We aim to understand how actors respond to field logic plurality and maintain legitimacy through business model innovation. Drawing on a longitudinal field study in the fashion industry, we traced how de novo and incumbent firms incorporate circular logics in business models (for sustainability) and uncover how the intersection between issue and exchange fields creates institutional complexity and experimental spaces for business model innovation. Our findings showed a shift in the discourse on circular logic that diverted attention and resources from materials innovation (e.g., recycling) to business model innovation (e.g., circular business models). By juxtaposing institutional complexity and external pressure to maintain legitimacy, we derived four strategic business model innovation responses—preserve, detach, integrate and extend—that illuminate how actors leverage shifting logics and innovate extant business models (for sustainability). We make novel contributions to the literature on organizational fields, business models for sustainability, and business model innovation.
Computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) respond to a computer security incident when the need arises. Failure of these teams can have far-reaching effects for the economy and national security. CSIRTs often have to work on an ad hoc basis, in close cooperation with other teams, and in time constrained environments. It could be argued that under these working conditions CSIRTs would be likely to encounter problems. A needs assessment was done to see to which extent this argument holds true. We constructed an incident response needs model to assist in identifying areas that require improvement. We envisioned a model consisting of four assessment categories: Organization, Team, Individual and Instrumental. Central to this is the idea that both problems and needs can have an organizational, team, individual, or technical origin or a combination of these levels. To gather data we conducted a literature review. This resulted in a comprehensive list of challenges and needs that could hinder or improve, respectively, the performance of CSIRTs. Then, semi-structured in depth interviews were held with team coordinators and team members of five public and private sector Dutch CSIRTs to ground these findings in practice and to identify gaps between current and desired incident handling practices. This paper presents the findings of our needs assessment and ends with a discussion of potential solutions to problems with performance in incident response. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02179 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickvanderkleij1/
MULTIFILE
The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.
The IMPULS-2020 project DIGIREAL (BUas, 2021) aims to significantly strengthen BUAS’ Research and Development (R&D) on Digital Realities for the benefit of innovation in our sectoral industries. The project will furthermore help BUas to position itself in the emerging innovation ecosystems on Human Interaction, AI and Interactive Technologies. The pandemic has had a tremendous negative impact on BUas industrial sectors of research: Tourism, Leisure and Events, Hospitality and Facility, Built Environment and Logistics. Our partner industries are in great need of innovative responses to the crises. Data, AI combined with Interactive and Immersive Technologies (Games, VR/AR) can provide a partial solution, in line with the key-enabling technologies of the Smart Industry agenda. DIGIREAL builds upon our well-established expertise and capacity in entertainment and serious games and digital media (VR/AR). It furthermore strengthens our initial plans to venture into Data and Applied AI. Digital Realities offer great opportunities for sectoral industry research and innovation, such as experience measurement in Leisure and Hospitality, data-driven decision-making for (sustainable) tourism, geo-data simulations for Logistics and Digital Twins for Spatial Planning. Although BUas already has successful R&D projects in these areas, the synergy can and should significantly be improved. We propose a coherent one-year Impuls funded package to develop (in 2021): 1. A multi-year R&D program on Digital Realities, that leads to, 2. Strategic R&D proposals, in particular a SPRONG/sleuteltechnologie proposal; 3. Partnerships in the regional and national innovation ecosystem, in particular Mind Labs and Data Development Lab (DDL); 4. A shared Digital Realities Lab infrastructure, in particular hardware/software/peopleware for Augmented and Mixed Reality; 5. Leadership, support and operational capacity to achieve and support the above. The proposal presents a work program and management structure, with external partners in an advisory role.
Performance feedback is an important mechanism of adaptation in learning theories, as it provides one of the motivations for organizations to learn (Pettit, Crossan, and Vera 2017). Embedded in the behavioral theory of the firm, organizational learning from performance feedback predicts the probability for organizations to change with an emphasis on organizational aspirations, which serve as a threshold against which absolute performance is evaluated (Cyert and March 1963; Greve 2003). It postulates that performance becomes a ‘problem’, or the trigger to search for alternative procedures, strategies, products and behaviors, when performance is below that threshold. This search is known as problemistic search. Missing from this body of research, is empirically grounded understanding if the characteristics of performance feedback over time matter for the triggering function of the feedback. I explore this gap. This investigation adds temporality as a dimension of the performance feedback concept guided by a worldview of ongoing change and flux where conditions and choices are not given, but made relevant by actors and enacted upon (Tsoukas and Chia 2002). The general aim of the study is to complement the current knowledge of performance feedback as a trigger for problemistic search with an explicit process temporal approach. The main question guiding this project is how temporal patterns of performance feedback influence organizational change, which I answer in four chapters, each zooming into one sub-question.First, I focus on the temporal order of performance feedback by examining performance feedback and change sequences organizations go through. In this section time is under study and the goal is to explore how feedback patterns have evolved over time, just as the change states organizations pass through. Second, I focus on the plurality of performance feedback by investigating performance feedback from multiple aspiration levels (i.e. multiple qualitatively different metrics and multiple reference points) and how over time clusters of performance feedback sequences have evolved. Next, I look into the rate and scope of change relative to performance feedback sequences and add an element of signal strength to the feedback. In the last chapter, time is a predictor (in the sequences), and, it is under study (in the timing of responses). I focus on the timing of organizational responses in relation to performance feedback sequences of multiple metrics and reference points.In sum, all chapters are guided by the timing problem of performance feedback, meaning that performance feedback does not come ‘available’ at a single point in time. Similarly to stones with unequal weight dropped in the river, performance feedback with different strength comes available at multiple points in time and it is plausible that sometimes it is considered by decision-makers as problematic and sometimes it is not, because of the sequence it is part of. Overall, the investigation is grounded in the general principles of organizational learning from performance feedback, and the concept of time as duration, sequences and timing, with a focus on specification of when things happen. The context of the study is universities of applied sciences and hotels in The Netherlands. Project partner: Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Organization Studies
