THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF DYNAMIC CAPABILTIES AND BUSINESS MODELS: A BIBIOMETRIC STUDY
Supervisor: dr S. von Delft
June 5, 2015
Author: C.A. van Wijk
Student number 10462805
Bachelor Thesis
Faculty of Economics and Business
2
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Student Claudia van Wijk who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this
document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
ABSTRACT
This paper is an initial attempt to investigate the relationship between business models and dynamic capabilities. For managers to response efficiently to the dynamic business
environment, a clear understanding of the business model framework is essential. The influence of dynamic capabilities on business models is discussed in this paper and the integration of the theoretical link between the two concepts in the business literature is analysed. The sample of this study consisted of academic articles containing the search terms business models and dynamic capabilities. After conducting a mixed methods research, consisting of quantitative citation analysis and a qualitative coding method, it can be concluded that the link is substantially integrated in the literature and that the nature of this link often concerns business model innovation through dynamic capabilities. To proof the existence of this link in reality, empirical evidence is needed. With the increasing attention for business models research on this topic can have a great influence in the academic as well as in the practical field.
4
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
VALUE CREATION AND VALUE CAPTURE 7
WHAT ARE BUSINESS MODELS NOT? 8
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES 9
THE PROPOSED LINK 10
3. METHOD 12 DATA COLLECTION 12 DATA ANALYSIS 14 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 14 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS 15 4. RESULTS 16
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 23
REFERENCES 25
APPENDIX 30
1. DELETED JOURNALS, NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE ABS 30
2. FREQUENCY OF THE VARIABLE YEAR 30
3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE VARIABLE NUMBER OF CITATIONS 31
4. DISTRIBUTION OF OUTLIERS OF THE VARIABLE NUMBER OF CITATIONS 31
5. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES YEAR AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS 32
6. DISTRIBUTION OF OUTLIERS OF THE VARIABLE SJR 32
7. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN JOURNAL RANK AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS 33
8. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SJR AND NUMBER OF CITATION PER JOURNAL 33
9. LIST OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE OF ARTICLES WITH THE CORRESPONDING CODES 33 10. CORRELATION BETWEEN THE VARIABLES CODE 1, CODE 2, CODE 3, CODE 4, CODE 5 AND
5
1. Introduction
The statement that the business model concept is underdeveloped, is what most authors agree on (Zott, Amit & Massa, 2011, p. 1038). There is a distinction between the practitioners’ idea of business models and the academic idea. Many practitioners talk about business models, but few understand the holistic framework of this concept (Linder & Cantrell, 2000). A great part of the literature is descriptive and deals with defining business models. It is a relatively new concept (Zott et al., 2011; Zott & Amit, 2010; Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; Teece 2010) and authors until now have not agreed upon a coherent definition (George & Bock, 2011; Shafer, Smith, & Linder, 2005; Morris, Schindehutte & Allen, 2005). Some definitions are broad and ambiguous, as is explained by Coombes and Nicholson (2013). Others are more systematic such as the framework of Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann (2008). This framework is defined through the connections of four different parts, further explained later on.
One aspect that most authors essentially agree upon is the fact that a business model has two main functions, which are value creation and value capturing (Amit & Zott, 2001; Johnson et al., 2008; Teece 2010). Value creation meaning: What is the value one can provide their customer? Value capturing represents the value capitalized by the company itself. In other words: how does the firm make money in its industry?
In the academic literature, the concept of business models is examined from several different perspectives (Coombes & Nicholson, 2013; Amit & Zott, 2001). The theories have developed separately from each other (Zott et al., 2011) and authors hitherto have not often build on existing theories (Osterwalder, Pigneur & Tucci, 2005). In order to construct a coherent base of theories, numerous perspectives and concepts must be bridged. The resource-based view is an example of a theory that appoints internal resources as the main cause of competitive advantage, and is one tool for better understanding business models and how businesses response to the radical and incremental changes they are confronted with. The aim of this paper is to analyse this process. After an extensive analysis of the existing literature about business models and dynamic capabilities, where the value of dynamic capabilities, applied to issues concerning business models, is explained, the contribution to the academic literature and nature of this link is analysed. This will be done with a bibliometric research, where the following question will be examined: To what extent is the link between dynamic capabilities and business models represented in the academic literature?
This research will contribute to the current literature concerning business models and provides a proposed link between business models and dynamic capabilities relevant for current managers. By examining the extent of integration of the two concepts, the results can
6 provide insights about the theoretical models about business models and dynamic capabilities, as separate concepts, but especially about their connection. In practical situations, managers and consultants can, based on the outcomes of this research, enhance their understanding about business model development, innovation and achieving sustainable competitive advantage through business model development and innovation, and in turn can efficiently respond to opportunities and threats from the increasingly competitive business environment.
In the following part of the present paper the most important definitions of business model will be presented and discussed. Additionally the concept of dynamic capabilities will be explained and an argument will be established why dynamic capabilities and business models are linked. Thirdly, a bibliometric research, consisting of a quantitative and a qualitative part, will be presented, which will investigate the link between the two concepts and its different theoretical natures in the existing literature. The last section will include a discussion, suggestions for further research and a conclusion
2. Literature Review
In this section different definitions and conceptualizations of business models will be discussed. Moreover, dynamic capabilities will be defined and their functions will be
discussed. Lastly the association between these two concepts will be analysed and three links will be proposed.
The first framework that will be discussed is the framework proposed by Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann (2008). Johnson et al. define a business model as consisting of four interlocking elements. The first element is the customer value proposition. This
represents the value provided to the customer by creating a solution for a problem they perceive. The second element is the profit formula, which answers the question how to do the job profitable. The focus with key resources lies on assets that are unique to the company in creating value. The fourth element is the key processes. Operational and managerial processes play a key role in the total value delivery to the customer. The business model consists of these four elements and specifically how these four interdependent elements interact with each other (Johnson et al., 2008).
This model could be seen as a more practical explanation of the concept of business models. It possibly appeals more to the practical business scene, partly due to its simplistic illustration of the framework, its advisory style towards managers and the fact that it is published in the Harvard Business Review, which has the image of a popularization journal
7 (Schultz & Nicolai, 2015). Nevertheless, this holistic framework is useful for identifying interconnectedness and integration processes.
