• Like
Witmeur and Fayolle - Growth configurations - AoM2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Witmeur and Fayolle - Growth configurations - AoM2010

  • 551 views
Published

Support for one reserach Paper presented durin the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management

Support for one reserach Paper presented durin the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management

Published in Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
551
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DEVELOPPING AND TESTING A TYPOLOGY OF GROWTH STRATEGIES: A CONFIGURATIONAL APPROACH Olivier Witmeur (B), Solvay Brussels School, Université libre de Bruxelles Alain Fayolle (F), EM Lyon Academy of Management Annual Meeting ENT Division – Paper Session 1307 Montreal, Augustus 10th, 2010
  • 2. Agenda
    • Context and Objectives
    • Research Design & Methods
    • Findings
    • Data Analysis & Discussion
    • Conclusions
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 3. 1. Context and objectives
  • 4. What do we know about growth?
    • Quite a lot with multiple approaches…
    • … but lack of integration, low connection with theory, need to be more longitudinal.
      • (e.g. Davidsson, Delmar & Wiklund, 2006; Garnsey, Stam & Hefferman, 2006)
    • Focus on growth measurement rather than mode.
            • (McKelvey & Wiklund, 2010)
    • Growth is multidimentional and complex.
    • Unability to explain heterogeneity in growth patterns even if we know they are not idosyncratic.
            • (Delmar, Gartner & Davidsson , 2003; Levie & Lichtenstein , 2010)
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 5. The configurational approach as a solution?
    • The configurational approach is quite old.
    • (e..g. Mintzberg , 1978; Miller & Friesen, 1984; Miller, 1986)
    • It has almost been abandoned during one decade. (Miller, 1996)
    • It has been regularly advocated and is now adopted by multiple entrepreneurship scholars.
    • (e.g. Dess, Lumpkin & Covin, 1997; Bantel, 1998, Heirman & Clarysse, 2004; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005, Harms, Krauss & Schwartz, 2009)
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 6. About ‘configurations’ (e..g. Miller , 1981-1986; Miller & Mintzberg, 1983 ; Ketchen, Thomas & Snow, 1993)
    • Configuration = coherent, commonly occurring cluster of attributes related to strategy, organizational structure and environment.
    • Existence of a minimum level of fit between the attributes
    • Supposed to be stable over time and associated with ‘second-order’ change when modified (Levy , 1986)
    • Strengths of the configurational approach:
      • Restriction of the scope of analysis to a limited number of coherent configurations rather than reviewing all possibilities
      • Integrated system with static & dynamic view
    • 2 methodological options: Taxonomy ‘vs’ Typology
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 7. About ‘typologies’
    • Typologies are theoretically deducted.
    • “ Typologies are based on a unique form of theory building that is intuitively appealing and holds considerable promise for helping management researchers to understand complex, holistic phenomenon […]” Doty & Glick (1994, p.248)
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 8. Objectives of the paper
    • Challenge the relevance of the configurational approach
    • Developing and testing one typology of growth strategies (or modes)
    • Exploratory paper
    • Longitudinal
    • Qualitative
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 9. 2. Research Design & Method
  • 10. Experimental setting: IT ventures
    • Entrepreneurial IT service firms (EISF)
    • Entrepreneurial Software Ventures (ESV)
    • Typical growth options (adapted from Ansoff, 1965/1988; Robert, 2003) :
      • Internationalisation
      • Offering diversification
      • Focus
    • In addition: Product- and/or Service- business model ( Nambisan, 2001)
      • IT Consulting
      • Software Products
      • Mixed business models
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 11. Design of the research AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 12. Building the typology AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 13. The case method AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology Time ordered matrix
  • 14. 3. Findings
  • 15. The typology uses 23 items to describe 6 constructs that are typical to entrepreneurship
    • Entrepeneur(s):
      • Management experience
      • Technical experience
      • Willingness to grow
    • Activities:
      • R&D
      • Service delivery
      • Indirect sales
      • Direct sales
    • Resources:
      • Self financing
      • External investors
      • Middle management
      • Senior management
      • IP
    • Organization:
      • Central decision making
      • Formalization
      • Vertical specialization
      • Horizontal specialization
      • Company size
    • Environment:
      • Type of customers
      • Pattern of conditions change
      • Competition intensity
    • Strategy:
      • Deepening / Focus
      • Offering diversification
      • Internationalization
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 16. The typology includes 7 ideal-types
    • Service firms:
      • S1= The Expert
      • S2= Local Player
      • S3= Diversified Firm
    • Software firms:
      • P0= The Lab
      • P1= The Workshop
      • P2= The Specialist
      • P3= The Reference
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 17.  
  • 18. The 4 cases allow for the analysis of 15 configurations AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology A1 A2 A3 + F1 C1 C2 C3 M1 M2 M3 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
  • 19. 4. Data Analysis & Discussion
  • 20. Comparing the ideal-types and the configurations 1/2
    • Step 1: Coding using a scoring gridline
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 21. AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 22. Comparing the Ideal Types and the Configurations 2/2
    • Step 2: Calculating ‘differences’
      • Between ideal types
      • Between successive configurations
      • Bertween ideal-type and configurations
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 23.  
  • 24. Ideal-types vs configurations AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 25. Main findings
    • Possibility to isolate ideal types (theorical) and stable configurations (empirical)
    • Significant differences between idealtypes, i.e. between:
      • Supposed successive ideal types
      • Same stage but different business model orientation
    • Significant differences between successive configurations for each firm
    • Many configurations ‘fit’ with one ideal type …
    • … except when firms changed their business model (unstable ‘hybrid’ configurations)
    • Growth patterns appeared
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 26. Stylized Growth Patterns AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology P0 P1 P3 P2 S1 S3 S2 A1 A2 A3 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 C1 C2 C3 M1 M2 M3
  • 27. Limitations
    • Typology development method
    • Typical issues associated with the case method: sampling, reinterpretation, theoretical saturation?
    • Retrospective and long observation period  Nothing about incremental changes
    • No consideration for growth through acquisition
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 28. 5. Conclusions
  • 29. Future research
    • Grounded typology
      • e.g. recoding the material from the cases
    • Correlation between ‘fit’ and performance
      • is (theoretically) assumed but not tested here
    • Combining typological and taxonomical works
    • Other industry
    • Further work on the processes that drive configuration changes
      • i.e. the complementarities between configuration- and process- approaches
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 30. Explaining configuration changes…
    • … was not the purpose of the research but …
    • … we speculate that it can be analyzed as a multi-motor process. (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995)
      • Where:
      • Market acceptance (Evolutionary)
      • Investor acceptance (Evolutionary)
      • Willingness to grow (Dialectical)
      • Organizational structuring (Staged)
      • Strategic planning (Teleological)
      • … seem to be the dominant processes.
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology
  • 31. Main implications AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology Relevance of the configuration approach to deal with the complexity of growth Typology Development + Test Conditions and implications of different growth strategies for EISF and ESV
  • 32. Thank you! Q&A
    • Olivier Witmeur
      • [email_address]
    • Alain Fayolle
      • [email_address]
    AoM 2010 - Witmeur & Fayolle - Growth Configurations Typology