Below is a list of previous academic seminars in the CBI open academic seminar series.

20 January - 12.00-13.00 Cancelled!

Sophie Hooge, Postdoctoral Fellow, Mines ParisTech école des Mines Paris.

Giving a voice to breakthrough innovation projects: adapting evaluation tools of R&D project to managing the consensus on the value of unknown explorations

ABSTRACT

Managing breakthrough innovation projects is a challenge that crosses organizations. Arguably, the tools used in managing and evaluating such projects should be largely different than traditional tools, due to the multidimensional uncertainty of breakthrough projects. However, studies show that most companies use conventional monitoring methods of project management, even in breakthrough innovation contexts. Based on a thirtymonth intervention research in the Department of Research and Advanced Engineering of a global car manufacturer, this research analyses the limits of traditional tools and suggests a new approach and adapted instruments. In partnership with R&D teams, an analysis of traditional practices and tools used for measuring projects value has been realized. We show two major drawbacks: a) most of such evaluation methods treat the uncertainties as external to the evaluation scope, b) these approaches focus on economic and strategic evaluations of projects and portfolios – excluding commitment mechanisms of internal stakeholders. Based on these observations, a new set of economic tools is proposed: 1/ A design playground based on benefits scenarios; 2/ A stochastic representation of the Net Present Value of the breakthrough project outputs. It appears that the first allows stakeholders to learn and differentiate uncertainty nature and depth, and the second strengthens stakeholders’ consensus on the value of the breakthrough innovation.

3 February - 12.00-13.00 – Closed to the public

Lisa Carlgren, Chalmers

Lisa Carlgren will present some thoughts and notions on the theme "Early involvement of industrial designers - exploring motives and challenges", giving a short presentation of her research up until now and also share some thoughts on how she plans to continue this work and lines of thinking in the future.

14 February - 12.00-13.00

Platform Envelopment

Henrik Berglund presents an article by Eisenmann, Parker and Van Alstyne that is forthcoming in Strategic Management Journal.

ABSTRACT

Due to network effects and switching costs in platform markets, entrants generally must offer revolutionary functionality. We explore a second entry path that does not rely upon Schumpeterian innovation: platform envelopment. Through envelopment, a provider in one platform market can enter another platform market, combining its own functionality with the target’s in a multi-platform bundle that leverages shared user relationships. We build upon the traditional view of bundling for economies of scope and price discrimination and extend this view to include the strategic management of a firm's user network. Envelopers capture share by foreclosing an incumbent’s access to users; in doing so, they harness the network effects that previously had protected the incumbent. We present a typology of envelopment attacks based on whether platform pairs are complements, weak substitutes or functionally unrelated, and we analyze conditions under which these attack types are likely to succeed.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1496336

28 February - 12.00-13.00

Mats Williander, Chalmers University of Technology/Victoria Institute

How make firms eco-sustainable voluntarily? :A boundary-spanning issue with many challenges

7 March - 12.00-13.00 – Closed to the public

Lisa Carlgren, Chalmers

Lisa Carlgren will present some thoughts and notions on the theme "Early involvement of industrial designers - exploring motives and challenges", giving a short presentation of her research up until now and also share some thoughts on how she plans to continue this work and lines of thinking in the future.

16 March - 12.00-13.00 – Closed to the public

Jan Wickenberg, Chalmers University or Technology.

Enemy at the Gates? An exploration of the management of complementary mindsets before project gate reviews

28 March - 12.00-13.00 - Cancelled!!!

Sophie Hooge, Postdoctoral Fellow, Mines ParisTech école des Mines Paris.

Giving a voice to breakthrough innovation projects: adapting evaluation tools of R&D project to managing the consensus on the value of unknown explorations

ABSTRACT

Managing breakthrough innovation projects is a challenge that crosses organizations. Arguably, the tools used in managing and evaluating such projects should be largely different than traditional tools, due to the multidimensional uncertainty of breakthrough projects. However, studies show that most companies use conventional monitoring methods of project management, even in breakthrough innovation contexts. Based on a thirtymonth intervention research in the Department of Research and Advanced Engineering of a global car manufacturer, this research analyses the limits of traditional tools and suggests a new approach and adapted instruments. In partnership with R&D teams, an analysis of traditional practices and tools used for measuring projects value has been realized. We show two major drawbacks: a) most of such evaluation methods treat the uncertainties as external to the evaluation scope, b) these approaches focus on economic and strategic evaluations of projects and portfolios – excluding commitment mechanisms of internal stakeholders. Based on these observations, a new set of economic tools is proposed: 1/ A design playground based on benefits scenarios; 2/ A stochastic representation of the Net Present Value of the breakthrough project outputs. It appears that the first allows stakeholders to learn and differentiate uncertainty nature and depth, and the second strengthens stakeholders’ consensus on the value of the breakthrough innovation.