In contrast to this systematic framework, other authors describe the business model more ambiguously. Chesbrough (2003) for example explains that a business model provides internal logic and considering the value creating and capturing. This “heuristic, cognitive map” (Chesbrough, 2003, p.69) can function as a guide in this process. Furthermore, Margretta (2002) explains how business models tell a story of how a business operates. Additionally, she addresses the logic behind the business. This rational view on the business model, as being a “representation of the core logic” of a business (Shafer et al., 2005, p. 202), is often recurring in the definitions of business models (Chesbrough, 2003; Teece 2010). Zott and Amit (2008) explain for example that the business model can rationally point out why some businesses have a competitive advantage over others.
Value creation and value capture
What remains at the heart of almost all definitions is the value creation and capturing aspects of a business model (Johnson et al., 2008; Teece, 2010; Chesbrough, 2003; Margretta, 2002). Both these activities and especially their interaction is the possible success factor of a business model. Businesses should clearly define for themselves what kind of value they provide for the customer and in which ways this value providing could generate financial value for the business itself. In value creating the customer plays a key role. The products or services that a business offers should respond to the customers’ needs, even before they themselves know that the need exists (Davenport, Mule & Lucker, 2011; Johnson et al., 2008). The business model is seen as an explanation of such value creation issues in a business.
Furthermore, what is recognized by Zott et al. (2011), Hamel (2000) and Dubosson-Torbay, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002) is that this value creation does not only happen within the business. More and more value creation activities extend the firms’ and industries’ boundaries and happen in a so called value network, “which can include suppliers, partners distribution channels and coalitions that extend the companies own resources” (Shafer et al., 2005, p. 202). As an answer to this trend, Chesbrough (2006) argues for open business models, which harness external parties in order to create and capture value. In some cases there is collaboration with the customer themselves during the process of value creation: value co-creation (Coombes & Nicholson, 2013). By intensifying the interaction between the customer and the firm, the customer can add value to the products or services. This process
8 can be a source of competitive advantage (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This again
reinforces the argument about the key role customer have in the business model.
However, as Shafer et al. (2005) and Teece (2010) point out, businesses often focus more on the value creation and neglect the value capturing. Especially for e-businesses it is important to find new ways to fill the needs of customers and simultaneously “obtain and remain profit streams” (Stewart & Zhao, 2000, p.287). The business model can enhance understanding of and map out the opportunities concerning new ways of capturing value (George & Bock, 2011). Sustainability in capturing value is becoming increasingly important, especially in a constantly changing environment where more and more services are provided free of charge partly due to easy access to the internet. Adapting business models to new innovations and their corresponding changes in revenue streams is indispensable.
What are business models not?
Many authors have compared business models with strategy and explained why these definitions represent different concepts. Teece (2010) describes for example that a business model alone is not enough to achieve a sustained competitive analysis and that the
combination with strategy is the following step to avoid the possible imitation of the business model by others. A unique strategy can provide the “supporting processes that (are) hard for competitors to replicate” (Teece, 2010, p.180). In this process dynamic capabilities play a key role, as will be further explained later.
Another difference between strategy and the business model is the fact that the focus with strategy lies on the sustained competitive advantage. With business models however, the focus lies on the interaction between the four components and thus the external parties, and satisfying customer needs (Zott et al., 2011). In essence, the business models and its focal points are executed to achieve the greater goal of strategy: to gain a sustainable competitive advantage. This is why Richardson (2008) describes the business model as a way of strategy execution. Osterwalder and colleagues describe the business model as a “translation of strategic issues” (2005, p. 2), in order to provide an explicit and clear understanding of these issues and their relation to the complete business process.
One author who is not a fan of the term business models is Porter (2001). He explains that with the upcoming use of the internet, businesses are using the term ‘business model’, even without a proper understanding of what this term means. However, since then a lot of progress has been made in defining the term business model and more and more academics and practitioners see the value in the concept (Shafer et al., 2005; Johnson et al., 2008).
9
Dynamic capabilities
In contrast to the concept of business models, dynamic capabilities are extensively examined. One of the reasons for this is the search for the answer on the essential question why some firms outperform others (Zott, 2003; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Teece, Pisano and Shuen define dynamic capabilities as follows: dynamic capabilities are “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing
environments” (1997, p. 516). One factor that is distinctive for dynamic capabilities compared to normal capabilities is their sensible aspect. Dynamic capabilities make businesses more “agile and responsive” in turbulent and complex environments (Siguaw, Simpson & Enz, 2006, p. 562). As a result, often the way in which businesses “make a living” (Helfat & Winter, 2011, p. 1244) is changed. However, Helfat and Winter (2011) add to this that change does not necessarily have to be radical; also gradual change can be generated by dynamic capabilities, as long as the change is “economically significant” (p.1249). Similarly, Zollo and Winter (2002) recognize that dynamic capabilities are also in action in stable environments, when there is a slower pace of change, as firms continuously “reconfigure their
competencies” (p. 340).
Often the concept of dynamic capabilities is considered as a part of the Resource-Based View (RBV), since managing and configuring resources are seen as dynamic
capabilities of a firm (Zott, 2003). The premise of the RBV is that resources are what makes companies distinctive and what creates a competitive advantage (Blome, Schoenherr & Rexhausen, 2013). As Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) concluded, although dynamic capabilities are idiosyncratic, the source of long-term competitive advantage lies in the configuration that is made with these dynamic capabilities. They build, reconfigure and integrate (Teece et al. 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000) the competencies and resources. In doing so, dynamic capabilities have a modifying effect on operational resources (Zollo & Winter, 2002). These competencies are inevitably essential to execute the business model and to deliver value to the customer (Osterwalder et al., 2005; Dubosson‐Torbay et al., 2002).
An important question is: Can managers strengthen their dynamic capabilities and improve their development? To answer this question one first has to examine the source of dynamic capabilities. This issue is still up for discussion. Zollo and Winter (2002) designed a model which shows that dynamic capabilities originate from learning mechanisms, which guide the evolution along a unique path (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). The assumption Zollo and Winter (2002) have is that through experience a “stable pattern of collective activity” is
10 formed (p. 340). They imply that dynamic capabilities are systematic and not just “creativity” (p. 340) or “brilliant improvisation” (Winter, 2003, p. 991). In this research, however, the focus will be more on the active role dynamic capabilities perform.
The managerial role in the theory of dynamic capabilities is worth highlighting. As recognized by Fitjar, Gjelsvik and Roderíguez-Pose (2013) the definition of dynamic capabilities has experience a shift is emphasis: the entrepreneurial aspect of dynamic capabilities is increasingly stressed. The managers and entrepreneurs have to deal with a continuously changing business environment and to effectively response to these changes, managers, who control the resources (Fitjar et al., 2013), should seize possible opportunities to remain competitive (Teece, 2007). One way to do this is to create alliances, which can foster knowledge and asset sharing. Additionally this can result in an interchange between ordinary capabilities, however dynamic capabilities are, as mentioned before, grounded in the history of the firm and develop through firm-specific learning mechanisms (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). In this way, dynamic capabilities is the ability to learn new capabilities (Tollin & Vej, 2012). The network perspective as addressed by Mason and Leek (2008), in which knowledge transfer and inter-firm relations are central themes, relates to one of the proposed links of business models and dynamic capabilities, further explained in the next section.
The proposed link
Understanding the way dynamic capabilities influence, develop and adapt business models through innovation is an essential when adopting a holistic view on business models. Teece (2007) is one of the few authors to address the direct link between dynamic capabilities and business model activities. It is through the innovation of organizational and managerial processes through the development of dynamic capabilities that competitiveness is sustained (Teece, 2007). “Designing and implementing viable business models” (p. 1320) is one aspect of this process as described by Teece (2007).
In other cases the indirect link to business model activities is described. Dynamic capabilities can enable (radical) product innovation (O’Connor & DeMartino, 2006). In this way dynamic capabilities question the status quo and facilitate new thinking processes, which can lead to product innovation. Moreover, managing knowledge resources also plays a key role in these processes (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Dynamic capabilities could enable technological innovation as a result of the previously mentioned learning mechanisms. As Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler (2010) clearly point out, dynamic capabilities can, for lower costs, facilitate the transfer of technology and technological knowledge. However, when taken
11 a step further, dynamic capabilities can create a business environment where innovation is generated continuously, rather than only “specific innovations” (Siguaw, Simpson & Enz, 2006, p. 557).
To include the whole value network in the business model framework, requires support for the integration and knowledge sharing with all the parties. In this process, dynamic capabilities can guide the alliancing and acquisition processes, through which new resources are redeployed into the business (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Gulati (1999) acknowledges that alliances are the result of material resources and capabilities, behaving as catalysts. In turn through such alliances new dynamic capabilities can evolve through new learning processes and knowledge sharing. The value network is a particularly aspect of the business model framework that profits from the dynamic capabilities of the firm.
These developments may lead to innovation of the whole business model. These new processes must be aligned with each other and in order for this to work efficiently, the whole organizational structure should be adapted to the new innovative systems. Dynamic
capabilities then can enable the development of a management structure in which radical innovation is possible (O’Connor & DeMartino, 2006). It is a great challenge to cope with innovation that happens outside the current business models. Key is to integrate and use the dynamic capabilities in such a way that the business model is adapted to the ability to foster and encourage innovation. In this way the business model itself is innovated. Radical business model innovation can “disrupt competitors” (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 57) and create a
competitive advantage.
In conclusion, this paper proposes three connections between business models and dynamic capabilities: (1) dynamic capabilities as the enablers for business model innovation, (2) dynamic capabilities as a tool for maintaining the relationships between the focal firm and different partners throughout the value chain, including the customers, (3) dynamic
capabilities as enablers for innovation within a business model through reconfiguring resources and creating a “unique asset base” (Teece, 2007, p.1319) and (4) dynamic capabilities can in turn create long-term firm performance through innovation of the appropriate revenue streams and in turn of the business model. Unfortunately, empirical research is outside the scope of this paper. In the next section, the level of interconnectedness of the two concepts will be examined with a bibliometric research.
12
3. Method
In order to examine the level of intellectual interconnectedness of the two concepts, a large database of literature is scanned. Due to the complexity of this topic a bibliometric analysis was carried out. The research consists of a quantitative and a qualitative part, in other words, a mixed methods research was performed. With this method the author tries to minimize the weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative research methods (Jonhson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This combination increases the validity of the research and tries provide an answer to the research question, which is as complete as possible. (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007).
The first part of the research is a citation analysis, a quantitative method. This method is valued because of its objectivity in comparison to a qualitative analysis (Coombes & Nicholson, 2013). A citation analysis can reveal linkages with a greater objectivity because it is the result of conjoined evaluations of different scholars (Backhaus, Lügger, & Koch, 2011). Academic publications create a network with connections between academic researchers (Schulz & Nicolai, 2014), and bibliometric research studies these networks. Citations are seen as recognition of an others’ work and citation analysis can map out this way of
communicating (Coombes & Nicholson, 2013).
The second part of the research is qualitative and examined in which articles there is evidence of the relation between dynamic capabilities and business models. Besides the nature of the relation between the two concepts, also other aspects of the two concepts are covered. This is done with a coding scheme.
