It is critical to note that the study entails certain limitations. First, because the phenomenon and answer to the research questions are researched in a single case study, it is tied to a single context.
This means that by performing a single case study, the results are less objective and less generalizable.
An improvement for the study would be to conduct a multiple case study to be able to conduct a cross-case analysis. In this thesis, this would be at the expense of quality by a not wide enough timeframe.
Second, the data collected comes from Philips earning calls. In the nine years of collected data Philips only had one CEO. The most significant limitation here is that the communication on technological development has been researched on one person. Therefore, nothing can be said about the bias in the research. For future equivalent research, it is recommended to pick a company that has had several changes of CEOs. It is interesting to be able to do an in-case analysis on how the different CEOs execute communication to stakeholders. Thirdly, a limitation is the single source stream that has been used for the study. It would significantly enhance the research by going deeper into annual reports or news publications. In addition, it would be a substantial improvement by conducting interviews that could lead to other data insights. The difficult part about analyzing these additional streams of data is
that it is difficult to determine which audience is being targeted. This could then suffer from having the CEO intentionally address the audience differently and the data being difficult to conclude.
Apart from limitations in the methodology, it is important to note the theoretical limitations. In theory, there has not been much research on factors that lead to certain frames that are identified over a long period of time. As a result, this research relies on the commonly researched theory of technological frames. This limits the research by providing a poor comparison of the found factors against the literature.
Despite the limitations, this research offers possibilities for future research. As previously mentioned, can the study be used for a future cross-case analysis. This can result in a comparison of how different CEO’s in different industries communicate their technological developments. The case study also provides a good foundation to further investigate technological frames within Philips. Within Philips, for example, it could be interesting to see which factors lead to different technological frames in the communication to internal stakeholders. This would then allow the communication to external stakeholders to be compared to the communication towards internal stakeholders.
6 Conclusion
This study aimed to better understand technological frames and the factors that lead to these specific frames. This research used an inductive approach for analyzing quarterly earning calls of Koninklijke Philips from over nine years. In the data analysis, the objective was to review how the CEO of Philips talked about technological developments. Based on this single case study, three different technological frames are presented and the factors that lead to the specific frames are identified.
The internal reasons for technological development are the impact that it will have on the organization and the inner confidence in the development. These internal reasons represent the factors that lead to the specific technological frame: internal necessity of technological development. With this frame the CEO creates the understanding of the technological development by shaping the necessity of the technology for internal reasons.
The external reasons for technological development are the pressure and recognition that Philips receives from the market. These external reasons represent the factors that lead to the specific technological frame: external necessity of technological development. By using this frame the CEO creates the understanding of the technological development by shaping the necessity of the technology by external reasons.
In addition to the internal and external factors, the study also identified factors that lead to the creation of awareness about the technological development. These factors are referred to as supporting. De importance of context, the explanation of the added value, and incremental technological development are the supporting factors that lead to the technological frame, creating awareness about the
technological development.
Moreover, the study concluded with two internal factors, two external factors, and three supporting factors that lead to three different specific technological frames.
7 References
Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Chong, J. (2010). Minding the Gaps: Understanding Technology Interdependence and Coordination in Knowledge Work (Vol. 21, Issue 3).
Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing Interpretive Schemes and Organizational Restructuring: The Example of a Religious Order. In Quarterly (Vol. 29, Issue 3).
Bharadwaj, A., el Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). DIGITAL BUSINESS STRATEGY: TOWARD A NEXT GENERATION OF INSIGHTS (Vol. 37, Issue 2).
Chanias, S., Myers, M. D., & Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.11.003
Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.875669
Davidson & Pai. (2004). INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH Relevant Theory and Informed Practice.
Davidson, E. (2006a). A technological frames perspective on information technology and organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 23–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305285126
Davidson, E. (2006b). A technological frames perspective on information technology and organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(1), 23–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305285126
Davidson, E. J. (2002). Davidson/A Socio-Cognitive Investigation of Requiremerits Determination Qarterly A Socio-CoGNiTivE INVESTIGATION OF REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION^.
In MIS Quarterly (Vol. 26, Issue 4).
Dutton, J. E., & Duncan, R. B. (1987). The Influence of the Strategic Planning Process on Strategic Change. In Management Journal (Vol. 8, Issue 2).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2485975?seq=1&cid=pdf-
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. In Source: The Academy of Management Journal (Vol. 50, Issue 1).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159839
Elias, S. M. (2009). Employee commitment in times of change: Assessing the importance of attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Management, 35(1), 37–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308910
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). THE SYMBOLIC MANAGEMENT OF STRATEGIC CHANGE:
SENSEGIVING VIA FRAMING AND DECOUPLING.
Fligstein, N., & Mcadam, D. (2011). Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields*.
Furr, N. R., Cavarretta, F., & Garg, S. (2012). Who changes course? The role of domain knowledge and novel framing in making technology changes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 236–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1137
Gal, U., & Berente, N. (2008). A social representations perspective on information systems
implementation: Rethinking the concept of “frames.” Information Technology and People, 21(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840810881051
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation.