11 April - 12.00-13.00

Jonas Hjerpe, Chalmers University of Technology

Cancelled

26 April - 12.00-13.00 – Closed to the public

Jonas Hjerpe, Chalmers University of Technology

Capacity and Entrepreneurship

31 May - 12.00-13.00

Sophie Hooge, Postdoctoral Fellow, Mines ParisTech école des Mines Paris.

Giving a voice to breakthrough innovation projects: adapting evaluation tools of R&D project to managing the consensus on the value of unknown explorations

ABSTRACT

Managing breakthrough innovation projects is a challenge that crosses organizations. Arguably, the tools used in managing and evaluating such projects should be largely different than traditional tools, due to the multidimensional uncertainty of breakthrough projects. However, studies show that most companies use conventional monitoring methods of project management, even in breakthrough innovation contexts. Based on a thirtymonth intervention research in the Department of Research and Advanced Engineering of a global car manufacturer, this research analyses the limits of traditional tools and suggests a new approach and adapted instruments. In partnership with R&D teams, an analysis of traditional practices and tools used for measuring projects value has been realized. We show two major drawbacks: a) most of such evaluation methods treat the uncertainties as external to the evaluation scope, b) these approaches focus on economic and strategic evaluations of projects and portfolios – excluding commitment mechanisms of internal stakeholders. Based on these observations, a new set of economic tools is proposed: 1/ A design playground based on benefits scenarios; 2/ A stochastic representation of the Net Present Value of the breakthrough project outputs. It appears that the first allows stakeholders to learn and differentiate uncertainty nature and depth, and the second strengthens stakeholders’ consensus on the value of the breakthrough innovation.

Fall 2010

16 August - 10.00-11.00

Linus Dahlander, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University.

Contextualizing Collaboration

ABSTRACT

Collaborations in academia have been promoted as potential solutions to societal problems and to spur scientific advancements, but many of the assumptions surrounding scientific collaboration are untested. Our study offers three contributions to sociologists of scientists and organization theorists. One, our comparison of different types of activities of academic life reveals big differences in the degree of reliance on teamwork. Two, by including individuals that do and do not collaborate, we show that some trends towards teamwork are pervasive: while collaborations are on the increase for publications, it is not true for grants. Three, our multivariate analysis elucidate how deviations from disciplinary norms emerge from career trajectories in disciplines. These findings have broad implications by showing how trends are closely tied to the character of disciplines as well as specifying differences between different forms of scientific activities.

3 September - 12.00-13.00

Anna Rylander, Business & Design Lab, University of Gothenburg .

Unpacking the Magic of Design: Design-driven Innovation as Aesthetic Experience

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to contribute to the emerging field of design-driven innovation, defined as radical innovation of meanings, by outlining a theoretical framework underpinned by an empirical study of designers engaged in innovation projects. It is argued that pragmatist philosopher John Dewey’s ideas about the process of inquiry and aesthetic experience provides a fruitful platform for theoretically understanding and empirically exploring design driven innovation. A study of a design consultancy is used to empirically illustrate Dewey’s ideas and how they are played out in design practice. After a brief introduction to the case study a number of key themes from Dewey’s philosophy of particular relevance for understanding design-driven innovation are outlined and illustrated with empirical data. Finally some implications for management studies from viewing design-driven innovation as aesthetic experience are discussed along with suggestions for possibly fruitful routes for further investigation.

17 September - 12.00-13.00

Lena Ramfelt, KTH och Stanford.

Circles of Influence and the Paradoxes of Silicon Valley.

No material will be distributed before this seminar, but see this presentation by Lena and Tom Kosnik for background.

---

1 October - 12.00-13.00

Ingo Rauth, PhD student, Hasso Plattner Institute

Design thinking

Ingo will first introduce how design thinking can impact creativity and then offer everybody the chance to experience design thinking through a short workshop where we will do a short design thinking challenge to give you a better understanding of how the process can be used. No material will be provided before the seminar.

Henrik Berglund is traveling in California so this seminar will be hosted by Maria Elmquist.

13 October - 12.00-13.00

Niklas L. Hallberg, The Institute of Economic Research, Lund University.

