国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

This qualitative, case-based study examined how managers conceptualise customer value and translate customer learning into customer value creating processes. The study considered a sample of high and low performing firms operating in non-dynamic and dynamic market environments to investigate market and firm-level effects. It was found regardless of whether a firm operates in a non-dynamic or dynamic market environment, managers approach customer value as a time dependent and tridimensionally construct. In order to operationalise customer value, managers need to constantly consider: 1. The attributes or benefits that are embedded in or customers can associate with the firm’s products and services, 2. The consequences achieved by customers when using or being provided with the firm’s products and services, and 3. The goals and purposes which are achieved by customers after they use or received the firm’s products and services. In other words, in order to create optimal levels of customer value, managers must be able to map the configuration of activities that need to be undertaken at the firm to the configuration of commercial and assurance-based benefits customers want to have delivered to them through the firm’s products and services at different points in time. They must then be able to map these activities and benefits to the combination of resources that can realise them. This includes the combination of dynamic capabilities which the firm uses to develop products and services that can help customers cope with change and have their idiosyncratic problems addressed. However, it was found that firms that operate in dynamic market environments tend to invest in and develop more structured and ordered approaches to customer learning than the firms that operate in non-dynamic market environments. They also rely more on bottom-up/top down decision-making processes to develop the firm’s customer value delivery strategy than firms that operate in non-dynamic market environments. Firms that operate in non-dynamic market environments tend to use top-down decisionmaking processes and are more likely to lever off their strategic planning processes to develop their customer value delivery strategy than firms that operate in dynamic market environments. Consistent with these findings and the RBV literature, it was found that the high performing firms were better at creating value for their target customers across three customer value dimensions. Their managers were also better at identifying when it was in everyone’s best interests to differentiate between customer groups, and integrate and link critical customer learning and decision-making processes. This includes processes that promote strategic and operational forms of customer learning, and continual customer value learning and performance tracking. In summary, the study demonstrated that heterogeneous firm performance can be explained by the way managers at different firms are able to conceptualise customer value, how they develop their customer value delivery strategies, and their differing abilities to integrate key customer value learning and decision-making processes. Moreover, it demonstrated that a firm is more likely to sustain a competitive advantage and be persistently high performing if it develops a core customer value learning and customer value delivery competency. / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Business School, 2009

This qualitative, case-based study examined how managers conceptualise customer value and translate customer learning into customer value creating processes. The study considered a sample of high and low performing firms operating in non-dynamic and dynamic market environments to investigate market and firm-level effects. It was found regardless of whether a firm operates in a non-dynamic or dynamic market environment, managers approach customer value as a time dependent and tridimensionally construct. In order to operationalise customer value, managers need to constantly consider: 1. The attributes or benefits that are embedded in or customers can associate with the firm’s products and services, 2. The consequences achieved by customers when using or being provided with the firm’s products and services, and 3. The goals and purposes which are achieved by customers after they use or received the firm’s products and services. In other words, in order to create optimal levels of customer value, managers must be able to map the configuration of activities that need to be undertaken at the firm to the configuration of commercial and assurance-based benefits customers want to have delivered to them through the firm’s products and services at different points in time. They must then be able to map these activities and benefits to the combination of resources that can realise them. This includes the combination of dynamic capabilities which the firm uses to develop products and services that can help customers cope with change and have their idiosyncratic problems addressed. However, it was found that firms that operate in dynamic market environments tend to invest in and develop more structured and ordered approaches to customer learning than the firms that operate in non-dynamic market environments. They also rely more on bottom-up/top down decision-making processes to develop the firm’s customer value delivery strategy than firms that operate in non-dynamic market environments. Firms that operate in non-dynamic market environments tend to use top-down decisionmaking processes and are more likely to lever off their strategic planning processes to develop their customer value delivery strategy than firms that operate in dynamic market environments. Consistent with these findings and the RBV literature, it was found that the high performing firms were better at creating value for their target customers across three customer value dimensions. Their managers were also better at identifying when it was in everyone’s best interests to differentiate between customer groups, and integrate and link critical customer learning and decision-making processes. This includes processes that promote strategic and operational forms of customer learning, and continual customer value learning and performance tracking. In summary, the study demonstrated that heterogeneous firm performance can be explained by the way managers at different firms are able to conceptualise customer value, how they develop their customer value delivery strategies, and their differing abilities to integrate key customer value learning and decision-making processes. Moreover, it demonstrated that a firm is more likely to sustain a competitive advantage and be persistently high performing if it develops a core customer value learning and customer value delivery competency. / Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, Business School, 2009

