Ferdinand Mittermeier
ABSTRACT
Although digital innovation ('DI') is a popular research field in these days, when it comes to innovation success, it has not yet been properly grounded in theory. Accordingly, there are prob-lems in identifying both generic and context-specific critical success factors (CSF) within the innovation process. Existing literature has focused mainly on the development of dynamic capabilities. We argue that to build digital innovation capabili-ties, an organization must first understand and support the ac-tions of those who are actively developing DI. To uncover spe-cific actions that constitute CSFs within every dimension of the digital innovation process, we follow a multiple case study de-sign with seven companies from different industries. Here, we build upon the 'digital innovation framework' which defines the process of creating DI across four dimensions (initiate, de-velop, implement, exploit). Based on these case studies, we build a conceptual model consisting of digital innovation actions, critical success factors and contingency factors. The proposed model serves as a starting point for future research, which should focus on a detailed quantitative investigation of the cause-effect relationships and the contingency factors to vali-date our propositions
- Constantine Andriopoulos and Marianne W. Lewis. 2009. Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science 20, 4, 696--717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Katerina Antonopoulou and Christos Begkos. 2020. Strategizing for digital innovations: Value propositions for transcending market boundaries. Tech-nological Forecasting and Social Change 156, 120042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120042.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christine V. Bullen and John F. Rockart. 1981. A primer on critical success factors. Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Manage-ment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Sock H. Chung, Rainer, JR., and Bruce R. Lewis. 2003. The Impact of Information Technology Infrastructure Flexibility on Strategic Alignment and Ap-plication Implementations. CAIS 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01111.Google Scholar
- Raffaele F. Ciriello, Alexander Richter, and Gerhard Schwabe. 2018. Digital Innovation. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60, 6, 563--569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0559--8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael P. Ciuchta, Jay O'Toole, and Anne S. Miner. 2021. The Organ-izational Improvisation Landscape: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Journal of Management 47, 1, 288--316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320966987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miguel P. e. Cunha, Armanda Fortes, Emanuel Gomes, Arménio Rego, and Filipa Rodrigues. 2019. Ambidextrous leadership, paradox and contingency: evidence from Angola. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 30, 4, 702--727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1201125.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. AMR 14, 4, 532--550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Melissa E. Graebner. 2007. Theory Build-ing From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges. AMJ 50, 1, 25--32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Markus Fasse. 2019. Warum Daimler und BMW jetzt auf Kooperation setzen. (2019). Retrieved February 13, 2021 from https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/autokonzerne-warum-daim-ler-und-bmw-jetzt-auf-kooperation-setzen/24373450.html?ticket=ST-4370592-onzXv0XvobpwTNJW9ry7-ap1.Google Scholar
- Robert Fichman, Brian D. Santos, and Zhiqiang Zheng. 2014. Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum. Management Information Systems Quarterly 38, 2, 329--353. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jay R. Galbraith. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Organization development. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert M. Grant. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat. Mgmt. J. 17, S2, 109--122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Constance E. Helfat, Sydney Finkelstein, Will Mitchell, Margaret A. Peteraf, Harbir Singh, and Sidney G. Winter. 2007. Dynamic capabilities. Under-standing strategic change in organizations. Blackwell Publ, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
- Lukas Hellwig, Jan Pawlowski, and Michael Schäfer. 2020. An Innova-tion Activity Framework for Digital Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2020 on Computers and People Research Conference. ACM Digital Library. Association for Computing Machinery, New York,NY,United States, 10--19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3378539.3393857. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. D. Joshi, Lei Chi, Avimanyu Datta, and Shu Han. 2010. Changing the Competitive Landscape: Continuous Innovation Through IT-Enabled Knowledge Capabilities.Google Scholar
- Ken Kamoche and Miguel P. e. Cunha. 2001. Minimal Structures: From Jazz Improvisation to Product Innovation. Organization Studies 22, 5, 733--764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601225001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G.C. Kane, D. Palmer, A.N.H. Phillips, D. Kiron, and N. Buckley. 2015. Strategy, not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation (2015). Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/strategy-drives-digital-transformation/.Google Scholar
- Jahangir Karimi and Zhiping Walter. 2015. The Role of Dynamic Ca-pabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the News-paper Industry. Journal of Management Information Systems 32, 1, 39--81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1029380.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig. 1972. General Systems The-ory: Applications for Organization and Management. AMJ 15, 4, 447--465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/255141.Google Scholar
- Fremont E. Kast and James E. Rosenzweig, Eds. 1973. Contingency views of organization and management. Science Research Assoc, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
- Katherine J. Klein, Jonathan C. Ziegert, Andrew P. Knight, and Yan Xiao. 2006. Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical, and Deindividualized Lead-ership in Extreme Action Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 51, 4, 590--621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.4.590.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rajiv Kohli and Nigel P. Melville. 2018. Digital innovation: A review and synthesis. Info Systems J 29, 1, 200--223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12193.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donald F. Kuratko, Greg Fisher, James M. Bloodgood, and Jeffrey S. Hornsby. 2017. The paradox of new venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus Econ 49, 1, 119--140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017--9870-x.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ann Langley and Chahrazad Abdallah. 2011. Templates and Turns in Qualitative Studies of Strategy and Management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management 6, 201--235.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julian Lehmann and Jan Recker. 2019. Offerings that are "Ever-in-the-Making": Post-Launch Continuous Digital Innovation in Late-Stage Entrepreneuri-al Ventures. ICIS 2019 Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Daniel Leonhardt, Andre Hanelt, Peng Huang, and Sunil Mithas. 2018. Does One Size Fit All? Theorizing Governance Configurations for Digital Innova-tion. ICIS 2018 Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Nadege Levallet and Yolande Chan. 2016. IT Capabilities and Strategic Improvisation: A Multi-Method Investigation. AMCIS 2016 Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Nadege Levallet and Yolande Chan. 2018. Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive 17, 1.Google Scholar