Symmetry and Theoretical Isolation in the Resource-Based View: Treating Products Markets like Factor Markets

ABSTRACT

Theorizing simplifies reality by means of "isolation" whereby some phenomena or aspects thereof are excluded from consideration. Using the case of the resource-based view, we discuss how theorists isolate. We develop a case for symmetrical isolations, show that the RBV violates a symmetry requirement, argue that a more symmetrical RBV implies novel insights in value creation and appropriation, and outline research heuristics based on the notion of symmetry.

29 October - 12.00-13.00

Tomas Hellström, CIRCLE, Lund University.

Homing in on Excellence: Dimensions of appraisal in Center of Excellence program evaluations

ABSTRACT

Excellence has become a guideword for goal setting and assessment in science and technology policy. While the concept has been around for many years in its common sense meaning, it is now explicitly put to use for science governance, however so far little work has been done to detail, operationalize and systematize the dimensions of value present in academic evaluators’ use of the concept. This paper is based on a close reading of a mid-term evaluation of several centers of excellence in Sweden, the goal of which is to achieve such a detailed understanding of the evaluative components of the concept. By applying template analysis to evaluation documents, seven main components, largely referring to the organizational/institutional aspects of excellence were identified. These are analyzed and used to provide insights for evaluation scholars and practitioners into the tensions and possibilities present in the excellence concept.

12 November - 12.00-13.00

No seminar due to the national conference on industrial economics. 

22 November - 12.00-13.00

Saras D. Sarasvathy, Isadore Horween Research Associate Professor, University of Virginia, the Darden School.

Effectuation Research: An Update and Future Directions

Spring 2010

IEM/CBI PhD Student Thomas Hordern will present a working paper entitled "Solving Problem Finding: How design firms overcome type III error". Please note the date.

Normal 0 21 false false false SV X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Next Tuesday 25/5 12.00-13.00 Henrik Berglund introduces the book "Getting to Plan B: Breaking through to a Better Business Model" by John Mullins from London Business School and Randy Komisar of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

"Two eminent thought leaders in the global world of entrepreneurship, John Mullins (The New Business Road Test: What Entrepreneurs and Executives Should Do Before Writing a Business Plan: 2003, 2006) and Randy Komisar (The Monk and the Riddle: The Art of Creating a Life While Making a Living: 2001) have teamed up to write what Stanford University Professor Bob Sutton calls “more than the most useful book I’ve ever read on entrepreneurship."

Getting to Plan B sheds new light – and refreshing clarity – on the term business model and will give you a process to discover a better one for your business old or new, as well as a framework for organizing your thinking. It will reinvent your business plan, and your approach to business planning, too."

For a copy of the introduction to the book, contact Henrik Berglund.

Here is a chapter by chapter review (by Anders Sundelin): http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2ZSGV6MEHHG7S/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_3?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#RI1XR63WLHZ9H

And, for the interested, here is a video of Randy Komisar talking about the book: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2415

Tuesday 13/4 12.00-13.00 Marcus Linder will introduce the Organization Science paper “A Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm: The Problem-Solving Perspective”  by Nickerson and Zenger.  Published in 2004, the paper and the perspective of the firm it articulates have sparked a lot of interest.

Abstract

In this paper we develop a knowledge-based theory of the firm. While existing knowledge-based theory focuses on the efficiency of hierarchy in economizing on knowledge exchange, we develop a theory of the firm that focuses on the efficiency of alternative organizational forms in generating knowledge or capability. Our theory begins with the problem as the basic unit of analysis, arguing that a problem’s complexity influences the optimal method of solution search and the optimal means of organizing that search. The distinguishing feature that differentiates among organizational alternatives is the different way each resolves conflict over the selection of solution trials, that is, the way it chooses the path of search. Our theory predicts that efficiency demands that these governance alternatives be matched in a discriminating way to problems based on their associated benefits and costs in governing solution search. Thus, our theory is among the first to simultaneously treat both the boundary choice (i.e., internal versus external) and the choice among alternative internal approaches to organizing.

Karen Williams Middleton from MORE at Chalmers will present the working paper Integrating innovation with university research and education: building routines from the bottom-up, coauthored with Mats Lundquist.

NB! Working paper, do not quote without permission.

Abstract

The third university mission of innovation is often assumed to affect the established missions of education and research.  However, the mission of innovation is still mostly treated as an add-on function or as something occurring locally in entrepreneurial research groups where the university maintains a hands-off approach. Despite conceptualizations of innovative and entrepreneurial universities, there is little evidence around universities being able to evolve and consolidate structures beyond what can be described as a professional bureaucracy. If innovation is to be the rule and not the exception, then we need to find and understand examples that organizationally have been built to address the mission of innovation in integration with research and education. This article empirically explores three cases in which innovation becomes a more integrated university mission. We propose a view of universities appreciating and integrating more bottom-up team-oriented behaviors in which synergized activities become legitimized routines.