Data collection
Firstly a representative sample must be assembled. At the beginning of May 2015 a search of articles was performed using the EBSCO search engine, searching in the Business Source Premier database. The terms “business models” and “dynamic capabilities” were entered into the search engine, and only search items that are published in academic journals and are peer reviewed were selected. This would give a list of 421 articles. After this a list of the journals in which the sample articles were published was made, ranked according to their ranking as assigned by the Association of Business Schools (2015). The articles published by journals that were not recognized by ABS are excluded in the sample (see Appendix 1). This leaves 303 articles in the sample, published in 41 journals. Table 1 shows the journals, the discipline to which the journals are assigned by the ABS (2015), the number of sample articles
13
Table 1: Journals in the sample ranked to their ABS ranking
Field Journal title No. of
articles ABS Rank Economics, Econometrics and
Statistics
Journal of Economic Literature 7 4
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 9 4
Journal of Small Business Management 4 3 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 3 3
General Management, Ethics & Social Responsibility
Academy of Management Review 13 4*
Academy of Management Journal 7 4*
Journal of Management Studies 17 4
British Journal of Management 9 4
Academy of Management perspectives 12 3 International Journal of Management Reviews 4 3
California Management review 22 3
International Studies of Management and Organization 3 2
Journal of General Management 3 2
South African Journal of Business Management 3 1
Human Resource Management
International Journal of Human Resource Management 6 3
Information management MIS Quarterly 13 4*
Information Systems Research 5 4*
Journal of Management Information Systems 5 4 Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5 4 International Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 3 Behaviour and Information Technology 2 2 Communications of the Association for Information
Systems
6 2
Innovation Journal of Product Innovation Management 20 4
R and D Management 15 3
International Journal of Innovation Management 29 2 Creativity and Innovation Management 10 2
International business and area studies
Asia Pacific Business Review 2 2
Marketing Journal of Marketing 4 4*
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 3 4 Journal of International Marketing 5 3 Journal of Strategic Marketing 9 2
14
Operations and Technology management
Decision Sciences 3 3
International Journal of Production Research 3 3
Journal of Business Logistics 6 2
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 3 2
Project Management Journal 3 1
Organisation Studies Organization Science 8 4*
Regional studies, Planning and Environment
Construction Management and Economics 4 2
Sector Studies Service Industries Journal 10 2
Strategy Long Range Planning 1 3
Journal of Change Management 3 1
Data analysis
The sample of articles were first analysed in a quantitative manner and afterwards a qualitative analysis was conducted.
Quantitative analysis
On the remaining articles in the sample a citation analysis is performed. Often, and also in this case, citation data is used for ranking (Adler, Ewing & Taylor, 2008). The assumption
underlying a citation analysis is that with citations the influence of the cited article can be measured (Culnan, 1987). This analysis consists of two parts, analysis of the citation frequency of single articles and the ranking of the journal using the impact factor and the h-index.
First the citation frequency is analysed. This objective kind of citation analysis is less prone to for systemic bias. For this, another search engine is used, namely Google Scholar. The reason for this is that in this database all the sample articles could be found, in contrast to Web of Science. One note that should be made here is that the citations number provided by Google Scholar included also citations made in non-academic articles. Since the focus of this research is primarily on the academic field, only the articles published in academic journals that cited the sample articles were counted. Looking at the number of citations, this can tell us how dynamic and how developed this discipline is (Backhaus et al., 2011). The bibliographic information of the sample articles was gathered; the citations and references of other authors to the sample articles were examined. This will result in useful information about authors, journals and other publications (Backhaus et al., 2011).
15 The second part of this research is analysing the citation impact and productivity of the top cited journals and scholars, as described by Coombes and Nicholson (2013). This done by two measures: the impact factor, calculated according to Garfield (1972) and the h-index is measured according to Hirsch (2005). The former is described as follows (Garfield, 1972): “A journal’s impact factor is based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to items published in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles and reviews published in the same 2 years”.
The impact factor thus measures the impact a journal has on the academic community. The impact factors are calculated and collected in the Journal Citation Reports of ISI Web of Knowledge by Thomas Reuters.
The second measure, the H-index, originally focuses on academic scholars, however in this research the measure is applied to journals. Hirsch (2005) defines this measure as
follows: “A scientist (or journal) has index h if h of his or her Np papers have at least h
citations each and the other (Np - h) papers have ≤h citations each”. With these factors it can
be determined how influential the articles, that both address dynamic capabilities and business model theories, are in the strategic management field. This factor is reliable in measuring the impact of the body of work of a scholar (Cronin & Meho, 2006) or in this case, the body of work published in a specific journal.
The h-indexes used in this research are gathered from the SCImago Journal Rank. Combining two indicators, the impact factor and the h-index, of journal influence from two different sources allows for a more subjective analysis of the journals and decreased
reliability.
By comparing impact factors and h-indexes with the number of citations of the articles included in the sample and their corresponding journals, the level of integration in the
literature can be analysed. The number of citations will be compared with the average citations in the business field. From here it can be concluded whether the articles in our sample have a below average or above average citation number. With the journal ranking, it can be established what percentage of the articles are published in journals with the highest ranking in our sample.
Qualitative analysis
After analysing the bibliometric data of the articles the content of the articles will be analysed. This will be done using a deductive approach, as the theory the analysis will be built on is already reviewed as is explained in the theoretical framework. The research will be done with
16 a coding method. The first codes were already established (see Table 2). However, there will be room for codes that come up while reading the articles, so that no possible relevant information will be lost.
Table 2: Codes Nature of the code
Code number
Description Key words
Closed 1 Business model innovation using dynamic capabilities
Business model innovation, transformation, new business model, restructuring organisational structure, exploiting business opportunities 2 Dynamic capabilities used
for sustain relationships with the value chain
Value network, network, parties, partners, outsource, alliances
3 Dynamic capabilities that create an environment for innovation.
Enable innovation, environment for innovation
4 Importance of long term performance
Sustainable, long term, over time, enduring competitive advantage
Open 5 Dynamic capabilities can make business models inimitable
Inimitable, heterogeneous, firm-specific, idiosyncratic
6 Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability
Ambidexterity, Ambidextrous, Explore and exploit, exploration and exploitation.
4. Results
The mixed methods research attempted to analyse the characteristics of the
interconnectedness of business models and dynamic capabilities in the business literature and how these articles are valued. After analysing the articles, it became clear that only a small percentage of the total 303 search results specifically mentioned the search terms in their text. Besides this there were also search results which were in French, were annotated listings of new books, rejoinders, indexes of journals, abstracts, introductions to special issues and editorials. These search results were disqualified from the sample, together with the articles that did not mention the search terms in their main text or abstract. In the end a total of 154 articles were searched for the codes. A list of these articles can be found in Appendix 9. During the research two extra codes were added to the code scheme. These codes were: dynamic capabilities can make business models inimitable and ambidexterity seen as a dynamic capability. The reason for including these two codes was that they were often
17 mentioned in the articles and because they could have implications for business model
development. The first extra code concerns the imitation of business models. Teece (2010) explains that a basic business model is easy to imitate, since the core logic behind it is “unlikely itself to enjoy intellectual property protection.” (p. 181). However, one of the factors that serves as a barrier to imitation are the systems and processes of a business (Teece, 2010). This implies that through reconfiguring the resources and establishing “signature processes” (Teece, 2014, p. 333) dynamic capabilities can create signature business models, which are hard to imitate. The second extra code concerns the ambidextrous nature dynamic capabilities might have. Dynamic capabilities can enable a business to simultaneously explore and exploit business opportunities. As suggested by O’Reilly and Tushman (2013), to be ambidextrous separate business units must be established. These architectural suggestions need to be taken into consideration when developing a business model. For example, the combination of a differentiation and a cost leadership strategy has radical consequences for the business model (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). In the following section the results are presented.
First, the frequency of the articles representing the interconnectedness are presented along the time series of 2000 – 2015, see Figure 1. Although with some irregulation there is an increasing trend line visible. This indicates that the topic of business models and dynamic capabilities is increasingly receiving more attention of academic scholars. Note that the year 2015 only represents the articles published so far. For comparison, when 2015 is left out of the data, the trend line is significantly steeper (see Figure 2). One factor that might play a role in the increase in articles in 2013 is the fact that in that year the journal Long Range Planning published a special issue about business models (Managing Business Models for Strategic Change, Innovation and Value Creation, 2013), which might have influenced the authors in of the sample articles to address business models in their articles.
Secondly the number of citations of the articles in our sample is shown, see Figure 3. These results reveal the wide range of the number of citations: 507 being the highest and 0 being the lowest. The mean number of citations was µ = 39,0455 with a standard deviation σ =70,41115 and a skewness value of skp = 4,117. The high standard deviation and skewness
are probably caused by fifteen outliers on the upper side of the distribution. This distribution shows that these outliers have had a significantly more impact in the academic field than the other articles. An important note that must be made here is that there is a tendency to negative correlation between the year of publication and the number of citations (R = - 0.465; p <
18 0.01). The reason for this could be that older articles have had more opportunity to be cited than newer articles (Coombes & Nicholson, 2013)
Furthermore the journals in which the sample articles were published were ranked according to their impact factor. That ranking is showed in Table 3 in which the variable SJR represents the impact factor. Note that the number of articles is less than in Table 1 due to the necessary eliminations of the articles that were not of use. All the articles of the Journal of Economic
0 5 10 15 20 25 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 0 5 10 15 20 25 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 1: Number of articles per year
19 Literature were deleted due to the lack of relevance. It is clear that the ranking of the
Association of Business Schools for the most part corresponds to the ranking based on the impact factors. The exceptions are the rankings of journals Long Range Planning and Journal of Business Logistics. Long Range Planning has a relatively low h-index compared to its impact factor and the Journal of Business Logistics has an extremely low h-index compared to its impact factor. Additionally, the number of articles per journal can be found in the third column.
The journals and their citations were also examined and those results can be found in Table 3, where they are ranked to their corresponding number of citations. After collecting the number of citations for every article, the numbers were added per journal. These numbers are compared to the ranking of the corresponding journal. There is a correlation present of R= -0,455 between the number of citations and the number of the journal in the ranking. The presence of some correlation can be explained by the fact that the ranking is partly based on citation articles published in those journals receive. However the ranking is based on more factors, which explains the imperfection of the correlation.
After collecting the number of citations, the articles were scanned for the six codes mentioned before. When the code was present in the article there was assigned a value of 1 in the corresponding column. For the complete scheme see Appendix 9. Table 4 shows the frequency with which the codes were present in the articles. These results indicate that the first code about business model innovation with the use of dynamic capabilities is more frequently present than the other possible links of business models and dynamic capabilities (cf. code 2 & 3).
Figure 3: Distribution of number of citation in the sample
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 9 1 1 3 1 1 7 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 2 9 1 3 3 1 3 7 1 4 1 1 4 5 1 4 9 1 5 3 No . o f cit ati o n s
20 Table 3: The journals ranked according their SJR impact factor
Rank Journal title No. of
articles No. of times cited H-index ABS Rank SJR
1 Academy of Management Review 5 323 163 4* 11,522
2 Academy of Management Journal 4 373 182 4* 9,067
3 Organization Science 4 396 133 4* 7,376
4 Journal of Marketing 2 180 146 4* 7,284
5 MIS Quarterly 4 567 132 4* 6,251
6 Long Range Planning 1 125 52 3 4,981
7 Journal of Management Studies 10 391 89 4 3,806
8 Information Systems Research 3 225 99 4* 3,632
9 Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 5 345 113 4 3,254 10 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2 97 102 4 3,022
11 Academy of Management perspectives 7 367 71 3 2,482
12 International Journal of Management Reviews 3 102 47 3 2,333 13 Journal of Product Innovation Management 5 207 82 4 2,115 14 Journal of Management Information Systems 1 0 90 4 1,969
15 Journal of Business Logistics 2 10 6 2 1,873
16 California Management review 13 340 80 3 1,805
17 Journal of International Marketing 2 48 49 3 1,747
18 Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2 13 31 4 1,625
19 British Journal of Management 4 73 56 4 1,597
20 International Journal of Electronic Commerce 2 1 54 3 1,570
21 Decision Sciences 2 62 68 3 1,490
22 R and D Management 11 142 56 3 1,441
23 International Journal of Production Research 2 13 75 3 1,333 24 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 2 45 45 3 1,143
25 Journal of Small Business Management 3 68 51 3 1,117
26 Behaviour and Information Technology 1 1 43 2 0,782
27 International Journal of Human Resource Management 4 2 57 3 0,734 28 Construction Management and Economics 1 40 50 2 0,724 29 Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 3 20 45 2 0,574 30 Communications of the Association for Information Systems 3 37 15 2 0,550
31 Project Management Journal 1 8 8 1 0,497
32 Journal of Change Management 2 310 7 1 0,470
33 International Journal of Innovation Management 15 746 14 2 0,426
34 Asia Pacific Business Review 1 2 40 2 0,381
35 Journal of Strategic Marketing 5 57 10 2 0,371
36 Service Industries Journal 5 9 33 2 0,321
37 International Studies of Management and Organization 1 1 7 2 0,276 38 Creativity and Innovation Management 17 115 3 2 0,273
39 Journal of General Management 2 310 10 2 0,167
21 This is as expected, as the first code represents a direct link between the two concepts. After that the order is: code 4, code 2, code 3, code 5 and code 6. The fact that the open codes were less frequently present than the closed codes is also worth noticing. This makes sense as the closed codes are a result of a literature review done before this research. The open codes were established while doing the research. The percentages indicate that the most frequent code, the one describing the direct link between dynamic capabilities and business model
innovation, is only present is slightly more than half the articles in the sample. The results of the other codes differ between 43,5 % and 8%. The distribution is relatively equal except for the last code about ambidexterity. Table 4 also shows some examples of parts of the article where evidence for the specific code is present.
