We leverage the business model innovation and ambidexterity literature to investigate a contradictory case, the Swedish-Finnish Telecom operator TeliaSonera. Despite being challenged by three major disruptions, the company not only still exists but also enjoys remarkably good financial performance. Building on extant archival data and interviews, we carefully identify and map 26 organizational responses during 1992-2016. We find that the firm has overcome three critical phases by experimenting and pioneering with portfolios of business models and/or technological innovations.We describe this behaviour as double ambidexterity. We use an in-depth case study to conceptualize double ambidexterity and discuss its impact on the business's survival and enduring success. | INTRODUCTIONOne stream of business model research has addressed the relationship between technological innovation (TI) and business model innovations (BMI) (Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013;Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002;Tongur & Engwall, 2014). This stream of inquiry has its roots in the 1970s, although it only gained momentum when existing theories were unable to explain new phenomena emerging from Internetbased companies (Wirtz, Pistoia, Ullrich, & Gottel, 2016). During this time, companies such as Google were unable to capture the value from their search customers directly. Instead, they had to capture the value created from a second group of customers: companies seeking to advertise to the first customer group (Teece, 2010). These early arti- Baden-Fuller and Haefliger (2013) suggest that the relationship between BMI and TI is bidirectional. While they agree that business models mediate the relationship between TI and firm performance (or value capture), they also emphasize that BMI-with open business models, in particular-is able to boost the ability to develop the right technology. In a similar vein, Tongur and Engwall (2014) argue that BMI is necessary to manage technology shifts and that the management of technology shifts is a process of managing both TI and BMI.Furthermore, the study of business models has also been conducted on different levels of analysis, and Wirtz et al. (2016) show that it has moved from the product level to the level of business units and organizations. Studies on the organizational level have also looked into the role of TI and BMI in transforming industries, such as newspapers (Holm, Gunzel, & Ulhøi, 2013;Rohrbeck, Günzel, & Uliyanova, 2012) or electric mobility (Abdelkafi, Makhotin, & Posselt, 2013). Thus, the question of how TI and BMI interplay has implications not only for the management of firms but also for the dynamic of industry transformation (Bidmon & Knab, 2014).Through our study, we want to contribute to the academic debate on BMI and the long-term performance of firms, taking into account the dynamic interplay of TI and BMI over time (Achtenhagen, Melin, & Naldi, 2013;Amit & Zott, 2012;Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013;Björkdahl, 2009;Cavalcante, Kesting, & Ulhøi, 2011).For our study, we sought an industry t...

Purpose Backcasting helps managers involve and align the organization throughout a strategy process. Its core idea is creating a logical path from a depicted future back to the present, to share, analyze and manage strategic challenges. Still its use in strategic management is under-researched. The purpose of this paper is to verify the relevance and validity of backcasting as a strategic management tool. It also analyzes and structures knowledge about backcasting and its practical application in strategic management. Design/methodology/approach This paper employs desktop research method to outline the benefits and limitations of backcasting for strategy formation under VUCA conditions. Findings Backcasting can help organizations overcome cognitive barriers and broaden the scope of options when analyzing future positions. The research provides insights regarding the potential and limitations of backcasting when addressing uncertainty and its drivers. For instance, it helps managers to assess and align visions; increase the understanding and clarity regarding complex dependencies; as well as improve strategic agility. Practical implications Backcasting is exceptionally useful for investigating possible futures and alternative paths to it. Backcasting is an interactive workshop-based method that challenges prevailing mindsets by assuming we are in the future, looking back towards today to find a feasible path when major transitions are necessary. With it, managers can deal with even the most uncertain decisions in a structured manner. Originality/value Backcasting for many reasons has a great potential as a tool for strategy development. It has been successfully applied in other fields but only to a limited extent in business. This paper formally examines its applicability in this context and demonstrates its relevance for dealing with VUCA challenges.

This article proposes that corporate entrepreneurship and strategy can be linked in a means–ends relationship if it is possible to determine the motives behind individual corporate ventures. To facilitate future empirical investigations, it develops an instrument for measuring such motives, and tests this instrument on a sample of 274 ventures in small and medium-sized enterprises. The findings confirm that most of the ventures examined are linked to strategic concerns. Moreover, the instrument design provides dimensions for motives rather than categories, because dimensions can be more freely evaluated and combined in future research, for instance in the form of venture motive profiles. The dimensions, obtained through factor analysis, are orientation in regard to sought effects (improving business or gaining competence), posture (offensive versus defensive) and adaptive style (proactive versus reactive). Researchers can benefit from the instrument in empirical work, and their findings can in turn be of value for both practitioners and policy makers.

No abstract

No abstract