How To Survive and Thrive in a Dynamic Business Environment:

46

How To Survive and Thrive in a Dynamic

Business Environment:

A Qualitative Research On How Companies Handle

Change On Multiple Dimensions Simultaneously.

By:

Tom Stammes

Master Thesis

MSc BA – Strategic Innovation Management

University of Groningen

1

Abstract

Profound research has been conducted on change brought about by new technologies and how this impacts businesses, but in the current business environment, change is impacting multiple organizational dimensions at the same time, which has a significant impact on the continuity of businesses. Therefore, this research adds to the literature how companies handle change on multiple dimensions of the business simultaneously. Through multiple case-study research, this study found that the Internet of Things and the co-evolving Circular Economy have an impact on multiple, interrelated dimensions of the firm, causing them to change simultaneously. Whereas the circular economy is a useful byproduct of change. The outcome of this study is a new conceptual model that portrays how companies handle change on multiple dimensions, and which factors enable or hamper the change.

Keywords: Internet of Things, circular economy, product/service offering, business model,

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ... 1

Introduction ... 3

Literature review ... 6

From products to services ... 6

Internet of Things ... 8

Changing the strategy ... 10

How the IoT, CE and their applications change firms ... 11

Methodology ... 13 Research design ... 13 Case selection ... 14 Data collection ... 15 Data analysis ... 16 Research quality ... 17 Findings ... 18 Drivers of change ... 18 Strategy ... 20 Multi-dimensional change ... 23 Cross-Case analysis ... 25 Discussion ... 26

Enablers and disablers of simultaneous multi-dimensional change ... 26

Indirect factors ... 26 Direct factors ... 27 Multi-Dimensional change ... 29 Theoretical contribution ... 32 Managerial implications ... 32 Limitations ... 32

Future research avenues ... 33

Conclusion ... 33

References ... 35

Appendix ... 41

A – Interview Protocol Sample Companies ... 41

B – Interview Protocol Industry Experts ... 43

C – Coding Tree ... 45

3

Introduction

The business environment has never seen a higher pace of change as since the start of the new millennium (Balogun & Hailey, 2008; Burnes, 2004; By, 2005). Technological advancements are appearing at an unimaginable pace, generating endless business opportunities, new possibilities, and hence more threats. The phenomenon called the Internet of Things (IoT) allows products to be turned into services, since the combination of the physical product with Information Technology (IT) ensures that it can be constantly monitored on utility and condition and thus redefines the value a product can deliver (Spring & Araujo, 2016). According to Wortmann & Flüchter (2015), Internet of Things can be defined as:

‘‘a global infrastructure for the Information Society, enabling advanced services by interconnecting (physical and virtual) things based on, existing and evolving, interoperable information and communication technologies’’ (Wortmann & Flüchter, 2015, p. 221)

The IoT can be a tool for companies to change their product-centered business model into a service-centered business model, and shift from selling a product to selling service offerings (Barrett, Davidson, Prabhu, & Vargo, 2015). Moreover, according to Spring & Araujo (2016), the IoT is co-evolving with the circular economy (CE), which closes the loop of the linear economy and allows products to be refurbished, re-used and dismantled. Other authors showed how digital technologies can support the transition to a circular economy (Pagoropoulos, Pigosso, & McAloone, 2017). This, plus the rising compatibility between sustainability and financial performance; where Golicic & Smith (2013) show that implementing environmental initiatives can help improve firm performance, even though the initial costs are higher; incentivizes companies to implement circular aspects in the business, creating more challenges (Spring & Araujo, 2016).

4 As Kranz (2016, p. 10) states it: “the winners in this new era will recognize the changes occurring around us and be willing to adjust and re-learn, over and over again“. The pace of change in the business environment is faster than ever, and companies have to have an open mindset to be able to not only survive, but also thrive (Kranz, 2016). Companies that stick to the old ways of doing business and try to do everything themselves will face substantial challenges and eventually perish (Kranz, 2016). Hence, change is necessary. Research shows that organizational change is evidently linked to organizational strategy, or vice versa (Burnes, 2004; Rieley & Clarkson, 2001). In another stream of research, the ability to handle change is identified to be ‘strategic flexibility’ (Wright & Snell, 1998; Zhou & Wu, 2010). Strategic flexibility in turn enables companies to create strategic options, that either lead a change or respond to a change (Combe, Rudd, Leeflang, & Greenley, 2012; Sanchez, 1995). Authors in the field of strategic flexibility identified several dimensions of change in turbulent business environments that are dynamic and/or turbulent (e.g. Dreyer & Grønhaug, 2012; Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998; Thomas, 2014), characterized by continuous change (Beach, Muhlemann, Price, Paterson, & Sharp, 2000; Ivens, 2005), rapid change (Lau, 1996; Matusik & Hill, 1998; Young-Ybarra & Wiersema, 1999) or accelerating change (Hatum & Pettigrew, 2006; Schön, 2012). These authors covered multiple dimensions within the firm or close to the firm that changed, but always focused on one dimension of the firm at the same time.

This unprecedented amount of change, in multiple dimensions in the business, is stressing the importance of being flexible as a business more than ever. Since the current literature does not sufficiently describe how companies have to deal with simultaneous changes to multiple organizational dimensions, it has to be enriched. Profound research has been conducted on

change brought about by new technologies and how this impacts businesses, but in the current business environment, change is impacting multiple organizational dimensions at the same time. This has a significant impact on the continuity of businesses. If companies want to survive, or even thrive in such environments, they have to get used to change, and also change themselves, on multiple dimensions at once. Therefore, this can be identified as the missing link.

5 This research aims to fill this gap by investigating how the Internet of Things, its applications, and the co-evolving circular economy together impact businesses on multiple dimensions. It will explain how these phenomena influence the amount of change and uncertainty, and how companies have to change themselves in multiple dimensions at the same time, in order to keep up with the business environment, and survive as a firm.

Hence, the research question that this study is focusing on, is:

How do companies handle change on the business model, the product/service offering, customer centricity, and strategy dimensions simultaneously?

In order to answer this question, the following sub-research questions are created:

What are the factors enabling and/or hampering simultaneous multi-dimensional change?

In order to answer the research questions, this study will focus on a multiple-case study approach, combined with existent literature around the Internet of Things, the field of strategic flexibility, circular economy and servitization. This research focuses on the automotive industry, and more specifically, the car rental, car sharing, car leasing sectors. The interviewees work within this field and have impact on the strategic decisions of their companies in the Netherlands, the location of the study. The results of the study, based on the cases, will be applied to a more general aspect, in the form of a conceptual model and build theory that answers the research question.

