Digital Visions vs. Product Practices: Understanding Tensions in Incumbent Manufacturing Firms

Incumbent manufacturing firms face challenges when expanding their product focus with digital services. Such expansion creates tensions in organizations in the servitization process. While management visions and conceptualizes new service oriented businesses, the actual practice of implementing these service concepts is influenced by the product paradigmatic way of thinking in the organization. This dominant thinking creates tensions between business visions and business practice. We use the case of remote diagnostics services to provide insights into a manufacturing firm's attempt to transform the dominant oriented business models into a new networked environment. We suggest that such acts that may or may not lead to transition are lingered by dominant logics related to the product focus. This indicates that firms are required to embed new logics into their existing practice in order to exploit the full potential of digital technology.

[1]  Elgar Fleisch,et al.  Innovation of product-related services , 2008 .

[2]  A. Davies.  Moving base into high-value integrated solutions: a value stream approach , 2004 .

[3]  T. Friedli,et al.  Behavioral implications of the transition process from products to services , 2005 .

[4]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Shahzad Ansari,et al.  Overcoming Inaction through Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship: Insights from Regime Theory , 2007 .

[6]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[7]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[8]  Michel Avital,et al.  Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research , 2011, Inf. Organ..

[9]  A. Romme,et al.  Micro-Institutional Affordances and Strategies of Radical Innovation , 2011 .

[10]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Complexity Arrangements for Sustained Innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation , 2010 .

[11]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX : A DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL OF ORGANIZING , 2011 .

[12]  Adler,et al.  Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system , 1999 .

[13]  K. Cameron,et al.  Organizational paradox and transformation. , 1988 .

[14]  DavidsonElizabeth,et al.  Service innovation in the digital age , 2015 .

[15]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[16]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic , 2008, IBM Syst. J..

[17]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams , 2005 .

[18]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .

[19]  Thomas Diefenbach,et al.  Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization , 2011 .

[20]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons from Leading Product Design Companies , 2010 .

[21]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft , 2007, Inf. Organ..

[22]  John W. Selsky,et al.  Duality and Paradox: Trust and Duplicity in Japanese Business Practice , 2006 .

[23]  Constantine Andriopoulos,et al.  Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[24]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[25]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[26]  Mary J. Benner.  Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[27]  Augustine A. Lado,et al.  Paradox And Theorizing Within The Resource-Based View , 2006 .

[28]  C. K. Prahalad,et al.  THE DOMINANT LOGIC: RETROSPECTIVE AND EXTENSION , 1995 .

[29]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics , 2008 .

[30]  E. Fleisch,et al.  Overcoming the Service Paradox in Manufacturing Companies , 2005 .

[31]  Tim Baines,et al.  The servitization of manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges , 2009 .

[32]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Change and Control Paradoxes in Mobile Infrastructure Innovation: The Android and iOS Mobile Operating Systems Cases , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[33]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements , 2006 .

[34]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance , 1986 .

[35]  Marianne W. Lewis,et al.  Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance , 2003 .

[36]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[37]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .