scholarly journals Entitlement problems in digital markets and how antitrust shapes the appropriation of network externalities

2021 ◽  
pp. 178359172110031
Author(s):  
Linus J. Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Value Creation ◽  
Network Externalities ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Value Capture ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Digital Asset ◽  
Software Platforms

The engine of value creation in the digital economy is network externalities, i.e. the phenomenon by which the value to a new user from adopting a good or service increases in the number of users who already adopted it. But network externalities are not manna from heaven. They are ‘sponsored’ by firms who make demand expanding investments. In areas with imperfect property institutions like the digital economy, a key business decision for profit maximizing firms consists in devising value capture strategies to appropriate their investments. This paper identifies three recurrent types of appropriation disputes in digital markets: Access to software platforms, limitations to the exploitation of raw data and claims over digital content. At the heart of each dispute lies the controversial exercise of an entitlement over a digital asset that is embedded in a context of or exhibits itself network externalities. The appropriation of this asset and its integration into the firm’s ecosystem could make the firm benefit from network efficiencies. Controlling the digital asset in question becomes a proxy. Appropriation strategies by proxy can have pro- and anti-competitive effects. This is why each dispute can not only be understood as a problem of appropriability, but also as a problem of potential harm to competition. And indeed, competition enforcers have brought forward various cases with underlying appropriation disputes. This paper tracks the influence of three of them on the appropriability of assets in the digital economy, and on digital firms’ strategies to capture the value of network externalities.

Living It Up at the Hotel California: Employee Mobility Barriers and Collaborativeness in Firms’ Innovation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunkwang Seo ◽  
Deepak Somaya
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Value Creation ◽  
Knowledge Spillovers ◽  
Value Capture ◽  
Employee Mobility ◽  
Mobility Barriers ◽  
Collaborative Innovation ◽  
Complex Knowledge

Research has long recognized the importance of collaboration for innovation, but relatively little is known about the strategic drivers of collaborative innovation in firms. We posit that robust collaboration within firms can increase the interfirm mobility of inventors and increase spillovers of innovative knowledge to competitors by mobile inventors. Therefore, by mitigating these value capture hazards associated with collaboration, barriers to employee mobility may induce firms to increase collaborativeness in innovation. Additionally, consistent with the mechanism underlying this proposition, we hypothesize that firms whose innovation entails more complex knowledge, which is known to impede interfirm knowledge spillovers, will increase collaboration less when employee mobility increases. We test these hypotheses by leveraging quasi-exogenous changes in two legal mobility barriers for inventors across U.S. states and find that higher-mobility barriers are associated with greater inventor collaboration (as observed in patented innovation), and this effect is weaker for firms possessing more complex knowledge. These findings deepen our understanding of the strategic tradeoffs between value creation and value capture entailed in collaborative innovation within firms and of human capital strategies that help to manage these tradeoffs.

scholarly journals Bottlenecks, Modules, and Dynamic Architectural Capabilities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carliss Y. Baldwin
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Value Creation ◽  
Technical System ◽  
Maximum Effect ◽  
Organizational Boundaries ◽  
Value Capture ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Technical Architecture ◽  
Complex Technical System ◽  
Technical Systems

How do firms create and capture value in large technical systems? In this paper, I argue that the points of both value creation and value capture are the system’s bottlenecks. Bottlenecks arise first as important technical problems to be solved. Once the problem is solved, Then the solution in combination with organizational boundaries and property rights can be used to capture a stream of rents. The tools a firm can use to manage bottlenecks are, first, an understanding first of the technical architecture of the system; and, second, an understanding of the industry architecture in which the technical system is embedded. Although these tools involve disparate bodies of knowledge, they must be used in tandem to achieve maximum effect. Dynamic architectural capabilities provide managers with the ability to see a complex technical system in an abstract way and change the system’s structure to manage bottlenecks and modules in conjunction with the firm’s organizational boundaries and property rights.

Social entrepreneurship: creating social value when bridging holes

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suvi Kokko
Keyword(s):  
Value Creation ◽  
Social Enterprise ◽  
Institutional Logics ◽  
Social Enterprises ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Content Type ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Social Value Creation ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Shared Goal

Purpose This paper aims to understand how social value is created in a context characterized by institutional complexity. By identifying stakeholders interacting in a social enterprise and the logics guiding their expected and experienced value, the study describes how social value is created when different institutional logics embedded in strong-tie networks are bridged. Design/methodology/approach Concepts of structural holes and institutional logics were applied to the empirical case of a social enterprise. Interviews provided the primary empirical material, but multiple data collection methods were used. Findings A shared goal facilitated co-existence of competing value logics, and provided common space forming multiple social value outcomes as products of the different logics. Research limitations/implications Limited to one case, this study shows that the interaction of otherwise unconnected stakeholders in a social enterprise, and their embeddedness in different institutional logics, provides one explanation for why and how social value is created. Practical implications Acknowledging and addressing gaps in knowledge and resources can lead to social value creation if social enterprises remain open to different logics. This suggests that co-existence of different logics can be a key factor for successful social value creation in social enterprises, if the competing logics are turned into complementary sources. Originality/value Dependency on logics from different networks of stakeholders shapes social enterprises to produce outcomes consistent with the different logics. The multiplicity of social value outcomes poses challenges for evaluating the success of social enterprises, especially when the tendency is to use evaluation approaches from the for-profit sector, focusing on the economic logic.