This research enriches the existing literature in multiple ways. Firstly, it identifies that companies can have the ability to change on multiple dimensions simultaneously. It shows that companies have multiple ways to implement flexibility in the business, and not only in strategy. Moreover, it identifies enabling and constraining factors that influence the flexibility, and the chosen option to implement flexibility. It shows that companies can either use a proactive method to lead the change, or apply a more defensive method and respond to the changes. This leads to a better understanding of how companies can handle change in environments that are drastically changing through new technologies.

Furthermore, this study shows how the circular economy and the internet of things drive changes in the business environment, which indirectly influence companies to change.

6 Furthermore, it shows how companies have to act to keep their business relevant to the changing environment. The research will provide a set of factors that companies need to possess in order to change on multiple dimensions simultaneously, and which options companies can take to implement flexibility.

Following the introduction, the next topic in this research paper is the literature review, in which all the main topics are deepened, explained, with relation to the investigated topic of this paper. After that the methodology of the research is presented and explained, followed by the findings of the case studies and the discussion, including a new conceptual model. This paper is closed with a conclusion, highlighting the theoretical contributions, managerial implications, limitations and proposed avenues of future research.

Literature review

This chapter encompasses the literature that has been written around the core concepts that this paper focuses on. It will start with what previous research has shown, and then focus on the gap of the concept that this study tries to bridge. The core concepts that are reviewed in this chapter are: Servitization, Circular economy, Internet of Things, and Strategic flexibility.

From products to services

The Internet of Things has the power to drastically change business offerings and change core business models towards new models that can keep up with the servitization trend (Barrett et al., 2015; Wortmann & Flüchter, 2015). As the line between products and services starts to fade, there is a growing trend towards servitization (Neely, 2008; Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988). Servitization can be seen as the strategy that enables companies to shift from selling products towards offering integrated products and services (Barrett et al., 2015), or service-led growth by product firms (Spring & Araujo, 2016). Early research on servitization identified it as a strategic method to differentiate, lock in customers, and lock out competitors (Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988).

7 a change in the product/service offering, as the product is now delivering a service (Kortuem, Kawsar, Fitton, & Sundramoorthy, 2010). The customer replaces the high upstream expenditures for a lower, constant stream of expenses, and benefits from a more reliable product (Rappa, 2004). Whilst the producer, instead of receiving a one-time income, generates a constant stream of income, focused on the long run, and has to ensure a reliable product, since the costs for repairs are for the producer (Rappa, 2004). Hence, this changes both product/service offering and business models.

Towards a more circular model

The research attention on the subject of the circular economy has been growing over the last years, as it can be seen as the more sustainable solution of our current take-make-dispose economy (e.g. Ghisellini, Cialani, & Ulgiati, 2016; Zhijun & Nailing, 2007). The current take-make-dispose economy, or linear economy, is depleting our natural resources, threatens natural ecosystems, and creates an ever-increasing demand for resources (George, Schillebeeckx, & Liak, 2015; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). This ‘unhealthy’ model has been dominant since the industrial revolution (Ellen MacArthur Foundation & McKinsey&Company, 2014). The new solution, the so-called ‘circular economy’ is focusing on the entire value chain of products and with the use of the ‘3R principles’, reduction, reuse and recycle, changes the most environmentally damaging processes (Yong, 2007; Sakai et al., 2011; Zhijun & Nailing, 2007).

The recent sprung in interest in the circular economy entails a view from businesses that business goals converge on an increasing scale with environmental goals (Spring & Araujo, 2016). As other authors state, performance on financial and sustainability dimensions seems to become compatible, instead of being a conflict, like it used to be (Carter & Easton, 2011; Golicic & Smith, 2013).

8 resources, makes people rethink the way we do business by maximizing the productivity of goods, while minimizing the waste (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016).

Hence, the circular economy pressures companies to improve recycling, reuse, and reduce their waste, pollution and emissions. It influences the way companies conduct business, impacting their strategy, business models, and offering.

This entire process of change has to be facilitated by influential actors, such as institutionalizing organizations, frontrunners in the environmentally friendly businesses, activists and more players to change mindsets, policies and practices (Allwood, Ashby, Gutowski, & Worrell, 2011; Ghisellini et al., 2016). Institutional change is necessary to facilitate the shift to unfamiliar reverse flows, different ownership models, easier categorization of products and materials, resource output, pollution and emissions, and a stressing outlook on sustainable behavior in organizations (Mont, 2004; Spring & Araujo, 2016). Moreover, the customer has an important role to play, as their buying behavior decides which companies have the power. If the customer mindset incorporates more circular ideas, companies soon have to follow.

Issues that have prevented adoption of the circular economy on a higher level are identified to be: ‘geographical dispersion of manufacturers and suppliers; materials complexity and proliferation; and ‘lock-in’ to a linear economic model (Ellen MacArthur Foundation & McKinsey&Company, 2014, p. 29).

In order to facilitate this change, the use of new technological advancements can be of help. One of the advancements in technology that generates the information necessary to improve existing business models and become more efficient throughout the entire value chain and life-cycle of the product is the Internet of Things (Kortuem et al., 2010; Manyika et al., 2015). Internet of Things is the next advancement that leverages this information gathering and with its numerous applications can shape the journey towards the circular economy. Examples of applications of the IoT are improved maintenance, a totally connected supply chain that communicates and interacts with each other at every point, creating more efficient supply chains than ever, enabling recovery options (Grubic, Redding, Baines, & Julien, 2011; Kranz, 2016; Spring & Araujo, 2016).

Internet of Things

9 According to Cisco, the number of ‘things’ connected to the internet is increasing at an exploding rate, having 12,5 billion devices connected to the internet in 2010, and expected to grow to 50 billion by 2020 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013).

The Internet of Things created an invisible network around us, which consists of the creation of information, gathering information and sharing this information through communication (Gubbi, Buyya, Marusic, & Palaniswami, 2013). This information is gathered by sensors connected to computing systems. It monitors the actions, usage and conditions of both products, machines and the natural world (Manyika et al., 2015; Miorandi et al., 2012; Ng & Wakenshaw, 2017). The IoT converts previously static, unmovable information into a dynamic, transportable resource (Ng & Wakenshaw, 2017). This process is called liquification of information sources (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Normann, 2001). Liquification ensures real-time information about the involved devices (Li et al., 2015) and it enables companies to optimize the performance of systems and processes, create efficiencies in time and money, and change company offerings through the use of collected data (Manyika et al., 2015; Miorandi et al., 2012; Ng & Wakenshaw, 2017).