Table 4: Examples of evidence of codes
Code number
Description Number of articles in which the code was present (absolute and %) Examples 1 Business model innovation using dynamic capabilities
84 54,5% “In order for TV producers to survive, they have to be able to adjust their business models; perceive and make sense of changing business environments; and (re)organize and recombine their resources. In other words they need excellent dynamic capabilities (e.g., Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997), defined as the “ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments” (ibid., 516).” (Naldi, Wikström &Von Rimscha, 2014, p.64)
2 Dynamic capabilities used for sustain relationships with the value chain
58 37,5% “The effective orchestration of people and knowledge, both
within and across the boundaries of the firm, is central to the dynamic capabilities framework, and requires organizational as well as managerial competences (Teece 2009). The orchestration task refers to resources internal to the firm as well as those accessed through partnerships with other firms and institutions. A fundamental challenge for the manager is thus not only how best to employ the firm’s existing assets and competences, but also how to recombine and increase those assets through
partnerships.” (Fitjar, et al., 2013, p. 502)
3 Dynamic capabilities that create an environment for innovation.
47 30% “In the hypercompetitive setting, competitive advantage
can thus only be sustained by a set of subsequent competitive advantages (D’Aveni, 1994, 1995). Continuous, or at least frequent, product innovation is
22 required to achieve this purpose, which in turn demands dynamic capabilities.” (Biedenbach, 2011, p. 65)
4 Long term performance because of dynamic capabilities.
67 43, 5% “The RBV emphasizes on resource choice. In contrast, dynamic capabilities emphasize resource development and renewal, and sustain a firms’ competitive advantage”. (Holzweber, Mattson, Chadee &Ramam, 2012, p.533).
“(…) dynamic capabilities, together with good strategy, are the foundations of long-run success.” (Al-Ali, Teece, 2014, p. 103)
5 Dynamic capabilities can create
heterogeneous business models.
39 25% According to Barney (1991), organizational creativity and performance is built through the deployment and use of idiosyncratic, valuable, and inimitable resources and capabilities that might be heterogeneously distributed across the organization. (Agarwal, Selen, 2009, p. 432)
6 Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability
8 5% “As such, dynamic capabilities, manifest in the decisions of
senior managers, help an organization reallocate and reconfigure organizational skills and assets to permit the firm to both exploit existing competencies and to develop new ones (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Taylor & Helfat, 2009). In this way, organizational ambidexterity (sequential, simultaneous, or contextual) is reflected in a complex set of decisions and routines that enable the organization to sense and seize new opportunities through the reallocation of organizational assets.” (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2012, p. 332)
“To accomplish such change, however, requires that senior managers be able to not only sense the changes needed by their firms, but also to be able to seize them by allocating resources and reconfiguring the organization to address them. This involves seeing things realistically, being willing to cannibalize existing businesses when necessary, and being ambidextrous or able to manage both mature and emerging businesses” (Harreld, O’Reilly, Charles & Tushman, 2007, p.40)
“Firm innovation capabilities are distinctive processes and activities that explore and exploit internal and external competencies to create a competitive advantage in a changing environment.” (Shi, 2007, p. 37)
23
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Doing a Bibliometric research comes with its limitations. In this section the limitations of a general bibliometric research and this specific research method will be discussed.
First is the use of the data base of Google Scholar. This very large and includes a wide variety of papers (e.g. conference proceedings, abstracts and preprints). This can decrease the
reliability and the accuracy of the research. With the criterion for the citing articles (being published in an academic article) the author tries to limit this decrease as much as possible. Nevertheless, their easily accessible database and wide coverage of sources, was the reason for choosing this database.
Secondly selecting only the journals which are recognized by the Association of Business Schools creates sample bias, which is reflected in the results: the average impact factor in the sample is 2,313525, which is, compared to the field average of 0,63371529 (SCImago Journal Rank, field: Business, Management & Accounting), obviously high. This could lower the validity of these measurements. However, to create a complete sample base with all the data included, selecting based on an already gathered journal list was necessary.
Thirdly, in this research there is a tendency for researcher bias in relating to the coding method. When the key words and phrases are mentioned in the sample articles, naturally that the code is recognized. However, when the key words are not specifically mentioned, this becomes a matter of interpretation. For example, in the article of Möller, Rajala and
Westerlund (2008), the search term dynamic is not mentioned in combination with the term capabilities. However is the endnotes they refer to both the article ‘Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?’ from Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) and the article ‘Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management’ from Teece et al. (1997). This together with the fact that the capabilities are described as attributing to “an ambidextrous culture” (Möller et al., 2008, p. 46) argues for interpreting the term capabilities as dynamic capabilities in this paragraph.
Doing a bibliometric research can provide useful insights in the academic field, however to be of significant help for practitioners, empirical research is needed. It would be especially interesting to know which specific dynamic capabilities concerning specific resources could have significant effect on business model innovation and in turn on business model performance.
Furthermore the value network in which a business model is positioned is a source of information which can enhance understanding of the interactions within this network. Often business models and their external parties are part of other firms’ business models. Such open business models are becoming increasingly popular due to the new division of labour
24 (Chesbrough, 2007). This fragmentation requires a more extensive collaboration with a larger network of parties. This potential for growth requires strongly supported relationships and is worthy of further investigation.
