Change and Complementarities in the New Competitive Landscape: A European Panel Study, 1992–1996

Abstract

This paper addresses three weaknesses in the literature on new organizational forms: the limited mapping of the extent of contemporary organizational change; confusion about how contemporary changes link together; and the lack of systematic testing of the performance consequences of this kind of change. Drawing on a large-scale survey of organizational innovation in European firms, the paper finds widespread but not revolutionary change in terms of organization structure, processes, and boundaries. Using the economics notion of complementarities, the paper develops contingency and configurational approaches to suggest that organizational innovations will tend to cluster in particular ways and that the performance benefits of these innovations depend on their clustering. Complementarities in performance are explored from both inductive and deductive perspectives. Consistent with the expectations of complementarity theory, high-performing firms appeared to be innovating more and differently than low-performing firms. Again consistent with complementarities, piecemeal changes—with the exception of IT—were found to deliver little performance benefit, while exploitation of the full set of innovations was associated with high performance. Though few European firms were found to exploit the complementarities of new organizational practices, those that did enjoyed high-performance premia.

Revisiting IS business value research: what we already know, what we still need to know, and how we can get there

“…One stream of research conceptualises and investigates (the mediating role of) internal capabilities (Shin, 1997;Bannister & Remenyi, 2000;Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000;Devaraj & Kohli, 2000;Irani & Love, 2001;Irani, 2002;Oz, 2005). A second stream acknowledges the importance of complementarities, and, in particular, IS capabilities (Aral & Weill, 2007;Hsieh et al, 2011;Kim et al, 2011;Mithas et al, 2011) and socio-organisational capabilities (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994;Rowe, 1994;Orlikowski, 1996;Whittington et al, 1999;Avgerou, 2001;Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 2002;Aral & Weill, 2007;Kane & Alavi, 2007;Leonardi, 2007;Zammuto et al, 2007;Mutch, 2010;Tambe et al, 2012). It acknowledges the existence of time-variant relationships between complementarities and IS.…”

“…In addition to IS-related organisational capabilities, other socio-organisational capabilities have been discussed intensively in the context of IS and organisational research (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994;Rowe, 1994;Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995;Orlikowski, 1996;Shin, 1997;Whittington et al, 1999;Bannister & Remenyi, 2000;Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000;Devaraj & Kohli, 2000;Avgerou, 2001;Irani & Love, 2001;Irani, 2002;Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 2002;Oz, 2005;Aral & Weill, 2007;Kane & Alavi, 2007;Leonardi, 2007;Zammuto et al, 2007;Mutch, 2010). Important parts are deemed (intra-and interorganisational) processes, practices and structures, all of which develop over time, thereby creating socio-organisational change.…”

The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of multi-project management?

“…Multi-project contexts and temporary systems are extensively common in contemporary business [1][2][3]. Even though influential thinkers [4,5] predicted this situation decades ago, research on these multi-project settings has traditionally been sparse.…”

Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals

“…This tension can be seen when reviewing an organisational situation as discussed in Belton et al (1997) where purpose was determined through exploring issues and negotiating agreement resulting in a goals system which then had to be converted to a tree (with the loss of richness) in order to assess the alternatives. In some respects, this view of tidiness reflects the issues raised by organisation theorists when they argue that unravelling complementarities, portfolios, and synergies are significant determinants of organisational success (Whittington et al 1999).…”