scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Oliver Alexy

Bio: Oliver Alexy is an academic researcher from Technische Universität München. The author has contributed to research in topics: Open innovation & Entrepreneurship. The author has an hindex of 25, co-authored 63 publications receiving 2861 citations. Previous affiliations of Oliver Alexy include Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich & Imperial College London.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that even when there may be little that existing theory cannot explain about individual elements in these new forms of organizing, opportunities for new theorizing lie in understanding the bundles of cooccurring elements that seem to underlie them and why the same bundles occur in widely disparate organizations.
Abstract: In order to assess whether new theories are necessary to explain new forms of organizing or existing theories suffice, we must first specify exactly what makes a form of organizing “new.” We propose clear criteria for making such an assessment and show how they are useful in assessing if and when new theories of organizing may truly be needed. We illustrate our arguments by contrasting forms of organizing often considered novel, such as Linux, Wikipedia, and Oticon, against their traditional counterparts. We conclude that even when there may be little that existing theory cannot explain about individual elements in these new forms of organizing, opportunities for new theorizing lie in understanding the bundles of co-occurring elements that seem to underlie them and why the same bundles occur in widely disparate organizations.

378 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a strategic mechanism to reshape the collaborative behavior of other actors in a firm's innovation ecosystem, which may provide an effective alternative to known collaboration mechanisms, particularly under conditions of high partner uncertainty, high coordination costs and unwilling potential collaborators.
Abstract: Current theories of how organizations harness knowledge for innovative activity cannot convincingly explain emergent practices whereby firms selectively reveal knowledge to their advantage. We conceive of selective revealing as a strategic mechanism to reshape the collaborative behavior of other actors in a firm's innovation ecosystem. We propose that selective revealing may provide an effective alternative to known collaboration mechanisms, particularly under conditions of high partner uncertainty, high coordination costs, and unwilling potential collaborators. We specify conditions when firms are more likely to reveal knowledge and highlight some boundary conditions for competitor reciprocity. We elaborate on strategies that allow firms to exhibit managerial agency in selective revealing and discuss selective revealing's implications for theories of organization and open innovation and for management practice.

329 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors study two organizations, each attempting to create two novel ecosystems around new technological enablers deep in their industry architecture, and highlight how ecosystem creation in such conditions is a systemic process driven by coupled feedback loops, which organizations must try to control dynamically.
Abstract: Innovation ecosystems are increasingly regarded as important vehicles to create and capture value from complex value propositions. While current literature assumes these value propositions can be known ex-ante and an appropriate ecosystem design derived from them, we focus instead on generative technological innovations that enable an unbounded range of potential value propositions, hence offering no clear guidance to firms. To illustrate our arguments, we inductively study two organizations, each attempting to create two novel ecosystems around new technological enablers deep in their industry architecture. We highlight how ecosystem creation in such conditions is a systemic process driven by coupled feedback loops, which organizations must try to control dynamically: firms first make the switch to creating the ecosystem following an external pull to narrow down the range of potential applications; then need to learn to keep up with ecosystem dynamics by roadmapping and preempting, while simultaneously enacting resonance. Dynamic control further entails counteracting the drifting away of the nascent ecosystem from the firm's idea of future value creation and the sliding of its intended control points for value capture. Our findings shed new light on strategy and control in emerging ecosystems, and provide guidance to managers on playing the ecosystem game.

278 citations

01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore how new capabilities emerge and solidify in new ventures that are faced with fundamental uncertainty from their environment, drawing from the organizational and entrepreneurial literature on cognition and capabilities.
Abstract: In this article, we explore how new capabilities emerge and solidify in new ventures that are faced with fundamental uncertainty from their environment. To do so, we draw from the organizational and entrepreneurial literature on cognition and capabilities. Using initial qualitative evidence from a multifirm study in the context of new venture internationalization, we develop a cognition-based model of capability emergence in new ventures. Our findings extend the capability development and learning implications of internationalization to the fundamental character of organizing processes in start-ups. Moreover, we derive avenues for future entrepreneurship research on the origins and evolution of capabilities in new ventures.

210 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore how new capabilities emerge and solidify in new ventures that are faced with fundamental uncertainty from their environment and draw from the organizational annealing process.
Abstract: In this article, we explore how new capabilities emerge and solidify in new ventures that are faced with fundamental uncertainty from their environment. To do so, we draw from the organizational an...

207 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: F fuzzy sets allow a far richer dialogue between ideas and evidence in social research than previously possible, and can be carefully tailored to fit evolving theoretical concepts, sharpening quantitative tools with in-depth knowledge gained through qualitative, case-oriented inquiry.
Abstract: In this innovative approach to the practice of social science, Charles Ragin explores the use of fuzzy sets to bridge the divide between quantitative and qualitative methods. Paradoxically, the fuzzy set is a powerful tool because it replaces an unwieldy, "fuzzy" instrument—the variable, which establishes only the positions of cases relative to each other, with a precise one—degree of membership in a well-defined set. Ragin argues that fuzzy sets allow a far richer dialogue between ideas and evidence in social research than previously possible. They let quantitative researchers abandon "homogenizing assumptions" about cases and causes, they extend diversity-oriented research strategies, and they provide a powerful connection between theory and data analysis. Most important, fuzzy sets can be carefully tailored to fit evolving theoretical concepts, sharpening quantitative tools with in-depth knowledge gained through qualitative, case-oriented inquiry. This book will revolutionize research methods not only in sociology, political science, and anthropology but in any field of inquiry dealing with complex patterns of causation.

1,828 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is argued that modularity enables ecosystem emergence as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat, and at the core of ecosystems lie nongeneric complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules.
Abstract: The recent surge of interest in “ecosystems” in strategy research and practice has mainly focused on what ecosystems are and how they operate. We complement this literature by considering when and why ecosystems emerge, and what makes them distinct from other governance forms. We argue that modularity enables ecosystem emergence, as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat. We show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities - supermodular or unique, unidirectional or bidirectional, which determine the ecosystem’s value-add. We argue that at the core of ecosystems lie non-generic complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules. We conclude with implications for mainstream strategy and suggestions for future research.

1,353 citations