The main aim of this study was to shed light on the integration of the
interconnectedness between dynamic capabilities and business models in the academic literature and analyse the different natures of these connections. A bibliometric study was used to determine the influence the sample articles have on the academic literature and in what context the relationship between the concepts was present in the articles. With a citation analysis it was found that the sample had a very wide range of citation frequencies, with fifteen outliers at the upper side, which had substantially more influence than the rest of the sample. This might me due to the fact that a large part of these articles were published at the end of the time period. To answer the research question the link is in fact represented in the business literature, although only a few articles have had a significant impact. The results of the qualitative part of the research indicate that the direct link between business models and dynamic capabilities, which represent business model innovation, is the most common link in the business literature. Nevertheless, also the other links that were discussed were present in the business literature, although less frequently. With these outcomes business researchers can further, maybe even empirically, research this topic and build upon the different approaches explaining the link between business models and dynamic capabilities. This is essential for managers facing opportunities and threats from a dynamic business environment.
25
References
Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2009). Citation statistics. Statistical Science,24(1), 1. Agarwal, R., & Selen, W. (2009). Dynamic capability building in service value networks for
achieving service innovation. Decision sciences, 40(3), 431-475.
Al‐Aali, A., & Teece, D. J. (2014). International Entrepreneurship and the Theory of the (Long‐Lived) International Firm: A Capabilities Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 95-116.
Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic management journal, 22(6/7), 493.
Backhaus, K., Lügger, K., & Koch, M. (2011). The structure and evolution of business-to-business marketing: a citation and co-citation analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 940- 951.
Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of
Marketing, 67(2), 123-139.
Biedenbach, T. (2011). The power of combinative capabilities: Facilitating the outcome of frequent innovation in pharmaceutical R&D projects. Project Management
Journal, 42(2), 63-80.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., & Rexhausen, D. (2013). Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities
perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 1295-1318.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.
Brown, T. (2011). Journal quality metrics: Options to consider other than impact factors. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(3), 346-350.
Association of Business Schools (2015). Academic Journal Guide 2015. Retrieved 7th May 2015 from: http://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2015/
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33-58.
Coombes, P., & Nicholson, J. (2013). Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(5).
26 Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h‐index to rank influential information scientists.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.
Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic resources and performance: a meta‐analysis. Strategic management journal,29(11), 1141-1154. Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980-1985: a co-citation
analysis. MIS Quarterly, 341-353.
Davenport, T. H., Mule, L. D., & Lucker, J. (2011). Know what your customers want before they do. Harvard Business review, 89(12), 84-92.
Dubosson‐Torbay, M., Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2002). E‐business model design, classification, and measurements. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(1), 5-23.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Fitjar, R. D., Gjelsvik, M., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). The combined impact of managerial and relational capabilities on innovation in firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(5-6), 500-520.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471– 479.
George, G., & Bock, A. (2011). The Business Model in Practice and its Implications for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111 Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and
firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic management journal, 20(5), 397-420. Hamel G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Harreld, J. B., O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review, 49(4), 21.
Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (N) ever‐changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243-1250.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research
output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
27 Holzweber, M., Mattsson, J., Chadee, D., & Raman, R. (2012). How dynamic capabilities
drive performance in the Indian IT industry: the role of information and co-ordination. The Service Industries Journal, 32(4), 531-550.
Johnson, M. J., Christensen, C. C., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12).
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-133.
Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2010). Technology Transfer across Organizational Boundaries: ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY AND DESORPTIVE
CAPACITY. California Management Review, 53(1).
Linder, J., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Carved in water: Changing business models fluidly. Accenture Institute for Strategic Change Research Report, 8-10.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review 80(5), 86-92 Mason, K. J., & Leek, S. (2008). Learning to build a supply network: an exploration of
dynamic business models. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 774-799.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. (2005). The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of business research, 58(6), 726-735.
Naldi, L., Wikström, P., & Von Rimscha, M. B. (2014). Dynamic Capabilities and
Performance: An Empirical Study of Audiovisual Producers in Europe. International Studies of Management & Organization, 44(4), 63-82.
O'Connor, G. C., & DeMartino, R. (2006). Organizing for radical innovation: An exploratory study of the structural aspects of RI management systems in large established
firms. Journal of product innovation management, 23(6), 475-497.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the association for Information Systems, 16(1), 1-25
Porter, M. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harward Business Review, 79, 62-78.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
28 Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
business review, 68(3), 79-91.
Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5‐6), 133-144.
SCImago (2013). SCImago Journal Rank. Retrieved 10th May 2013 from http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php
Schulz, A. C., & Nicolai, A. (2014). The intellectual link between management research and popularization media: a bibliometric analysis of the harvard business review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, amle-2012.
Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. (2005). The power of business models. Business horizons, 48(3), 199-207.
Shi, Y. (2007). Today's solution and tomorrow's problem: the business process outsourcing risk management puzzle. California Management Review, 49(3), 27-44.
Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: a framework for study and integration of innovation research .Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23(6), 556-574.
Stewart, D. W., & Zhao, Q. (2000). Internet marketing, business models, and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 287-296.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3) 172-194.
Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328-352.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 537–533.
Tollin, K., & Vej, J. (2012). Sustainability in business: understanding meanings, triggers and enablers. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(7), 625-641.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization science, 13(3), 339-351.
