Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures

References

• Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant design: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35:604–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aversa P, Haefliger S, Rossi A, Baden-Fuller C (2015) From business model to business modelling: Modularity and manipulation. Baden-Fuller C, Mangematin V, eds. Advances in Strategic Management: Business Models and Modelling (Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK), 151–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP (1990) The organizational ecology of a technological system. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):31–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP, Carroll GR (1995) Modeling internal organizational change. Annual Rev. Sociol. 21:217–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron DN, West E, Hannan MT (1994) A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and mortality of credit unions in New York City, 1914–1990. Amer. J. Sociol. 100(2):381–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JR, Wally S (2003) Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 24(11):1107–1129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumann O, Siggelkow N (2013) Dealing with complexity: Integrated vs. chunky search processes. Organ. Sci. 24(1):116–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhide A (2003) The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Blank S (2013) Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(5):63–72.Google Scholar
• Black TA, Fine CH, EM Sachs (1990) A method for systems design using precedence relationships: An application to automotive brake systems. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 3208, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bouquet C, Birkinshaw J (2008) Weight vs. voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Acad. Management J. 51(3):577–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bourgeois LJ III, Eisenhardt KM (1988) Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments. Management Sci. 34(7):816–835.Link, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR (1984) Organizational ecology. Annual Rev. Sociol. 10:71–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR, Hannan MT (2000) The Demography of Corporations and Industries (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll GR, Teo AC (1996) Creative self-destruction among organizations: An empirical study of technical innovation and organizational failure in the American automobile industry, 1885–1981. Indust. Corporate Change 5(2):619–644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casadesus-Masanell R, Ricart JE (2010) From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning 43(2–3):195–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H (2010) Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning 43(2–3):354–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough HW, Teece DJ (1996) When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(1):65–73.Google Scholar
• Colfer LJ, Baldwin CY (2016) The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, evidence, and exceptions. Indust. Corporate Change 25(5):709–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins J, Porras JI (1994) Built to Last (HarperCollins, New York).Google Scholar
• Conway ME (1968) How do committees invent? Datamation 14(4):28–31.Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Siggelkow N (2010) How much to copy? Determinants of effective imitation breadth. Organ. Sci. 21(3):661–676.Link, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Davenport TH (2009) How to design smart business experiments. Harvard Bus. Rev. 87(2):68–76.Google Scholar
• Delacroix J, Swaminathan A (1991) Cosmetic, speculative, and adaptive organizational change in the wine industry: A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(4):631–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denrell J (2012) Mechanisms generating context-dependent choices. Lomi A, Harrison JR, eds. The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice: Looking Forward at Forty, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 36 (Emerald, Bingley, UK), 65–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 29(1):52–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desyllas P, Sako M (2013) Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from pay-as-you-drive auto insurance. Res. Policy 42(1):101–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dobrev SD, Kim TY, Hannan MT (2001) Dynamics of niche width and resource partitioning. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(5):1299–1337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dowell G, Swaminathan A (2000) Racing and back-pedalling into the future: New product introduction and organizational mortality in the US bicycle industry, 1880–1918. Organ. Stud. 21(2):405–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drazin R, Van de Ven AH (1985) Alternate forms of fit in contingency theory. Admin. Sci. Quart. 30(2):514–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad. Management J. 32(3):543–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Bourgeois LJ III (1988) Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments. Acad. Management J. 31(4):737–770.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004a) Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(3):404–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004b) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Fang C, Ji-hyun K (2018) The power and limits of modularity: A replication and reconciliation. Strategic Management J. 39(9):2547–2565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 21(3):625–642.Link, Google Scholar
• Foss NJ, Saebi T (2017) Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? J. Management 43(1):200–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ganco M, Hoetker G (2009) Nk modeling methodology in the strategy literature: Bounded search on a rugged landscape. Bergh DD, Ketchen DJ, eds. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (JAI Press, Bingley, UK), 237–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garcia-Gutierrez I, Martinez-Borreguero FJ (2016) The innovation pivot framework fostering business model innovation in startups. Res. Tech. Management 59(5):48–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G (2012) Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organ. Sci. 23(1):267–285.Link, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Levinthal DA (2000) Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1):113–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gersick CJG (1994) Pacing strategic change—The case of a new venture. Acad. Management J. 37(1):9–45.Google Scholar
• Ghemawat P, Levinthal D (2008) Choice interactions and business strategy. Management Sci. 54(9):1638–1651.Link, Google Scholar
• Girotra K, Netessine S (2014) Four paths to business model innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 92(7–8):97–103.Google Scholar
• Greve HR (1999) The effect of core change on performance: Inertia and regression toward the mean. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(3):590–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through Reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ. Sci. 20(2):422–440.Link, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT (1998) Rethinking age dependence in organizational mortality: Logical formalizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(1):126–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Burton MD, Baron JN (1996) Inertia and change in the early years: Employment relations in young, high-technology firms. Indust. Corporate Change 5(2):503–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1989) Organizational Ecology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman JH (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 82(5):929–964.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman JH (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 49(2):149–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Polos L, Carroll GR (2003a) Cascading organizational change. Organ. Sci. 14(5):463–482.Link, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Polos L, Carroll GR (2003b) The fog of change: Opacity and asperity in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(3):399–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haveman HA (1992) Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(1):48–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE (1994) Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Sci. 40(12):1720–1747.Link, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):9–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Hannan MT (2005) Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organ. Sci. 16(5):474–490.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson MW (2010) Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Joseph J, Ocasio W (2012) Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: General Electric from 1951 to 2001. Strategic Management J. 33(6):633–660.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2012) The Business Model Innovation Factory: How to Stay Relevant When the World Is Changing (Wiley, Chichester, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katila R (2002) New product search overtime: Past ideas in their prime? Acad. Management J. 45(5):995–1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelly D, Amburgey TL (1991) Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic-model of strategic change. Academic Management J. 34(3):591–612.Google Scholar