The IoT can also be used in creating digital materiality of physical objects (Yoo, Boland, Lyytinen, & Majchrzak, 2012). Digital materiality entails the potential manipulation of a physical object by its embedded software (Yoo et al., 2012). The IoT enables physical objects to be equipped with RFID, sensors and software to achieve new functions, have everything measured, and enable actuation from a distance (Guinard, Trifa, Mattern, & Wilde, 2011; Manyika et al., 2015; Miorandi et al., 2012). Yoo, Henfridsson, & Lyytinen (2010) state that these new functions stretch the abilities of these products.

Never before, companies have had the chance to gather the amount of data that is possible now, through the IoT (Kranz, 2016). This data generates endless possibilities, which slowly but surely become unraveled (Kranz, 2016). Examples of how this data can be used are: zero downtime, achieving higher productivity than ever before, improved recycling, proactive maintenance and products with longer life cycles (Kranz, 2016).

Hence, the data liquification and digital materiality can be seen as influencing companies’ business models through pay per use methods, and optimize and change company offerings through collected data and the new functions.

10 DeLanda, 2006). In an assemblage, the products, or objects, work together and therefore create functions and possibilities that were not available if the products acted solely on their own (Hoffman & Novak, 2015). These objects interact with each other, with the entire assemblage, but also assemblages interact with other assemblages (Hoffman & Novak, 2015). The assemblage is in constant state of flux, where the objects can be easily added and removed, and constantly create new capacities of the assemblage and objects (Hoffman & Novak, 2015). Concluding, the whole is more than just the sum of its parts, due to ongoing interaction between the components that generates new possibilities (DeLanda, 2006; 2011; Hoffman & Novak, 2015). Hence, this influences companies’ product/service offering, as the products have new functions and possibilities, where services can be built around.

With all these new abilities, the Internet of Things also accompanies some challenges for companies that want to adopt it. As companies never before had the ability to gather this much data about their products and customer (Kranz, 2016), this creates challenges. First of all, the new data streams have to be handled by the firm, and they need to find a way to use the data to their advantage, by finding patterns to improve and optimize processes (Kranz, 2016). Next to that, the IoT creates challenges in security and data protection to prevent unauthorized access and safety of the sensitive, personal data (Dutton, 2014). Lastly, intellectual property rights. A problem that arises when multiple actors are involved, is who the owner is of the data that is collected. There are some discrepancies and uncertainty in this factor, and thus it creates problems in implementing data collection (Dutton, 2014). As for these challenges, legislation is an important factor in determining where the line is in what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Changing the strategy

11 The need for companies to be strategically flexible arises from specific triggers in the business environment (Brozovic, 2016). The most identified trigger is change, in all kind of forms (e.g. Combe et al., 2012; Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001).

The strategic flexibility of a firm is either facilitated by enablers, grouped into strategy, orientation and culture and resource-related enablers (Brozovic, 2016). On the other hand, strategic flexibility is hampered by barriers, most importantly, rigidity (Tan & Zeng, 2009), in several forms.

The process of strategic flexibility is seen as the creation of strategic options, strategic variety and alternative courses of action. Consequently, the firm chooses the most appropriate option to be put into practice (Aaker & Mascarenhas, 1984; Sanchez, 1995). The selected option has to fit with the new, changed environment (Verdú-Jover et al., 2006; Winfrey et al., 1996; Wright & Snell, 1998).

If a company manages to become strategically flexible, the most important outcome is a higher financial performance (Combe et al., 2012; Hitt et al., 1998). Other outcomes are competitive advantage (Sanchez, 1995), sustainability (Sushil, 2015), exploration and realization of new markets (Das & Elango, 1995), new product development (Kandemir & Acur, 2012), resistance to turbulence and crises, and more.

How the IoT, CE and their applications change firms

12 digital materiality enables changing the offering by adding services around preventive maintenance and improved recycling, as the product can communicate with its maker (Dijkman et al., 2015; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Yoo et al., 2012).

Therefore, the product/service offering is chosen as a dimension, as it can be significantly influenced through IoT, and have circular outcomes through the use of IoT.

The business model dimension is intertwined with the product/service offering. As through a changed offering, for example the product-as-a-service or pay per use, companies’ business models will change. It will ensure the gathering of income in a different way while at the same time adapting the offering, or reaching out to the customer in a different way (Kortuem et al., 2010; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). As stated before, this incentivizes customers and the company to implement circular ideas, with reduced use, fewer maintenance and easier recycling (Rappa, 2004).

Customer centricity is also intertwined with the business model dimension and the product/service offering. Customer centricity means putting the customer first. All the decisions of a company have to start with the customer, and not with the product (Shah, Rust, Parasuraman, Staelin, & Day, 2006). Customers have to be persuaded to stick with the company, buy again, so that churn is reduced. Companies have to focus on creating value for the customer, and in the process, creating value for the firm (Boulding, Staelin, Ehret, & Johnston, 2005). As the IoT enables companies to change their product/service offering and business models, it enables a more customer centric approach. Through the data, the offering can be altered to serve added value to the customer, making the business-consumer relationship more important (Ivens, 2005). The importance of the customer life time value increases, as companies now fight for every single customer, through offering total flexibility in the product and services.

13 As the IoT and the CE create and enable new opportunities and threats, this has influence on the strategy of the firm. The environment changes, and the company has to react to these changes. Stated before, companies can incorporate IoT and circular ideas to change on multiple dimensions, but only if the strategy allows it. In order to handle the change, both in the business environment and within the firm, a company has to have a flexible strategy (Brozovic, 2016; Zhou & Wu, 2010). A flexible strategy consists of created strategic options or alternative courses of action. Consequently, the firm chooses the most appropriate option to be put into practice, that fits with the change (e.g. Aaker & Mascarenhas, 1984; Verdú-Jover et al., 2006). Thus, the firm has to identify the contingencies, create strategic options, and choose the most suitable one for firm continuity. The chosen option then decides whether the business model and offering are changed, to put the strategic change into practice.

All in all, the IoT and CE reinforce the already existing uncertainty in the business environment, and strengthens the need for companies to change themselves, in multiple dimensions at once, in order to be flexible enough to deal with the uncertainty (Brozovic, 2016).

Methodology

The purpose of this research is to enrich the scientific field by investigating how the Internet of Things, its applications, and the co-evolving circular economy together impact businesses on multiple dimensions simultaneously. Therefore, this research is focused on the explanatory paradigm (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). A theory development approach is appropriate, as the literature review demonstrates that researchers have shown how companies handle change on one aspect of the business, but not how companies handle change on multiple dimensions simultaneously (Van Aken et al., 2012; Yin, 2013). In order to contribute to the lack knowledge on change of multiple dimensions of firms simultaneously, a multiple case-study design has been selected to gather empirical evidence on this phenomenon, as this allows for a replication logic, by treating the cases as a series of independent experiments which confirm or disconfirm the insights that emerge (Van Aken et al., 2012; Yin, 2013).

This chapter describes the research methodology, including the choice of research design, the collection of the data, the process of data analyzation, and how the quality of this research has been assured.

Research design

14 company (Van Aken et al., 2012; Eisenhardt, 1989). The first step in the empirical cycle is the trigger. A business phenomenon which is not yet explained in the academic literature (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this case, this is how firms handle simultaneous change on multiple dimensions of the firm. The second step is to study the phenomenon in one or more case studies. The insights gathered out of these studies, leads to development of explanations that can be compared with the existing literature in the scientific field (Eisenhardt, 1989). The result of the analysis of the new results with existing literature leads to propositions. These can be either changes in existing propositions, or additions to the existing literature (Van Aken et al., 2012). Case study research is appropriate in this study, as understanding has to be gained on how firms handle change on multiple dimensions at once. This study followed the directive of Eisenhardt (1989) on how to carry out case-study research and build theory.

Case selection

The industry sector had to be chosen by the researcher, but had to have a clear added value to the research, and not to be just a random pick. Therefore, after a clear thinking process the choice of industry sector was the automotive industry, and more specifically, the car rental, car lease, car sharing industry. Thus, a sector within the automotive industry, as the total automotive industry would constrain too much time and a too broad focus. This choice is justifiable, as this is an industry where the IoT, CE and their applications have a potential impact on the business environment and companies themselves. This industry sector is highly competitive and on the eve of significant changes. Mohr, Kaas, Gao, & Wee (2016), from McKinsey & Company wrote a report on disruptive trends in the industry, stating that car sharing is rising in importance due to different mindsets of millennials. Moreover, services in and around the car are popping up, as consumers have different needs. Therefore, this industry sector is particularly interesting and fits with the phenomena that drive change on multiple dimensions within businesses simultaneously.

As this research builds theory from case studies, it relies on theoretical sampling, where the cases are chosen for theoretical, and not statistical reasons (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The goal of theoretical sampling is to choose cases which are likely to extend the emergent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).

15 chosen sample thus contains at least 2 companies of each category, in order to allow the findings to be replicated within categories (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013).

The companies within the sample consist of two worldwide, old traditional companies, whose business model is mainly focused on car rental, business to business. Moreover, two small, new players who are only active in the Dutch market, with car sharing initiatives, are labeled under disturbance companies. And lastly, three, old firms, of which one is smaller and active in only car sharing, and two are big players, active in multiple activities throughout the supply chain. These companies are transitioning by adopting other business models.

Industry experts can shed a different light on the information gathered by the interviews with the other companies and provide the researcher with the higher-level perspective, instead of falling into the trap of ‘going native’, being too close to the informants’ view (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).

Subsequently, employees of the firms in appropriate positions were contacted, either directly, or through first contact with the business. The positions were preferably high positions within the firm, as these people are mostly aware of the trends and have impact on the strategic decisions of the firms.

The researcher stopped adding cases after 10 cases, since theoretical saturation occurred (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This was the point where the researcher observed phenomena he had seen before, and further adding cases would have a minimal effect, as also time and response failures from company sides was of a constrain.

Data collection

Observing the phenomenon will be carried out with the use of solely primary data, in the form of in-depth interviews.

Interviews (primary data collection)

16 interviewees and the amount of sidesteps taken during the interview. This was possible, as a flexible interview protocol was set up (See Appendix A & B), allowing interesting sidesteps, further clarification and letting the informants lead the investigation of the research question (Gioia et al., 2013). The interview protocol was revised as the research progressed, and taken as a guideline, in order to have the interviews in a semi-structured setting. Moreover, the interview protocol differed for industry experts and company employees (See both in Appendix A & B). Since industry experts required more general questions about the industry sector, and not specific company related questions. Again, both type of interview protocols were flexible and revised as the research progressed. The interviews were conducted with another researcher that is studying a subject that lies close to this study. Therefore, the interview protocols of both studies were merged and both researchers attended the interviews, allowing more complementary insights and a critical outlook on the answers (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gioia et al., 2013). The interviews were conducted over a time frame of 4 weeks.

With permission of the interviewees, all the interviews were recorded, so that they could be transcribed. If necessary and requested, the transcripts of the interview were send to the interviewee after transcribing, allowing them to go through it one more time and clarify were necessary. This however turned out not to be necessary by the interviewees.

Data analysis

While entering the field, there was some overlap of data analysis with data collection, as interviews were already being coded while new interviews still needed to be conducted. This generated new questions and insights during the interviews, about similarities and differences compared to other cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). More importantly, this overlap allowed the researcher to add cases that fitted with a specific category of firms within the industry sector, the private lease sector, allowing for that category to be probed (Eisenhardt, 1989).

17 created. Consequently, creating the coding scheme was an iterative process, where new codes were added and codes were merged as the research progressed.

The program Atlas TI was used to assign codes to quotes of the transcripts. The first step in this was open, or initial coding (Charmaz, 2008). First, the researcher read the transcripts without assigning codes. Secondly, the relevant parts of the transcript for the research were coded, after which they were grouped together in order to create an overview of the frequency (Charmaz, 2008). Importantly, the groups were adhered to informant terms (Gioia et al., 2013). The next step was selective coding, or focused coding (Charmaz, 2008). This caused prominent and interesting code groups to be focused on, and use for the results. Some codes are not used for the results, as the research would become too broad.