In Management Journal (Vol. 12, Issue 6). https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639 Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). THE GENERATIVE MECHANISMS OF DIGITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE EVOLUTION 1. http://www.misq.org
Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291349362
Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glaister, K. W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS BREAKING THE FRAME: AN ANALYSIS OF
STRATEGIC COGNITION AND DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY. In Strategic Management Journal Strat. Mgmt. J (Vol. 20).
Hoppmann, J., Diaz Anadon, L., & Narayanamurti, V. (2020). WHY MATTER MATTERS: HOW TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERISTICS SHAPE THE STRATEGIC FRAMING OF
TECHNOLOGIES.
Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729–752. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0340
Kaplan, S., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37(5), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.002
Karin Olesen Anil Narayan Suresh Ramachandra, A. K., Olesen, K., Narayan, A. K., & Ramachandra, S. (2013). Technological frames: influence of group frames (ingluence). Problems and
Perspectives in Management, 11(1) businessperspectives.org Problems and Perspectives in Management (Vol. 11, Issue 1).
Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021).
Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. SAGE Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management:
Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–
238. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
Olesen, K. (2014). Technological Frames. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401452672.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014526720
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations.
Piccinini, E., Hanelt, A., Gregory, R. W., & Kolbe, L. (2015). Transforming Industrial Business: The Impact of Digital Transformation on Automotive Organizations Customer Relationship
Management View project Data Network Effects View project.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281855658
Puri, S. K. (2006). Technological frames of stakeholders shaping the SDI implementation: A case study from India. Information Technology for Development, 12(4), 311–331.
https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20050
Ross, J. W., Sebastian, I. M., Beath, C., Moloney, K. G., Mocker, M., & Fonstad, N. O. (2016).
Designing and Executing Digital Strategies.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students.
Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic Management in an Enacted World. In Source: The Academy of Management Review (Vol. 10, Issue 4). https://about.jstor.org/terms
Spieth, P., Röth, T., Clauss, T., & Klos, C. (2021). Technological Frames in the Digital Age: Theory, Measurement Instrument, and Future Research Areas. Journal of Management Studies, 58(7), 1962–1993. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12720
Tumbas, S. (2017). Digital Capabilities for Buffering Tensions of Structure, Space, and Time during Entrepreneurial Growth Explorative Business Process Management View project Digital Innovation and Rapid Growth in Entrepreneurial Organizations View project.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321051346
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. In Journal of Strategic Information Systems (Vol. 28, Issue 2, pp. 118–144). Elsevier B.V.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
8 Appendix
Appendix 1: Description of participants from the conference call
Company name Job title
Redburn (Europe) Limited Research Division - Research Analyst Deutsche Bank AG Research Division - Research Analyst Barclays Bank PLC Research Division - Research Analyst Exane BNP Paribas Research Division - Research Analyst
Citigroup Inc Research Division - Director & European Medical Technology Analyst
Morgan Stanley MD, Head of MedTech & Services and Analyst
BofA Securities Director in Equity Research and Head of the EMEA MedTech
& Services Team
Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co Research Division – Analyst
HSBC Research Division – Analyst
Goldman Sachs Group Research Division - Equity Analyst
ABN AMRO Bank Research Division - Head of Research & Equity Research Analyst
Appendix 2: Comparing data to the context
All the data presented in A and B collected from the Philips website A) Timeline structural changes & emerging activities
• 2012: Philips sold its TV business
• 2014: Philips sold its audio and video business
• 2014: Philips introduces a leaner healthcare structure
• 2016: The company lister its lighting business as a separate company
• 2016: Philips completed the transformation to an innovative health tech leader
• 2017: Philips sold its Lumileds and automotive lighting business
B) Notable events:
• 2014 poor financial results
• 2017: Philips is reclassified in the stock as a health technology leader by MSCI
• 2019 Slow financial growth
• 2020: Covid outbreak
• 2021: Apnea development problems
In 2014, the financial performance was poor, and looking back at the data; around this time, a small change can be seen in the technology frames used. For example, the internal necessity of the technological developments occurred more often. In specific, the reason for technological development was more often described in terms of the impact it had on the organizational. The assumption can be made that is in line with each other. This may be because the CEO deliberately chooses to shape necessity of the technological development by reason of the impact on the
organization. Notable was that fewer investments in technological developments were mentioned at the end of 2014 and the first half of 2015, but there was a higher focus on efficiency and restructuring.
This can be due to the negative financial performance of that year.
Out of the data resulted that in 2016 the external necessity frame was not identified. This can be due to the result that Philips completed their transformation into an innovative health leader. Following a change in the annual year reports, the assumption is made that this is due to redefining strategic pillars.
It can be observed that the code ' impact on organizational development’ only named in the years 2014-2016. When looking at the context of the end of 2016, this can be the transformation journey to an innovative health leader.