Familiness has become widely accepted as the appropriate construct representing the unique bundle of resources arising out of family involvement in business. However as yet we do not fully understand the types of familiness or the conditions that give rise to them and as such familiness remains in need of further exploration. This research explores the familiness construct and its role in perpetuating entrepreneurial activity in the family business through the development and deployment of an entrepreneurial orientation (EO) over multiple generations. The Resource-Based View (RBV) is the adopted firm level framework used to identify the unique bundle of family resources that represent familiness. These resources are then explored for their contribution to nurturing and perpetuating an EO, thereby creating a source of competitive advantage. The research also explores the association of EO to the achievement of the firm’s nonfinancial objectives. Using exploratory in-depth qualitative case studies of four multigenerational Australian family firms, data was collected via semi-structured interviews, observations, and secondary documents. NVivo assisted with the coding and analysis of data to identify common patterns and themes from both within-case and across-case analyses.Six resource dimensions were found to represent the familiness resource bundle: reputation, experience – insights and skills, learning, decision-making, relationships, and networks. These resource dimensions, identified by their prevalence across all four cases, are spread across the resource categories (human, organizational, and process) and thus confirm the widespread potential of the family’s influence in business. The resource dimensions displayed a paradoxical nature and the ability to manage these paradoxes enabled these firms to exploit their familiness advantages (f+) and simultaneously mitigate the disadvantages (f-). Managing the paradoxical nature was central to the multigenerational success of these firms. Three of the six dimensions (experience – insights and skills, decision-making, and networks) were instrumental in influencing the development of the firm’s EO while three other dimensions (reputation, learning, and relationships) were more closely aligned with a market, learning, and communication orientation. The findings also suggest that family firms are better able to address non-financial objectives when they have strong EOs that engaged them in entrepreneurial activities. All interpretations of the findings are integrated into a conceptual model for future empirical analysis.The study contributes to research by identifying six dimensions (familiness resources model) that constitute the familiness resource bundle and through which family influence is most prevalent and best examined within the business. The study suggests that the paradoxical nature of these dimensions highlights conditions that give rise to familiness advantages (f+) or disadvantages (f-) and that managing these paradoxes gives rise to sustained competitive advantage. The study also proposes that the family is most influential in driving the firm’s EO: by being exposed to internal and external experiences that heighten their ability for opportunity recognition; by balancing the process (informal or formal), speed (fast or slow), and forum (concentrated or collaborative) of decisions; and by integrating and exploiting the firm’s strong and weak network ties. Finally the study confirms a close association between a firm’s EO and its non-financial objectives. The study thus encourages family firms to pursue entrepreneurial activity, not only because it sustains their livelihood over generations, but because it also assists in meeting the family’s non-financial objectives.