As the coding was finished, the cases were compared with each-other through grouping of sample companies. These groups deliver insights in the existence of patterns. The parameters that were used to compare cases were: Size, big and small firms; Age, old and new firms; Type of company, car rental, car sharing, car lease.

Research quality

18 from the cases, fits the collected data closely, and an inter-case analysis is conducted to find patterns. External validity entails the generalizability of the results (Van Aken et al., 2012). This is ensured in this study by having 10 interviews, with multiple companies per category, plus 3 interviews with interview experts.

Findings

This chapter includes the results of the data analysis. First, the drivers of change are discussed. After that, first the strategy dimension is handled, as the strategy has an important impact on the other dimensions. This is followed by the dimensions ‘business model’, ‘product/service offering’, and ‘customer centricity’, where is displayed how these dimensions change simultaneously, followed by a closing cross-case analysis. The table of the cross-case analysis can be found in Appendix D. This chapter uses quotes for further explanation and clarification on how the data portrays these results.

Drivers of change

It is observed from the primary data that there are several factors that change the business environment, which in turn drives companies to change in multiple dimensions simultaneously. These factors are interconnected. Most importantly, there are some trends that pressure continuity of firms in the automotive industry. These trends are, derived from the data: connectivity in cars, autonomous driving, car sharing and electrification. These trends are shortened to CASE. Together, these trends enable the move towards Mobility-as-a-Service, or MaaS. MaaS integrates all forms of transport into a single on demand service.

First, connectivity. This means that the car is able to collect data, is equipped with technology in order to connect with its user, maker, and other cars, enabled through IoT. This connectivity enables that data from the car is collected, and reported to its user and maker. Which in turn can be used for analysis, in order to optimize current processes and create new services.

‘We have the CASE program. In which the C stands for connected cars, connectivity. Data that flows from car to user, but also data that is exchanged between cars, on board and in the

fleet, everything that is associated with it.’ (Traditional 1B)

19 change entire business models and strategies, plus adding a whole new service industry in and around the autonomous car.

‘The most important change, that will overthrow our entire business model, is the autonomous car. That will change everything.’ (Traditional 1A)

The next point is car sharing. This trend starts to increase in popularity, and multiple businesses start offering car sharing initiatives. Through IoT, companies can now install on board computers in cars, in order to open them without physical keys. This enables the car to be used by multiple persons, thus car sharing. Moreover, customers can now be contacted and find information through an app.

‘We will start offering both electrical and normal cars, but preferably electrical, with an on board computer for sharing. Through this on board computer, the car is available for

sharing.’ (Disturbance 2B)

Another point is electrification. Electrical cars are already on the market, and the range of the cars is improving. However, the electrical car is not yet as popular as expected, but slowly becomes more adopted. Besides that, electrical cars require no oil and require less maintenance, which means that a large part of the aftersales will be under pressure. From an ecological perspective, the move towards electrical cars is better for the environment, through lower emissions, less maintenance, and reusable batteries. Thus, through a circular economy standpoint, the adoption of electrical cars will reduce the emissions, and the IoT enables data collection on electrical cars to see whether they are available, the battery is full, and whether maintenance is necessary.

‘Cars will need fewer maintenance, since they are becoming electrical. Electrical driving practically needs no maintenance.’ (Transition 3B)

Together, these 4 trends imply a move towards mobility-as-a-service. Continuity of the businesses is at stake. These trends pressure companies in conducting business. They drastically change the industry, and therefore threaten parts of businesses.

‘Those 4 trends, with some other variables, lead to MaaS. Which means that, if that really

turns out to be the future, we have to find out which parts of our business are well positioned, and which parts will be threatened.’ (Transition 3B)

20 practices are available. Even though the adoption of more sustainable/circular practices is moving at a slow pace, it starts to influence companies.

‘The Diesel-Gate from Volkswagen accelerated the adoption of more ecologically friendly methods.’ (Traditional 1B)

Moreover, legislation has an impact on the business environment. Legislation sets out the possibilities and decides what is possible. For the IoT and CE, legislation definitely has an impact. As for the circular economy and its influence on the electrical car, there will be a new law in 2025, that every newly sold car has to be an electrical car. This has far reaching consequences for the automotive industry. As for IoT, the legislation in data security and privacy impacts the adoption of IoT in businesses.

‘There will be new legislation around personal data, so we have to make clear agreements about this with the customer, fast.’ (Disturbance 2A)

Strategy

As stated in the literature review, the strategy is the contingent plan of action on what to do. Through the strategy, the business model is formed/adapted, combined with the offering and customer centricity. Therefore, strategy is a critical point within the firm.

As the business environment is changing due to the IoT and CE, this has a potential impact on the strategy of the firm. First of all, after identifying a changing environment, the data shows that the strategy has to be critically reviewed, to see whether it fits with the current business environment, and the one from the future.

‘We are currently reviewing our strategy. How will the business environment change? It is more important than ever to look 10/15/20 years ahead in time, and already form an opinion.’

(Traditional 1A)

When the review of the strategy with the changing business environment shows that the strategy has to change, companies have multiple ways to implement flexibility to change.

21

‘We put speedboats in the water, next to the oil tanker, in order to tap into new markets. Some speedboats will go down, but it’s only a small investment with little damage to the oil tanker.’

(Traditional 1B)

Another way to implement flexibility is by start offering more products and services, specifically in a different market sector, but one that is related to the existing market sectors that the company is in. For example, one of the companies from the dataset, identifies the electrification and car sharing as important trends, and is planning on starting a company division that offers solar panels and electricity. They see potential in earning profit in that sector, but they also recognize that the customers they might attract with their electricity division, are faster drawn towards driving and sharing an electrical car. And in turn, this electrical car can be provided by this company.

‘We are starting to sell solar panels in combination with providing energy. That is one of our strategies that is in line with car sharing and driving electrical cars. When you have an

electrical car, you need a charging pole. And when you have a charging pole, plus an electrical car with a battery, this battery can be charged with solar energy.’ (Disturbance 2B)

Other ways in which companies from the sample are implementing flexibility, is through acquisitions. Through acquiring companies, they can skip the buildup phase, which is costly and takes time, and directly jump in when it starts lifting off. Hence, they first wait and see which future vision turns out to be true, and then acquire a player, in order to add it to their offering and be competitive in the new market, or market niche.

‘We can first do nothing, and at the moment when we see that a new player becomes

successful, we can acquire it. Then we have investment costs, but we skip the buildup phase.’