29 Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm
performance: insights from a simulation study. Strategic management journal, 24(2), 97-125.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strategic management journal, 29(1), 1-26. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and
30
Appendix
1. Deleted journals, not recognized by the ABS
Academy of Management Executive
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Human Systems Management
IIMB Management Review (Indian Institute of Management Bangalore)
International Journal of Management Cases Journal of Business & Management
M@n@gement
Management International / International Management / Gestion Internacional
Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr)
2. Frequency of the variable Year
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent Valid 2000 1 ,6 ,6 ,6 2001 4 2,6 2,6 3,2 2002 4 2,6 2,6 5,8 2003 4 2,6 2,6 8,4 2004 6 3,9 3,9 12,3 2005 11 7,1 7,1 19,5 2006 11 7,1 7,1 26,6 2007 8 5,2 5,2 31,8 2008 12 7,8 7,8 39,6 2009 22 14,3 14,3 53,9 2010 10 6,5 6,5 60,4 2011 14 9,1 9,1 69,5 2012 13 8,4 8,4 77,9 2013 20 13,0 13,0 90,9 2014 13 8,4 8,4 99,4 2015 1 ,6 ,6 100,0 Total 154 100,0 100,0
31
3. Descriptive statistics of the variable Number of citations
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std. Error Statistic Std. Error No.of Citations 154 507,00 ,00 507,00 39,0455 70,41115 4,117 ,195 21,065 ,389 Valid N (listwise) 154
32
5. Correlations between the variables Year and Number of
citations
Year
Number of citations
Year Pearson Correlation 1 -,576**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 53 53
Number of citations Pearson Correlation -,576** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000
N 53 53
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
33
7. Correlations between Journal rank and Number of
citations
Journal No.ofCitations
Journal Pearson Correlation 1 -,262**
Sig. (2-tailed) ,001
N 154 154
No.ofCitations Pearson Correlation -,262** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,001
N 154 154
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
8. Correlations between SJR and Number of citation per
journal SJR Citation per journal SJR Pearson Correlation 1 ,455** Sig. (2-tailed) ,003 N 40 40
Citation per journal Pearson Correlation ,455** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,003
N 40 40
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
9. List of the total sample of articles with the corresponding codes
S ea rc h n u m b er Au th o r(s) Jo u rn al Ye ar No . o f cit ati o n s Co d e 1 Co d e2 Co d e3 Co d e4 Co d e5 Co d e 6 73 Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj MIS Quarterly 2003 507 0 0 1 1 1 0
74 Lawson, Samson International Journal of Innovation Management 2001 458 1 1 1 1 1 0 190 Le Breton-Miller, Miller Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 2006 276 1 0 0 0 0 0
82 Kale, Singh Academy of Management Perspectives
34 44 Rindova, Kotha Academy of Management
Journal 2001 213 1 0 0 0 0 0 224 Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, Tushman Academy of Management Review 2001 210 0 0 0 0 0 1
180 Gilbert Organization Science 2006 198 1 0 0 0 0 1 67 Schweizer Journal of General
Management 2005 158 1 1 0 1 0 0 104 Srinivasan, Lilien, Rangaswamy Journal of Marketing 2002 136 1 0 0 0 0 0 153 Voelpel, Leibold, Tekie Journal of Change Management 2004 132 1 1 1 1 0 0 255 Markman, Siegel, Wright Journal of Management Studies 2008 131 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 Santos, Eisenhardt Academy of Management Journal
2009 126 0 1 0 0 0 0
26 Teece Long Range Planning 2010 125 1 1 1 1 1 0
59 Wheeler Information Systems Research 2002 119 1 0 0 1 0 0 87 Moller, Rajala, Westerlund California Management Review 2008 110 0 1 0 0 0 1
274 Tripsas Organization Science 2009 80 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 Kor, Mahoney, Michael Journal of Management Studies 2007 74 1 0 0 0 1 0 166 Siguaw, Simpson, Enz Journal of Product Innovation Management 2006 74 1 0 1 1 1 0
56 Lichtenthaler Academy of Management Perspectives
2011 73 0 1 1 0 0 0
155 O'Connor, Demartino Journal of Product Innovation Management 2006 71 0 0 1 0 0 0 263 Lockett, Thompson, Morgenstern International Journal of Management Reviews 2009 69 0 0 0 0 1 0
32 Augier, Teece Organization Science 2009 66 1 0 0 1 1 0 150 Vanhaverbeke,
Peeters
Creativity & Innovation Management 2005 65 1 1 0 1 1 1 189 McEvily, Das, McCabe Academy of Management Review 2000 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 Newbert Journal of Small Business Management
2005 63 1 0 0 1 1 0
204 Bala, Venkatesh Information Systems Research
2007 60 0 1 0 0 0 0
111 Mansfield, Fourie South African Journal of Business Management 2003 59 1 1 0 0 1 0 226 Gianiodis, Ellis, Secchi International Journal of Innovation Management 2010 56 0 1 1 0 0 0
35 296 Varadarajan, Yadav Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science
2005 55 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 Capron, Mitchell Organization Science 2009 52 1 1 0 1 0 1 193 Lichtenthaler California Management
Review
2007 51 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 Lichtenthaler R & D Management 2009 49 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 Harreld, O'Reilly,
Charles, Tushman
California Management Review
2007 47 1 1 1 1 0 1
57 Agarwal, Selen Decision Science 2009 47 1 1 1 1 1 0 201 Keil Journal of Management
Studies
2004 47 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 Pandza, Thorpe British Journal of Management
2010 46 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 Zahra, George Information Systems Research
2002 46 1 0 0 1 0 0
11 Day Journal of Marketing 2011 44 1 1 1 1 0 0
223 Lado, Boyd, Wright, Kroll
Academy of Management Review
2006 43 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 Camuffo, Grandinetti Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
2011 43 0 1 0 1 0 0
79 O'Connor Journal of Product Innovation Management
2008 43 1 0 1 1 1 1
278 Hanvanich, Sivakumar, Hult
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2006 42 0 0 1 0 0 0 197 Leiringer, Green, Raja Construction Management and Economics 2009 40 0 0 0 1 0 0
295 Rodrigues, Child Journal of Management Studies
2003 40 1 1 0 0 1 0
289 Andriani International Journal of Innovation Management
2001 39 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 Ramasubbu, Mitha, Krishan, Kemerer
MIS Quarterly 2008 39 1 0 0 0 0 0
205 Perdomo-Ortiz International Journal of Human Resource Management
2009 37 0 0 1 0 0 0
27 Brink, Holmen Creativity & Innovation Management 2011 35 1 0 0 1 0 0 242 Giannopoulou, Ystrom, Ollila International Journal of Innovation Management 2011 34 1 0 1 0 0 0
109 Benner, Ranganathan Academy of Management Journal
2012 33 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 Lages, Silva, Styles Journal of International Marketing