scholarly journals The effect of business model innovation on organization performance

2021 ◽  
pp. 1481-1488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amineh A. Khaddam ◽  
Hani J. Irtaimeh ◽  
Ahmad Rajaa Salameh Al-Batayneh ◽  
Suliman Raja Salameh Al-Batayneh
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Value Creation ◽  
Business Model Innovation ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
Organization Performance ◽  
Company Performance ◽  
Value Proposition ◽  
Value Capture ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Measures Of Performance

The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of business model innovation (BMI) on firm performance. The sample of the study consisted of 120 managers from Alban Al-youm Company in Jordan, a leading dairy company. Data were collected using a questionnaire administered to managers. Eighty-seven questionnaires were retrieved valid for the purpose of data analysis. BMI was measured using three components: value creation, value proposition and value capture innovations while company performance was assessed via self-rated questions about operational measures of performance. The results accepted the hypotheses that all dimensions of BMI had significant effects on company performance. That being so, the study contributed to the literature on BMI on company performance in the absence of such studies that use samples for Arab countries, particularly, from Jordan in one of the most vital industries, which is a dairy industry.

CFO and finance function: what matters in value creation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Zoni ◽  
Federico Pippo
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Value Creation ◽  
Organizational Context ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Generation Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Industrial Companies ◽  
Patterns And Processes ◽  
Finance Function

Purpose According to the chief financial officer (CFO) of IBM Global Survey (2010), only few integrated finance organizations (IFOs) and only some CFOs’ role (Value Integrators) allow companies to generate value so as to outperform their peers. The purpose of this study is to gather additional insights on how the CFOs and finance organizations effectively promote value creation in for-profit organizations. Design/methodology/approach The authors’ study has been developed through the methodology of case studies. The method, despite its intrinsic limitations, offers a much deeper understanding of the organizational context within which value creation takes place. The authors’ analysis is based on nine selected case studies of Italian industrial companies, selected to assure comparability with the IBM sample. All companies outperform their peers. Findings The authors observed that not only IFOs and value integrator CFOs support the value generation process. The authors’ sample suggests a variety of other relevant and likely alternatives for value creation deriving from both finance functions (FFs) and the roles of CFOs. Their findings indicate that FFs adopt three distinct patterns to add value for the shareholders. The first option involves the FF taking the lead in setting a common language across functions, management processes, management and stakeholders. The second value creation pattern is when the FF establishes a strong and relevant support to business. The third option implies that the FF acts as an advisor assuring independent compliance. The authors also concluded that regardless of the CFO’s roles, influential CFOs are older, with a deep functional company and industry experience. They also observe that some of this influence derives from “proximity” to shareholders, as all the more influential CFOs sit on the Board, enjoying a closer relationship with the shareholders. Research limitations/implications This study was based on clinical cases, the findings can be generalized reliably only for the population studied here. More research is needed for further tests and explorations of these findings, especially in the area of CFO incentives and governance mechanisms. Practical implications This study supports modern advice given to organizations in terms of the array of available alternatives to promote value creation with patterns and processes within the domain of the finance organization and CFO’s personal characteristics. Social implications The paper contributes to untangle some gender issues, as the authors found that more influential CFOs are male. The authors have also contributed to explain some dynamics of the “labor” market development for finance professionals: the authors observed that the promotion for most influential CFOs comes through the ranks of a specific company, and this questions if a market really exits for such professionals in Italy, and more generally in Europe. Originality/value These results provide some useful support of prior findings and some modifications and extensions that further the authors’ understanding in this area of importance both to researchers and practitioners.

Shaken, not stirred

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Grasenick ◽  
Jonathan Low
Keyword(s):  
Value Creation ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Measurement Systems ◽  
Measurement Standards ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Academic Communities ◽  
Not For Profit ◽  
Global Agreement

The necessity and importance of measuring intangibles has become increasingly accepted in the business, financial and academic communities as a means for a better understanding of the value creation processes in private, public and not‐for‐profit enterprises. Intangible indicators are seen as idiosyncratic, unique to each enterprise and not standardised. Interpretation, dissemination and further research suffer from the lack of definition and measurement standards. This paper examines guidelines and suggestions for measurement instruments and discusses their limits. A framework for classifying intangibles and indicators through the utilisation of evaluation experience is derived in order to support the movement towards global agreement on terms, definitions, standards and measures. Further research is discussed concerning quality standards for measurement systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document