(Traditional 1A)

The last option that is derived from the dataset, is to focus on a specific market niche and become successful in that niche, or specialize on a specific aspect of the business. If they do this well, the bigger players become interested in acquiring the firm, strategically investing, or cooperate with the firm.

This is specifically used by the smaller players, as they foresee that they cannot win the battle from the big players. They do foresee that if they are doing well in a specific niche or specialize in a specific aspect, that strategic investors, or potential acquirers will come in the future. These companies are open to be acquired, or collaborate with big players in the future.

22

alliance with a car manufacturer for our own fleet of cars. That saves us a lot of money, which we can use to connect more customer cars.’ (Transition 3A)

‘We are open to be acquired if the offer is interesting.’ (Disturbance 2A)

The dependent variable in this decision is the ideology of the firm, its principles. This influences the mindset of the directors and whether the company wants to be on the forefront of innovations, or focuses on short term profits and a quick return on investments. If the ideology is focused on being a leader, or taking risks, this leads towards creating startups and strategically investing in firms. If the ideology is to focus on quick return on investment, the firm tends to wait and see and then acquires a company in that particular niche. If the ideology is to create efficiencies for the customer and simplify processes in and around the domain of the house, the company will set up a new division in a related market sector. And lastly, if the ideology is that the firm won’t win in a future vision, the company is open to engage in a strategic alliance, or being acquired by a bigger player in the industry.

‘You can either wait for the future to become clearer, the dot on the horizon, or you can wait

and see what your competitors will do and follow them. We want to be more of a leader than a follower.’ (Transition 3B)

‘We want to see a fast return on investment and profit. We can’t wait 15 years for something to become profitable.’ (Traditional 1A)

‘It is still our logic to simplify all the processes and making them efficient.’ (Disturbance 2B)

Another dependent variable identified by the data, is monetary budget. As smaller companies have less budget to set up startups, strategically invest, or new company divisions, they need to decide to focus on something else. Therefore, these companies tend to focus on specializing in a specific aspect, or focusing on a specific market niche. The companies that are not constrained by budget, are open to choose any option to implement flexibility. Firms with lesser capital have to make decisions in how to apply flexibility.

23

‘When you have history, you stick to the history. It makes it harder to come up with new things.’ (Disturbance 2B)

‘Traditional car rental is currently still the cash cow, it’s where companies are dependent on.’ (Industry Expert)

Multi-dimensional change

As the drivers of change are identified and the options are portrayed how companies implement flexibility in their strategy, the next step is implementing these changes. This is done by changing the company business model, adapting the product/service offering, and embracing a focus on customer centricity. Here, it is explained how the results show that these different choices in strategic flexibility are implemented and changes are made, influenced by the changes in the business environment through IoT and CE. The different flexibility options are one by one discussed, plus how they cause changes in companies’ business model, offering, and the focus on customer centricity.

Companies that decide to create startups and strategically invest in other players across the industry sector, are the forerunners in the field. They are willing to take risks and spend time and money in betting on multiple horses. The data shows that these companies recognize the trends in the industry, and acknowledge that the firm itself has to change to stay competitive in a changing environment.

‘We share our vision of how the world will change, where and why, and the effect of that

change on our existing business, with our senior management, to make them aware of it. The mission then is: don’t fight or deny it. We don’t know if we are correct or not, but we do know

which way we are going. Just embrace it, so that your mindset can be adjusted towards the right direction, and you can focus and think about how to adapt the current business

propositions, in order to move along with the changing market.’ (Transition 3B)

Moreover, these companies see that the firm itself is too big and too rigid to implement these changes, and therefore they choose to strategically invest in other companies, or set up startups.

‘Creating startups enable us to operate more flexible and switch faster.’ (Transition 3B)

24 as much value as possible. These firms try to offer value to all the customer in the mobility sector.

The company that creates new divisions in the company in different but interconnected industries, has a clear vision of the future. They foresee a future in which electrical cars are dominating the industry. Therefore, they are trying to prepare for this future scenario by applying this trend to their current business.

‘We think that in 10 years, only electrical cars will be sold.’ (Disturbance 2B)

This company adapts its offering through the new division, offering electricity. Moreover, this company will slowly move away from its current business model in the automotive industry, as it will move towards offering the full package around electrical cars. Therefore, they adapt their current offering towards providing electrical cars. Lastly, this company also recognizes the value of customers, and tries to offer as much value as possible to the customer, by offering both the energy and the electrical car that can be used with the energy.

The main difference between the beforementioned companies and the company that acquires companies once they become successful, is the ideology. The company that prefers to wait and see, dislikes uncertainty and can afford to wait and see how the future turns out. This company makes changes within the company itself very slowly. This company identified that car sharing will be a definite part of the future, and therefore launched its own car sharing pillar, under a division of the firm. This new product comes accompanied with a different business model, paying only for use of the car. But again it focuses on business to business, as the business to consumer car sharing initiatives are not profitable.

‘We are now starting to offer our car sharing initiative. But it’s primarily focused on B2B, not B2C. As the B2C initiatives are really nice, but a financial disaster.’ (Traditional 1A)

This company still has a keen eye on what is happening within the industry, and is ready to acquire a player once it becomes successful. These acquisitions deliver the flexibility to directly change their offering, through adding it to their product portfolio, and change the business model through using the business model of the freshly acquired firm.

As for customer centricity, this company tries to identify which company offers the most value to the customer, and then acquires that company to use that value on their own potential customers.

25 the necessary budget to acquire other firms or set up startups, and therefore have to focus on their own strengths. These companies foresaw a future in which car sharing will become popular, and set up a firm that focuses on this niche. These players also foresee that the big companies will step into this niche and that they cannot compete with these forces. Therefore, one of the firm decided to focus on car sharing in rural areas, and specialize in the soft- and hardware. The other company decided to focus and invest in the creation of a platform where people can offer and find cars for sharing.

‘We focus on rural areas, where there is a higher demand, as no players offer anything there. The big players focus on big cities.’ (Disturbance 2A)

These companies adapted their offering and shift their focus more towards services. This has more future potential, and makes them interesting in the future for partnerships or acquisitions with the big players. Therefore, these companies adapt their offering towards services, selling business to business, which adopts a different business model, and focuses on other customers. They start delivering value to businesses, instead of consumers, which requires a different customer focus.