- Paul B. Lowry and David Wilson. 2016. Creating agile organizations through IT: The influence of internal IT service perceptions on IT service quality and IT agility. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 25, 3, 211--226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.05.002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry C. Lucas and Jie M. Goh. 2009. Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Infor-mation Systems 18, 1, 46--55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2009.01.002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philipp Mayring and Thomas Fenzl. 2014. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, Nina Baur and Jörg Blasius, Eds. Handbuch. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 543--556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--531--18939-0_38.Google Scholar
- Manuel Muehlburger, Udo Kannengiesser, Barbara Krumay, and Chris-tian Stary. 2020. A Framework for Recognizing Digital Transformation Opportuni-ties. ECIS 2020 Research Papers.Google Scholar
- Satish Nambisan, Kalle Lyytinen, Ann Majchrzak, and Michael Song. 2017. Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Re-search in a Digital World. Management Information Systems Quarterly 41, 1, 223--238. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Nylén and Jonny Holmström. 2015. Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing and improving digital product and service innovation. Business Horizons 58, 1, 57--67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul A. Pavlou and Omar A. El Sawy. 2010. The "Third Hand": IT-Enabled Competitive Advantage in Turbulence Through Improvisational Capabili-ties. Information Systems Research 21, 3, 443--471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0280. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul A. Pavlou and Omar A. El Sawy. 2011. Understanding the Elusive Black Box of Dynamic Capabilities.Google Scholar
- Brian T. Pentland and Martha S. Feldman. 2008. Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization 18, 4, 235--250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael E. Porter and James E. Heppelmann. 2017. Why every organi-zation needs an augmented reality strategy. Harvard business review : HBR 95, 6, 46--57.Google Scholar
- N. D. Preez, L. Louw, and H. Essmann. 2009. An Innovation Process Model for Improving Innovation Capability. Journal of High Technology Manage-ment Research.Google Scholar
- Jeff Reinking. 2012. Contingency Theory in Information Systems Re-search. In Information systems theory. Explaining and predicting our digital socie-ty, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Michael R. Wade and Scott L. Schneberger, Eds. Integrated Series in Information Systems, 28. Springer, New York, NY, 247--263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978--1--4419--6108--2_13.Google Scholar
- John F. Rockart. 1979. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard business review : HBR, 57, 81--93.Google Scholar
- Joseph A. Schumpeter. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- D. Spath, K. Wagner, S. Aslanidis, M. Bannert, T. Rogowski, M. Paukert, and A. Ardilio. 2006. Die Innovationsfähigkeit des Unternehmens gezielt steigern. In Fokus Innovation. Kräfte bündeln - Prozesse beschleunigen, Hans-Jörg Bullinger, Ed. Fraunhofer-Edition. Hanser, München, 41--109.Google Scholar
- Fredrik Svahn, Lars Mathiassen, and Rikard Lindgren. 2017. Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns. Management Information Systems Quarterly 41, 1, 239--253. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. B. Swanson and Neil C. Ramiller. 1997. The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation. Organization Science 8, 5, 458--474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.458. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David J. Teece. 2010. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innova-tion. Long Range Planning 43, 2--3, 172--194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David J. Teece. 2018. Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Re-search Policy 47, 8, 1367--1387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David J. Teece, Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabili-ties and strategic management. Strat. Mgmt. J. 18, 7, 509--533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7509:AID-SMJ8823.0.CO;2-Z.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dusya Vera, Louise Nemanich, Susana Vélez-Castrillón, and Steve Werner. 2016. Knowledge-Based and Contextual Factors Associated with R&D Teams' Improvisation Capability. Journal of Management 42, 7, 1874--1903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314530168.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory Vial. 2019. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28, 2, 118--144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter Weill and Margrethe Olson. 1987. An Assessment of the Contin-gency Theory of Mis.Google Scholar
- Robert K. Yin. 2018. Case study research and applications. Design and methods (Sixth edition). SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Wash-ington DC, Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Youngjin Yoo, Ola Henfridsson, and Kalle Lyytinen. 2010. Research Commentary -The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research 21, 4, 724--735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Towards a Conceptual Model of Digital Innovation Success
Recommendations
An identification of a model for digital library critical success factors
Purpose -- A significant amount of digital repository research and development activity is taking place worldwide, which calls for the investigation of issues identified as critical to the development, management and sustainability of these ...
Critical success factors in the FinTech World: A stage model
Highlights- Critical Success Factor (CSF), funding, networks, responsiveness, organizational governance, entrepreneurial culture, team, internal communication, ease of ...
AbstractThe financial sector is transforming while increasingly becoming crowded with FinTech firms. When operating in this sector, FinTechs must understand what factors contribute to success and in what way and when. This paper proposes a ...
Critical Success Factors in a multi-stage adoption of Artificial Intelligence: A Necessary Condition Analysis
AbstractNotwithstanding the widespread publicity, Artificial Intelligence (AI) adoption has remained relatively limited. One important reason is a lack of insight into critical factors in the adoption process. This study reviews the literature ...
Highlights- Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is dependent on the firms’ focus on the ‘right’ factors.
Comments