• Kauffman SA (1993) The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khandwalla PN (1973) Viable and effective organizational designs of firms. Acad. Management J. 16(3):481–495.Google Scholar
• Kim SK, Min S (2015) Business model innovation performance: When does adding a new business model benefit an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 9(1):34–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Levinthal DA (2007) Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organ. Sci. 18(1):39–54.Link, Google Scholar
• Langlois RN (2002) Modularity in technology and organizations. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 49(1):19–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laursen K (2012) Keep searching and you’ll find: What do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation? Indust. Corporate Change 21(5):1181–1220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Contigiani A (2018) Situating the Construct of Lean Startup: Adjacent ‘Conversations’ and Possible Future Directions (Wharton School, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Posen HE (2007) Myopia of selection: Does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):586–620.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, March JG (1981) A model of adaptive organizational search. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 2(4):307–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Workiewicz M (2018) When two bosses are better than one: Nearly decomposable systems and organizational adaptation. Organ. Sci. 29(2):207–224.Link, Google Scholar
• Lippman SA, McCall JJ (1976) Economics of job search: A survey. Econom. Inquiry 14(2):155–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A, Baldwin CY, Rusnak J (2012) Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the ‘mirroring’ hypothesis. Res. Policy 41(8):1309–1324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–78.Link, Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Martin X, Mitchell W (1998) The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Res. Policy 26(7–8):753–771.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonald R, Eisenhardt K (2017) Parallel play: Startups, nascent markets, and the search for a viable business model. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1990) The economics of modern manufacturing—Technology, strategy, and organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(3):511–528.Google Scholar
• Miller D (1987) Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Acad. Management J. 30(1):7–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller D, Friesen PH (1984) Organizations: A Quantum View (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Mitchell W, Singh K (1993) Death of the lethargic: Effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firm’s base business. Organ. Sci. 4(2):152–180.Link, Google Scholar
• Mullins JW, Komisar R (2009) Getting to Plan B: Breaking through to a Better Business Model (Harvard Business Review Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Nayyar PR, Bantel KA (1994) Competitive agility—A source of advantage based on speed and variety. Shrivastava P, Huff AS, Dutton JE, eds. Advances in Strategic Management (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 193–222.Google Scholar
• Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Nicholls-Nixon CL, Cooper AC, Woo CY (2000) Strategic experimentation: Understanding change and performance in new ventures. J. Bus. Venturing 15(5):493–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (1997) Toward an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter M, Siggelkow N (2008) Contextuality within activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Acad. Management Perspect. 22(2):34–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prahalad CK (2006) The innovation sandbox. Strategy Bus. (44):1–10.Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2018) The Microstructure of Organizations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Raveendran M, Knudsen T (2012) Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):419–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Srikanth K (2007) What they know vs. what they do: How acquirers leverage technology acquisitions. Strategic Management J. 28(8):805–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P, Stieglitz N, Osman M, Pillutla MM (2015) Modelling bounded rationality in organizations: Progress and prospects. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):337–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ries E (2011) The Lean Startup: How Constant Innovation Creates Radically Successful Businesses (Crown Business, New York).Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW (2001) Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organ. Sci. 12(3):274–293.Link, Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2007) Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Sci. 53(7):1068–1085.Link, Google Scholar
• Romanelli E, Tushman ML (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Acad. Management J. 37(5):1141–1166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996a) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):63–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996b) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. 17:63–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharman DM, Yassine AA (2003) Characterizing complex product architectures. Systems Engrg. 7(1):35–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shepherd DA, McMullen JS, Ocasio W (2017) Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers’ opportunity beliefs for strategic action. Strategic Management J. 38(3):626–644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N (2002) Evolution toward fit. Admin. Sci. Quart. 47(1):125–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N (2011) Firms as systems of interdependent choices. J. Management Stud. 48(5):1126–1140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ. Sci. 14(6):650–669.Link, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ. Sci. 16(2):101–122.Link, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econom. 69(1):99–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psych. Rev. 63(2):129–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. 106(6):467–482.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1990) Invariants of human-behavior. Annual Rev. Psych. 41:1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (2002) Near decomposability and the speed of evolution. Indust. Corporate Change 11(3):587–599.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh JV, House RJ, Tucker DJ (1986) Organizational change and organizational mortality. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(4):587–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spieth P, Schneckenberg D, Ricart JE (2014) Business model innovation—State of the art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management 44(3):237–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stalk G Jr, Hout TM (1990) Competing Against Time: How Time-Based Competition Is Reshaping Global Markets (Free Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thomke SH (2003) Experimentation Matters: Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• von Hippel E (1990) Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Res. Policy 19(5):407–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winter SG, Cattani G, Dorsch A (2007) The value of moderate obsession: Insights from a new model of organizational search. Organ. Sci. 18(3):403–419.Link, Google Scholar
• Zook C, Allen J (2003) Growth outside the core. Harvard Bus. Rev. 81(12):66–73.Google Scholar
• Zook C, Allen J (2010) Profit from the Core: A Return to Growth in Turbulent Times (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Zott C, Amit R (2010) Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning 43(2–3):216–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zott C, Amit R, Massa L (2011) The business model: Recent developments and future research. J. Management 37(4):1019–1042.Crossref, Google Scholar