings 9 TCI 2016 2. Method & Research Setting
- 10. 10 TCI 2016 National Government Reactive and corrective role Knowledge Institutions Advising role/Research Stakeholder Role Local Government Responsible for charging point place (location) Charge Point Manufacturer Manufacture charge points Grid Operator Connect charge point to grid Energieproducent Supply electricity Charge Point Operator Place, maintain and exploit charge points Car Manufacturer Manufacture EV’s Mobility Service Provider Sell and supply charging services
- 11. 11
- 12. 12 Dimension Explanation [measure] Private organizations α* Private organizations β** Semipublic organizations** Public organizations** CPO; MSP; Charging station manufacturer Energy provider; Car manufacturer Grid operator Local government; National government Core focus Center of interests and daily activities Commercial Commercial Mandatory responsibilities Society Span of control Setting of activities and peoples/organizations that the organization can influence Internal Internal Both internal and local Both internal and national/regional/local Driver to innovate Main reason to be innovative Possibility to exploit opportunities Possibility to explore opportunities Changing setting, legislation, regulations Changing setting, societal interests, legislation ,regulations Primary aim of innovation Desired outcome of innovation activities Profit Learning Safeguard responsibilities and legislation compliance Comply with societal interests and policies Collaboration attitude Focus of interests and decisions making while working jointly on an activity Self-interest Self-interest Self-interest and social interest Social interest Innovation behavior Course of action to achieve innovation objectives Fiercely compete for market share and (mutually) collaborate for the development of standards Participate in (pilot) projects (mutually) collaborate for the development of standards Participate in (sizeable) pilot projects and mutual cooperation for the development of standards Supportive and (mutual) cooperation for the development of standards Business relationship characteristics The way in which the association between the organizations entered into for innovative purposes can be characterized Businesslike Businesslike According strict rules and agreements Based upon mutual trust, transparency and policy Implementation process Process of putting innovation related decisions or plans into practice Efficient implementation Effective implementation Coordinated and effective implementation Coordinated and effective implementation Innovation planning Usual period for planning and performing innovation activities [Short-Medium-Long] Short term Long term Long term Medium term Risk attitude Attitude toward exposing the organization to dangerous, harmful or failing situations Risk taking Risk considerations Risk avoiding Risk considerations Decision making attitude Main aspects of how (important) decisions are made Opportunity based decisions Opportunity based decisions Comprehensive and thoughtful decisions Comprehensive and thoughtful decisions Decision making speed The rate of decision taking[Rapid-Average- Slow] Rapid Average Slow Slow Proactiveness Creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has happened [Proactive-Reactive- Waiting] Proactive Ranging from waiting to proactive Ranging from waiting to proactive Ranging from waiting to proactive Open-minded attitude Willingness to consider new initiatives and ideas [High-Medium-Low] High Medium Low Medium Flexibility The degree to be able to adapt and respond to (un)foreseen environmental change [Flexible- Inflexible] Highly flexible In between flexible and inflexible Inflexible Inflexible Need for organization Short term necessity of a structured and clear environment in which all organizations follow the same rules and get equal opportunity to compete [High-Medium-Low] High Ranging from low to medium Ranging from low to medium Ranging from low to high Location of innovation challenges Position of innovation challenges and corresponding focus[In-house-External] External In-house and external In-house and external In-house Employee influence Employee’s ability to affect (internal) business by means of new ideas/innovations [High- Medium-Low High Low Low Ranging from low to medium
- 13. Example: Location of Charge Point 13 Charge Point Operator Placing, maintenance and connection Efficiency and profitability of charge point €€€ Grid Operator Connection of charge point to grid Distance to grid Organisation Role Interests Municipality Owner of public space Local policy/ Interest of citizens 3. Findings
- 14. The results demonstrate how organizations’ expectations, visions, interests, strategies and goals are crucial factors that have to be aligned in order to create a more effective (and profitable) innovation ecosystem Misalignment hampers inter-organizational collaborations and consequently the development of the path-breaking innovation 14 4. Discussion
- 15. Practical recommendations managers of participating organizations should: (1) become aware of differences in organizational characteristics (2) adopt a mindset of openness to comprehend and to learn are critical in order to achieve agreement and fruitful collaborations (3) try to communicate much more clearly what they want and expect of other participating organizations (4) partner up with comparable organizations to align their messages 15
Editor's Notes
- #9: 7.500 publieke oplaadpunten en rijden er ruim 91.000