Cross-Case analysis

Besides the results per firm, also a cross-case analysis is performed. This is conducted in order to find patterns in parameters of firms. The parameters used are: size and firm category. Hence, big vs. small firm; and traditional, disturbance and transitioned companies. As the sample is build up in this way, firms that are old are mostly also big. Only one firm that is older does not have a big size. Therefore, firm age is not chosen as a parameter. The small firms consists of the relatively new, disturbance firms, plus one of the transitioned firms. The table with the full cross-case analysis can be found in Appendix D.

26 As for the circular economy, the small firms recognize the financial benefit of implementing circular ideas. Furthermore, most firms identify sustainability as a method to differentiate from competitors. Lastly, the traditional firms identify the increasing implementation of circular ideas through changing customer expectations.

Discussion

This chapter relates the results to the literature review, and shows the derived propositions. The research questions are handled one by one, showing propositions for every question. This chapter starts with the enablers and constraints of simultaneous multi-dimensional change. After which the discussion will be moved towards the main research question:

How do companies handle change on the business model, the product/service offering, customer centricity, and strategy dimensions simultaneously?

Enablers and disablers of simultaneous multi-dimensional change

It is observed from the primary data that there are several factors that have either a direct or indirect influence on simultaneous multi-dimensional change. First, the factors that influence a change in the business environment, and indirectly influence companies to change are handled, after which the directly influencing factors are discussed.

Indirect factors

The data shows that technological developments influence the business environment. Through technological developments, such as digitization, the CASE trends are coming up, which is also identified in the report of Mohr et al. (2016).

In this particular research context, especially the developments in the Internet of Things are important. The IoT enables the installation of on board computers (or dongle) in cars. These devices ensure that the car can be opened without a key, and can measure real-time information about the use, condition and actions of the car. This fits with the theoretical concepts of data liquification (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Normann, 2001) and digital materiality (Yoo et al., 2012). Moreover, the stretched abilities enable different type of business models, as through the data pay-per-use is enabled (Kortuem et al., 2010; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). These developments makes adoption of car sharing more attractive, both for firms and consumers, and allow normal cars to be turned into cars that are connected.

27 Another identified factor that influences the business environment is the rising pressure from customers to adopt more sustainable/circular ideas. The sample companies did recognize the importance of preventive maintenance and improved recycling through data, but saw it as a way to differentiate with extra services, or as a financial benefit of analyzing data. Still, the digital materiality enables this preventive maintenance and improved recycling (Dijkman et al., 2015; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Yoo et al., 2012). Moreover, this shows that there is a compatibility between financial and sustainability dimensions (Carter & Easton, 2011; Golicic & Smith, 2013), however, only as a byproduct, and not as a standalone factor.

The last indirect factor identified is legislation. Legislation around the trends in the automotive industry have a significant impact on the business environment. Legislation can play an important part in the adoption of IoT and CE. As for IoT, clear legislation has to be enforced to solve the challenges around ownership of data, data security, and privacy (Dutton, 2014). As for the circular economy, the data shows that legislation has both a positive and a negative influence on the adoption of ecologically friendly traits. The new law for 2025 that only electrical cars may be sold newly in the Netherlands, is an example of positive influence, as it changes the future business environment and challenges companies to prepare for this new law. However, the current model, with cars running on fuel, is generating a lot of money for the state, as the state has excise duty on fuel. In 2016, the state generated 8,1 billion euros from excise duty on fuel (CBS, 2017). Therefore, the state is dependent on the current model.

Direct factors

As the business environment is changing due to the IoT and CE, this has a potential impact on the firm. As stated in the findings, a company has to critically review its business activities to see whether they match with the current and future changing business environment. Therefore, the quality and quantity of the review has an impact on the decided course of action.

Next to that, the identified future visions and trends in the industry. If a company is able to identify and foresee the current and future trends, it can create options on how to act if any of these futures turns out to become the truth. There is a difference in looking at the future and only looking at the things that directly impact your own industry sector, and looking at all the things that might happen that indirectly might impact the business. Therefore, the quality of the future vision has an impact on the decided course of action.

This leads to the following propositions (Figure 1):

28

Proposition 1B: The relationship between a changing business environment and the course of action of a firm is influenced by the future vision of the firm.

The next direct factor is identified to be ideology. This factor influences whether a company wants to lead the change, or wait and see until the future becomes clearer, and then decide on what to do. In the primary data, the ideology either makes companies be on the forefront of innovations, focus on a quick return on investment, being willing to take risks, simplify and create efficiencies for the customer and the firm, or that it can’t win, and therefore specializes or finds a niche. This ideology factor is comparable to the literature about the manner in which the strategic flexibility is carried out in firms. An ideology of wanting a quick return on investment, is more secure, defensive. It’s a reaction on the changes in the business environment, and thus comparable to the responsive manner (Das & Elango, 1995; Sanchez, 1995). The remaining ideologies imply a more leading role, and prepare for the future by already taking action. It’s more towards leading the change, and thus comparable to the proactive manner (Combe et al., 2012; Sushil, 2015).

Moreover, the monetary budget is a direct factor. The budget influences how much money is available for taking action in adopting flexibility. The primary data shows that it can either be a constraining factor, or enabling multiple possibilities. Therefore, the available budget has an impact on the decided course of action, and the degree of that course of action.

This leads to the following propositions (Figure 2):

Proposition 2A: The ideology of the firm has an influence on the chosen implementation of strategic flexibility.

Proposition 2B: The available budget has an influence on the chosen implementation of strategic flexibility, and the degree in which the chosen implementation is carried out.

29 Identified constraining factors are the dependence on the current model, being stuck in old habits, and lacking incentives to change. The primary data shows that having history can turn into a constraint, as it might prevent a company from adopting change. The dependence on the current model can also be a constraint, as it is the cash cow, and adopting other sources of income might not seem necessary. Moreover, companies could be incentivized to change, for example through legislation or customer pressure. These are found in the indirect factors. As for the literature, the most important factor hampering flexibility is rigidity, in several forms (Tan & Zeng, 2009; TenDam, 1987). Therefore, the dependence on the current model and being stuck in old habits are grouped under ‘rigidity of the firm’. This rigidity limits the ability of a firm to be flexible, but can be overcome by an ideology that positively influences flexibility and change.

This leads to the following propositions (Figure 2):

Proposition 3A: The rigidity of firms negatively influences the ability of a firm to implement flexibility.

Proposition 3B: The negative influence of rigidity on the ability of a firm to implement flexibility can be overcome by an ideology that supports flexibility and change.

