Call for papers. Special Issue: Advances in Strategic Management dedicated to “Corporate Strategy and Resource Redeployment

Advances in Strategic Management dedicated to “Corporate Strategy and Resource Redeployment"

Submission Deadline: May 15, 2015

It is well understood that whether corporate strategists create value is determined by their ability to deploy resources across multiple business units. Strategies in pursuit of “synergy,” where resources are simultaneously shared across businesses, have commanded the dominant attention of researchers and practitioners to date. Only recently has it been explicated that a second type of resource deployment strategy might create corporate value by providing discretion or flexibility to partially or completely withdraw resources from one business and reallocate them to another business. This strategy has been referred to as “inter-temporal economies of scope,” “resource redeployability,” and “resource reconfiguration,” and differs from synergy in that resources are withdrawn from one business and reallocated to another, rather than contemporaneously shared across businesses. It is believed that when firms can redeploy their resources in this manner, it provides greater potential to escape from declining prospects in a business, and is particularly valuable in turbulent environments. As a result, resource redeployability may affect not only firm value creation, but also firm and industry evolution.


Despite recent advances in our understanding of resource redeployment, the discussion remains emergent around how it and synergy differentially affect value and firm decision-making. There are at least three substantive opportunities to advance our understanding of this debate:

First, we need more clarity about the theoretical determinants and effects of synergy versus resource redeployment. Relevant research questions might include:

• · How are the determinants of synergistic value different from the determinants of value derivable from resource redeployment?
• · Is the value deriving from resource redeployment necessarily associated with multi-business firms, or might single-business firms also benefit? What are the conditions under which single-business firms might benefit from redeployability?
• · What environmental conditions are best suited to a strategy based on resource redeployment? And how do firm redeployment strategies affect industry evolution?
• · When can resource redeployment be proactive versus reactive? What processes can help organizations to identify redeployment opportunities? 
• · How can executives manage the human resource challenges around resource redeployment (i.e., maintaining morale of employees; or getting division managers to take actions that can lead to withdrawal of resources)?

Second, we need more clarity about how to empirically disentangle synergy from redeployability, because they may have common derivatives, such as resource relatedness.

• · How might scholars empirically distinguish whether value is derived from synergy or the flexibility to redeploy resources? Is it possible to distinguish the sources of value creation through the use of different variables, or will it require clever methodology/ research design to isolate differences?
• · How do we consistently identify scale-free versus non scale-free resources?
• · Do managers consider the flexibility to redeploy when making entry or exit decisions?

Finally, we may need to revisit prior work investigating the benefits of corporate strategy based on synergy, in order to assess the extent to which prior results may stem from resource redeployability.

• · Because existing work tends not to distinguish between synergy and resource redeployment, is it possible that existing work provides an incomplete picture of the contributions of resource relatedness to firm value and firm decision-making?
• · How would the results of prior research on the value created by corporate strategy change if resource redeployability were included?

Despite recent work to address the three issues identified above, significant work remains. In this call, we invite theoretical and empirical work that tackles these and related issues.

Submission Guidelines:

Submissions are due no later than May 15, 2015. All papers submitted must represent original research not previously published elsewhere. All submissions will be subject to in-depth review, and editorial decisions and revision requests will be communicated to authors by September 1, 2015. Authors going forward to the second round will be invited to present their revised paper at a conference in October or November 2015 in Strasbourg France (exact date TBD), with travel supplements provided. The targeted publication date for the volume is August 2016.


To submit a paper, or to ask questions about the content of this AiSM volume or the editorial process, please contact the volume editors, Timothy Folta (timothy.folta@business.uconn.edu), Constance Helfat (Constance.E.Helfat@tuck.dartmouth.edu), or Samina Karim (samina@bu.edu) or the AiSM series editor, Brian Silverman (silverman@rotman.utoronto.ca).


Further information on the series can be found at:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/series/astm or at

http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~silverman/AiSM/asm_index.html.

Advances in Strategic Management is an ISI Web of Science-indexed journal.

Call for papers. Special Issue

Call for papers for Special Issue of Journal of International Management

From Resources and Value Chains to Consumer Benefits and Innovation Ecosystems: Demand-Side Perspectives in International Business 

Guest editors:

• Ana Cristina O. Siqueira, Duquesne University
• 
  
• Ronaldo C. Parente, Florida International University
• 
  
• Richard Priem, Texas Christian University & LUISS Guido Carli University

Deadline: November 20, 2013

1. Purpose of Special Issue

Globalization, companies’ increasing emphasis on innovation, and the fast-paced introduction of new technologies have encouraged companies to search for technologies anywhere in the world (Doz, Santos, & Williamson, 2001), develop technologies in emerging economies (Immelt, Govindarajan, & Trimble, 2009), and manage innovation ecosystems internationally (Adner, 2012). Venturing beyond the sequential notion of value chains (Porter, 1985), some companies have developed collaborative arrangements involving economic transactions and institutional arrangements between suppliers, complementors, and users (Normann & Ramirez, 1993; Stabell & Fjeldstad, 1998). Such “innovation ecosystems” can be understood as networks of interconnected organizations that incorporate both production- and use-side participants who create value through innovation (Autio & Thomas, forthcoming). In an increasingly interconnected world, some firms are able to create more value than any single firm could alone by coordinating innovation ecosystems that cross industry boundaries and national borders.