Hans Hellsmark from the department of Energy and Environment will present a recent paper (co-authoredwith Staffan Jacobsson) from Energy Policy, "Opportunities for and limits to Academics as System builders—The case of realizing the potential of gasified biomass in Austria". Using a single case, the paper examines the role an individual academic expert can play in the formation of a new technological innovation system.

Abstract
Gasified biomass is a technology that has the potential to partially replace fossil fuels for the production of heat, electricity, transport fuels, synthetic natural gas (BioSNG) and chemicals. In the context of climate change, biomass gasification is an attractive technology. It is, however, still in the early phase of its diffusion and much of the knowledge resides in the academic sector and in small companies—the technological innovation system (TIS) is in the process of being formed. Austria is one of the leading European countries in this field and much of the development in Austria can be traced to one prominent individual, Professor Hermann Hofbauer at the Technical University of Vienna. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how and the extent to which an individual academic, Professor Hofbauer, has influenced the formation of a TIS centred on gasified biomass in Austria. We find that his impact is multidimensional and significant but that there is also a frictional and intentional resistance that obstructs the commercialisation of the new technology. These sources of resistance go beyond the ability of an individual system builder to handle. Policy makers, therefore, need to add a strong element of system building activities that interact with and supplement those pursued by Professor Hofbauer.

Henrik Berglund introduces a forthcoming paper from Long Range Planning, "Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach " by Rita Gunther McGrath. The paper is an application, to business model development, of the discovery-driven planning approach that McGrath and her colleagues have developed in numerous books and papers (cf. http://discoverydrivengrowth.com/site/index/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcAHttLnj4E&feature=player_embedded). Inspired by Popper's falsificationism, this approach highlights assumption-testing and learning (as opposed to long term planning and implementation) as sound business planning practice in the face of uncertainty.

Abstract

The business model concept offers strategists a fresh way to consider their options in uncertain, fast-moving and unpredictable environments. In contrast to conventional assumptions, recognizing that more new business models are both feasible and actionable than ever before is creating unprecedented opportunities for today's organizations. However, unlike conventional strategies that emphasize analysis, strategies that aim to discover and exploit new models must engage in significant experimentation and learning – a ‘discovery driven,’ rather than analytical approach.

NB. Seminar moved to Monday 15th!

Henrik Berglund introduces the 2004 working paper "The Logic of Appropriateness" coauthored by Jim March and Johan P Olsen (and published in The Oxford handbook of public policy, 2006). This quite influential paper provides a rare attempt at formulating a coherent alternative to the rational choice paradigm of human action that dominates much of social science. Termed the "Logic of consequentiality" the rational choice model is described as consisting of the following steps:

a) What are my alternatives?
b) What are my values?
c) What are the consequences of my alternatives for my values?
d) Choose the alternative that has the best expected consequences.

March and Olsen contrast this with the "Logic of appropriateness", which instead proposes that, most of the time, people take reasoned action by following these steps:

a) What kind of a situation is this?
b) What kind of a person am I?
c) What does a person such as I do in a situation such as this?

While written in the context of political science discussions of democratic institutions, the paper has much to offer students of innovation and entrepreneurship as well, e.g. how are decisions motivated when alternatives are uncertain. Please read the paper with this in mind!

Abstract
The logic of appropriateness is a perspective that sees human action as driven by rules of appropriateor exemplary behavior, organized into institutions. Rules are followed because theyare seen as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate. Actors seek to fulfill the bligations encapsulated in a role, an identity, a membership in a political community or roup, and the ethos, practices and expectations of its institutions. Embedded in a social collectivity, they do what they see as appropriate for themselves in a specific type of situation. The paper is divided into five parts. First, we sketch the basic ideas of rule-based action. Second, we describe some characteristics of contemporary democratic settings. Third, we attend to the relations between rules and action, the elements of slippage in executing rules. Fourth, we examine the dynamics of rules and standards of appropriateness. And, fifth, we discuss a possible reconciliation of different logics of action, as part of a future research agenda for students of democratic politics and policy making.

Lise Aaboen, Anna Dubois and Frida Lind from the division of Industrial Marketing and Purchasing will talk about a recently initiated project that investigates how new technology based firms relate to their first customers - e.g. how these customers are identified, how relationships are established and developed, and how they learn from each other.

Abstract

In this seminar we will present a study of ten new technology based firms and their first customer relationships. The study is about how firms find their initial customers, how they build the customer relationships and how these may influence each other e.g. through learning between customers or joint activities. The analysis at this stage of the study has mainly taken two directions, which will form the basis for discussion in the seminar. The first is about the customer relationships and trying to find patterns in how start-ups’ customer relationships develop over time. It could be patterns regarding the deepening of a single relationship or patterns regarding how one customer relationship leads to others. The second direction focuses on the start-up firms and what strategies these firms pursue with basis in their aspired network positions. Both the aspired position and the picture of the network are likely to change when the firms start to interact with customers in the network.

Henrik Berglund introduces a working paper entitled "Strategy vs. business models vs. tactics" coauthored by Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Joan E Ricart, of Harvard Business School and IESE Business School respectively. The paper is a pedagogical attempt to clarify the concept of "Business Model" by relating it to the notions of Tactics and, in particular, Strategy.

Abstract

The notion of business model has been used by strategy scholars to refer to "the logic of the firm, the way it operates and how it creates value for its stakeholders." On the surface, this notion appears to be similar to that of strategy. We present a conceptual framework to separate business model from strategy. Business model, we argue, is a reflection of the firm's realized strategy. We find that in simple competitive situations there is a one-to-one mapping between strategy and business model, which makes it difficult to separate the two notions. We show that the concepts of strategy and business model differ markedly when there are important contingencies upon which a well-designed strategy must be based. Our framework also delivers a clear separation between tactics and strategy. This distinction is possible because strategy and business model are different constructs.

Karl Palmås - MSc Chalmers, PhD London School of Economics & Political Science, researcher at MORE - presents his thoughts on a "post-humanist" view of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship theory.

NB. All texts are in Swedish but the talk will be in English, depending on the audience.

Entreprenörskapet efter Människan

"As dissimilar and varied as discoveries or inventions may be, they all share the common trait of consisting, at base, of a mental encounter between two ideas which, regarded up to that point as foreign and useless to one another, by intersecting in a wellendowed and well-disposed mind show themselves to be intimately connected ... Can we say that these happy crossings of ideas in brains are always the fruits of labour?" (Gabriel Tarde, Psychologie Économique, 1902)

Forskningen kring entreprenörskap försöker stundtals ta spjärn emot individualistiska perspektiv och "great man-teorier" - dessa anses glorifiera den individuella entreprenören, och underskatta entreprenörskapets kollektiva karaktär. Samtidigt är det få forskare som ifrågasätter det mänskliga subjektets unicitet - entreprenörskapet må vara kollektivt, men det medieras icke desto mindre av en skapande och handlande Människa.

På senare år har humaniora och samhällsvetenskap präglats av "nygamla" perspektiv där det mänskliga subjektet inte längre är priviligerat. Populariteten av Gabriel Tarde - en sociolog som redan för hundra år sedan, femtio år innan Schumpeter, framhävde innovationers roll inom näringslivet - bör ses som ett led i denna utveckling. För Tarde var ekonomin en maskin för att sprida kunskaper och passioner, och entreprenören inte mer än det ställe där olika idéer "råkar" mötas. Vad kan forskningen om entreprenörskap och innovationssystem göra med denna "post-humanism"?

Ove Granstrand discusses theoretical and methodological challenges in ODI-Research (research on open, distributed innovation). For a relevant background introduction, please refer to Ove's 1998 Research Policy article, and as a more practical complement the 1997 paper in California Management Review.

Abstract

Departing from received theories of the firm, the talk will first demonstrate the conventionally challenged compatibility of a resource based vs. a revenue based theory of the firm in both orthodox and evolutionary theoretical frameworks. Following an industrial organization approach, based on transaction and management cost theory (i.e. governance theory), I will then show some Work In Progress-attempts to extend a knowledge/technology/IP based theory of the firm to a quasi-integrated (semi-open, networked) corporate innovation system with dynamic governance costs. The latter could in turn be mitigated in both market and hierarchical environments by invoking legal rights oriented as well as economically motivated principles of fairness in business negotiations. Despite the apparent non-universality of principles of justice and fairness (based on empirical claims by legal anthropologists and theoretical challenges of axiomatic approaches), the talk will conclude by demonstrating the methodological challenges in practical usefulness of formulating egalitarian principles and rules of thumb for fair value splitting in inter-organizational collaborations.

Henrik Berglund presents a working paper by Benjamin Hallen and Kathleen Eisenhardt. The paper, entitled "Catalyzing Strategies and Efficient Network Tie Formation: How Entrepreneurs Obtain Venture Capital", uses Eisenhardt's inductive case study method to explore the behavioral strategies entrepreneurs use to form inter-organizational network ties, specifically with potential financiers.

Abstract