Multi-Dimensional change

It is observed from the data that the 4 trends in the automotive industry: connectivity, autonomous driving, car sharing and electrification, accompanied by technological developments, cause a business environment that is irregular, increasingly complex and uncertain, and unpredictable. The flexibility that is required to deal with this change, can be

Wait and Acquire Existing Business

Specialize & Find a Niche

Figure 2:

30 compared to the strategic flexibility (Wright & Snell, 1998; Zhou & Wu, 2010). Only here the change is not only in strategy, but also in business models, offering, and customer centricity.

The first important factor that leads towards a multi-dimensional change simultaneously, is a clear vision of what the future will bring. Knowing the upcoming trends, and having a vision of how those trends will impact the business are the first steps. Hence, critically reviewing the current processes, business model, offering and strategy, to check whether it matches with the future vision, is the next step. This shows whether companies have to make adjustments in order to guarantee continuity of the business, or if they are already prepared for the future. The critical review and the future vision impact which course of action is taken to implement flexibility.

The process until here can be compared to both the proactive and responsive strategic flexibility trait. In the literature, both of these traits entail identification of environmental changes, and evaluation of how it will impact the business (Brozovic, 2016).

The next step in the strategic flexibility literature, is the creation of strategic options and alternative courses of action, and then selecting the most appropriate option (Aaker & Mascarenhas, 1984; Sanchez, 1995) that fits with the changed environment (Verdú-Jover et al., 2006; Wright & Snell, 1998).

In the primary data, it is observed to be somewhat alike. The data shows that, if companies are able to, they choose multiple ways to adjust their business to make it compatible with the future vision, and implement the flexibility to change. The first option is to strategically invest in other businesses, or set up startups or new projects, to experiment in the changing business environment. The startups offer the flexibility that is necessary to compete in the new markets, as the main company is too rigid to change and does not want to bear the risk. Even though it might take some years before these new companies generate profits, they are willing to take risks in setting up multiple firms in multiple directions, since a success in one of them will outshine the costs of all of them. With this method, the main company can set up many different firms for all different future visions, and experiment to find out which one will become successful.

31 The third option is to wait before the uncertain future becomes clearer, to bear less risk, and then acquire a company in the sector that will turn out to become successful. This option is less risky, but might require more resources, as acquiring a firm requires more money than setting up a firm by yourself. But if the budget is available, and the current business model is still successful, a company can adopt this method. This method is used by companies that change slowly by themselves, and are not willing to experiment, as it is costly and takes time. They prefer a quick return on investment, and are therefore willing to spend more money in acquiring firms, to directly see a return once it starts lifting off.

The last option is to specialize in a certain aspect of the business, or find a specific market niche to differentiate. This method is used by firms that lack the resources to win the battle with the big players, but still see a way to remain competitive. They specialize in the aspects that are not directly impacted by volume, such as soft- and hardware, or find the market niches that are not directly interesting for the big players in the beginning. These companies are open to start a strategic alliance with a bigger player in the future, or have a bigger player as a strategic investor, or even to be acquired by one of these players.

Companies that do not adopt one of these options, or are too constrained by their ideology or available resources, tend to not be able to change in multiple dimensions simultaneously, and therefore risk continuity of the business.

Hence, these different options are turned into a model that serve as the basis for future empirical studies in the form presented in Figure 3:

32

Theoretical contribution

This research enriches the existing literature in multiple ways. Firstly, it identified that companies are able to change on multiple dimensions simultaneously. The necessary factors and the process are similar to the process of adopting strategic flexibility, even though there are some clear distinctions. It showed that companies have multiple ways to implement flexibility in the business, and not only in strategy. Moreover, it identified enabling and constraining factors that influence the flexibility, and the chosen option to implement flexibility.

This leads to a better understanding of how companies can handle change in environments that are drastically changing through new technologies.

Furthermore, this study showed how the circular economy and the internet of things drive changes in the business environment, which indirectly influence companies to change.

Managerial implications

As for managers, this research also has important implications. Firstly, it shows that both big and small companies are able to survive in drastically changing environments, brought about by technological developments. In order for companies to be able to handle change on multiple dimensions simultaneously, they need to have a clear vision of the future of the industry, the trends that are coming up. Moreover, they need to critically review their future vision with the current business activities.

After that, companies have to decide on a set of actions to implement flexibility, which depends on the ideology of the firm, the available budget, and the rigidity of the firm. These factors influence the chosen method of implementation and the strength of this method. Firms can either lead the change, or use a more defensive, less risky method. Even though both options enable simultaneous multi-dimensional change, proactively leading the change generates better results.

Limitations

33 fact that some interviews were conducted over the phone, was due to overlapping agendas of both the interviewees and researcher, plus monetary and time constraints. As this research was constrained in time and money, the researcher had to apply focus and could not broaden the research. Therefore, more dimensions that can change simultaneously can still be identified, as ‘different type of personnel’ was found in the data analysis.

Future research avenues

Future research can extend this research by testing the hypotheses that are created in this study. As this research consisted of the theory development approach, adding a theory testing approach could test the hypotheses empirically and find out whether these assumptions are actually matched in practice. Furthermore, as mentioned in the limitations, other firm dimensions can be researched, as there could be interesting findings on change on multiple dimensions simultaneously. Identifying all the dimensions that can change simultaneously and more drivers of change could contribute to the literature. Besides that, future research could focus on the interconnectedness of the dimensions. This could be deepened and enriched through further research. Moreover, research can focus on the factors that enable or hamper change on multiple dimensions, how they relate to each other, how they influence the dimensions, and how they can be applied or avoided.

Lastly, future research can link the simultaneous multi-dimensional change to the scientific field of ambidexterity, as ambidexterity implies a focus of a firm on both today’s business, and the adaptation towards the changing future demand.

Conclusion

The intent of this research was to show how companies can be able to handle change on multiple dimensions within the firm simultaneously. Hence, the research question was: How do

companies handle change on the business model, the product/service offering, customer centricity, and strategy dimensions simultaneously? Sub-research questions involved the

34 the business. All these methods lead to simultaneous multi-dimensional change, but are not equally strong. The proactive methods, to lead the change, are considered to be the strongest methods.

Moreover, it was shown that the Internet of Things and Circular Economy drives changes in the business environment, whereas adopting circular traits where identified to be more of a byproduct of change.