Demand-side approaches to value creation represent a new, bourgeoning area in the fields of technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management (Priem, Li, & Carr, 2012). For instance, an earlier symposium at the 2009 meeting of the Academy of Management addressed the topic of “Demand-Side Approaches to Strategy and Innovation: Moving beyond a Resource-Only Focus” and showcased the work in this area by scholars from different countries. More recently, a symposium at the 2012 meeting of the Academy of Management discussed the topic of “Strategy in Ecosystems,” bringing together presenters who have made major contributions to this growing area, such as Ron Adner, Carliss Baldwin, Marco Iansiti, Michael Jacobides, Kathleen Eisenhardt, and Yves Doz.

Demand-side studies have begun investigating key questions such as: how consumer demand may influence innovation decisions (Fontana & Guerzoni, 2008; Sawhney, Verona & Prandelli, 2005; Tripsas, 2008), and how consumer-focused strategies influence value creation and appropriation (Adner & Snow, 2010; Gruber, MacMillan, & Thompson, 2008; Ye, Priem, & Alshwer, 2012). Among these approaches, the perspective of “consumer benefits experienced” (Priem, 2007) examines demand-side strategies that firms can employ to create value. Consumers are arbiters of value by endorsing or rejecting the value of innovations (Priem, 2007). 

International business researchers have started to examine: how multinational organizations access knowledge distributed across consumer groups and different countries in developing innovations (Wilson & Doz, 2011); how collaboration with upstream suppliers, complementors, and downstream consumers facilitates value creation through innovation in an interconnected world (Autio & Thomas, forthcoming); and the effect of innovation on internationalization (e.g., Zeng & Williamson, 2007). Nonetheless, demand-side approaches in international business remain in their infancy (Gulati, Puranam, & Tushman, 2012), and research from this new perspective is needed for a more complete understanding of how the interaction of organizations within innovation ecosystems influences internationalization. Such research can enrich the international business field.

2. Examples of research themes and questions for the Special Issue

Some illustrative (but not exclusive) demand-side research questions that would be appropriate for this special issue include:

• · How do multinational organizations develop demand-side advantages with ordinary resources?
• · What conditions facilitate the transfer of user-innovation knowledge in multinational organizations?
• · How do multinational organizations drive cross-border innovation ecosystems?
• · What conditions influence the internationalization of innovation ecosystems?
• · How does the internationalization of innovation ecosystems influence the development of new technologies?
• · How do global nonprofit organizations and social enterprises support innovation ecosystems with cross-border collaborations?
• · To what extent does collaboration within an innovation ecosystem enhance the internationalization prospects of emerging market multinationals?
• · How might demand-side approaches help extend the knowledge-based and resource-based views of multinational organizations?
• · To what extent could institutional theory help explain the management of innovation ecosystems across borders?
• · How might traditional international business theoretical frameworks such as the Uppsala internationalization model benefit from demand-based approaches?

3. Submission Instructions

The deadline for submission of manuscripts is November 20, 2013. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with Journal of International Management’s Style Guide for Authors: http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-international-management/1075-4253/guide-for-authors.

Manuscripts should be electronically submitted to: http://ees.elsevier.com/intman. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for review in relation to the special issue it is important that authors select “Demand-Side Perspectives” when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. All submissions will be subject to the regular double-blind peer review process at JIM.

Please direct any questions regarding the Special Issue to Ana Siqueira (siqueiraa@duq.edu) with a copy to Ronaldo Parente (rcparent@fiu.edu) and Richard Priem (r.priem@tcu.edu).

4. References

Adner, R., & Snow, D. 2010. Old technology responses to new technology threats: Demand heterogeneity and technology retreats. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19: 1655–1675.

Adner, R. 2012. The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. New York, NY: Penguin Books

Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 306−333.

Autio, E., & Thomas, L. D. W. Forthcoming. Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. In M. Dodgson, N. Philips, & D. M. Gann (Eds), The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. 2001. From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Fontana, R., & Guerzoni, M. 2008. Incentives and uncertainty: An empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32: 927–946.

Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. & Thompson, J. 2008. Look before you leap: Market opportunity identification in emerging technology firms. Management Science, 54: 1652–1665.

Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. 2012. Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 571–586.

Immelt, J. R., Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. 2009. How GE is disrupting itself. Harvard Business Review, October: 56-65.

Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. 1993. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71: 65-65.

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

Priem, R. L. 2007. A consumer perspective on value creation. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 219−235.

Priem, R. L., Li, S., & Carr, J. C. 2012. Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research. Journal of Management, 38(1): 346−374.

Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. 2005. Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4): 4−17.

Stabell, C. B., & Fjeldstad, Ø. D. 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 413−437.

Tripsas, M. 2008. Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29: 79–97.

Wilson, K., & Doz, Y. L. 2011. Agile innovation: A footprint balancing distance and immersion. California Management Review, 53 (2): 6-26.

Ye, G., Priem, R. L., & Alshwer, A. 2012. Achieving demand-side synergy from strategic diversification: How combining mundane assets can leverage consumer utilities. Organization Science, 23(1): 207−224.

Zeng, M., & Williamson, P. J. 2007. Dragons at your door: How Chinese cost innovation is disrupting the rules of global competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.