Familiness has become widely accepted as the appropriate construct representing the unique bundle of resources arising out of family involvement in business. However as yet we do not fully understand the types of familiness or the conditions that give rise to them and as such familiness remains in need of further exploration. This research explores the familiness construct and its role in perpetuating entrepreneurial activity in the family business through the development and deployment of an entrepreneurial orientation (EO) over multiple generations. The Resource-Based View (RBV) is the adopted firm level framework used to identify the unique bundle of family resources that represent familiness. These resources are then explored for their contribution to nurturing and perpetuating an EO, thereby creating a source of competitive advantage. The research also explores the association of EO to the achievement of the firm’s nonfinancial objectives. Using exploratory in-depth qualitative case studies of four multigenerational Australian family firms, data was collected via semi-structured interviews, observations, and secondary documents. NVivo assisted with the coding and analysis of data to identify common patterns and themes from both within-case and across-case analyses.Six resource dimensions were found to represent the familiness resource bundle: reputation, experience – insights and skills, learning, decision-making, relationships, and networks. These resource dimensions, identified by their prevalence across all four cases, are spread across the resource categories (human, organizational, and process) and thus confirm the widespread potential of the family’s influence in business. The resource dimensions displayed a paradoxical nature and the ability to manage these paradoxes enabled these firms to exploit their familiness advantages (f+) and simultaneously mitigate the disadvantages (f-). Managing the paradoxical nature was central to the multigenerational success of these firms. Three of the six dimensions (experience – insights and skills, decision-making, and networks) were instrumental in influencing the development of the firm’s EO while three other dimensions (reputation, learning, and relationships) were more closely aligned with a market, learning, and communication orientation. The findings also suggest that family firms are better able to address non-financial objectives when they have strong EOs that engaged them in entrepreneurial activities. All interpretations of the findings are integrated into a conceptual model for future empirical analysis.The study contributes to research by identifying six dimensions (familiness resources model) that constitute the familiness resource bundle and through which family influence is most prevalent and best examined within the business. The study suggests that the paradoxical nature of these dimensions highlights conditions that give rise to familiness advantages (f+) or disadvantages (f-) and that managing these paradoxes gives rise to sustained competitive advantage. The study also proposes that the family is most influential in driving the firm’s EO: by being exposed to internal and external experiences that heighten their ability for opportunity recognition; by balancing the process (informal or formal), speed (fast or slow), and forum (concentrated or collaborative) of decisions; and by integrating and exploiting the firm’s strong and weak network ties. Finally the study confirms a close association between a firm’s EO and its non-financial objectives. The study thus encourages family firms to pursue entrepreneurial activity, not only because it sustains their livelihood over generations, but because it also assists in meeting the family’s non-financial objectives.

None available

The alignment of business and information technology (IT) strategy is an important and enduring theoretical challenge for the information systems discipline and has remained a top issue in practice for the past twenty years. The extant literature makes two implicit assumptions. One is that IT strategy is aligned with a single business strategy, either at the corporate level or within a single strategic business unit (SBU). The other is that strategies are developed at a single point in time. Therefore, multi-business organisations present a particular alignment challenge, because business strategies are developed at both the corporate level and SBU levels, and these strategies are developed over time. This dissertation contributes a dynamic, capabilities-based theory of business and IT strategy alignment. Rather than extending existing models, this study draws on theory from the resource-based view of the firm and path dependence to address business and IT alignment within and between corporate and SBU levels across the strategy cycle. A new dynamic alignment model conceptualises IT alignment as the fit between business and IT strategies within the corporate and SBU levels and the coherence between these two levels. Value is created by complementary relationships among business and IT capabilities. IT alignment (or misalignment) is embedded over the strategy cycle, with the degrees of freedom declining quickly over time. The new model is validated using pattern matching with a single critical case of strategy development in a multi-business organisation across a complete strategy cycle. The strong match between the empirically observed and theoretically predicted patterns, and the complex nature of these patterns, provides strong support for the model. The model reconceptualises the way IT alignment drives organisational performance and how IT alignment changes over time. This has implications for existing IT alignment models, providing alternative theoretical explanations of how IT alignment creates value and how IT alignment changes over time. The new model also has implications for practice across the IT investment value chain and its governance.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Baylor University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 216-221)

Freie Univ., Diss 1999--Berlin, 1999. / Literaturverz. S. 263 - 279.