Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (5) (remove)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Has full text
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Institute
Royal Philip's goal was to use innovation to improve the lives of three billion people a year by 2025. To reach that goal, the company was shifting from selling medical products in a transactional manner to providing integrated healthcare solutions based on digital health technology ("HealthTech").
This shift required a dual transformation. On one hand, the company needed to transform how healthcare was conducted. Healthcare professionals would have to change the way they worked and reimbursement schemes needed to change to incentivize payers, providers, and patients in vastly different ways. On the other hand, Philips needed to redesign how it worked internally. The company componentized its business, introduced digital platforms, and co-created solutions with the various stakeholders of the healthcare industry.
In other words: Royal Philips was transforming itself in order to reinvent healthcare in the digital age.
AUDI AG has historically focused on producing and selling premium vehicles but has begun to experiment with providing mobility services, built around car sharing. Its response to the so-called sharing economy addressed strategic and transformational challenges. Strategically, the company pursued additional sources of revenue from targeted, premium mobility services, rather than the less segmented services provided by competitors such as BMW and Zipcar. AUDI AG also transformed its organizational structure, processes and architecture to balance autonomy for innovation and integration for competitiveness.
New digital technologies present both game-changing opportunities for—and existential threats to—companies whose success was built in the pre-digital economy. This article describes our findings from a study of 25 companies that were embarking on digital transformation journeys. We identified two digital strategies—customer engagement and digitized solutions—that provide direction for a digital transformation. Two technology-enabled assets are essential for executing those strategies: an operational backbone and a digital services platform. We describe how a big old company can combine these elements to navigate its digital transformation.
The modern industrial corporation encompasses a myriad of different software applications, each of which must work in concert to deliver functionality to end-users. However, the increasingly complex and dynamic nature of competition in today’s product-markets dictates that this software portfolio be continually evolved and adapted, in order to meet new business challenges. This ability – to rapidly update, improve, remove, replace, and reimagine the software applications that underpin a firm’s competitive position – is at the heart of what has been called IT agility. Unfortunately, little work has examined the antecedents of IT agility, with respect to the choices a firm makes when designing its “Software Portfolio Architecture.”
We address this gap in the literature by exploring the relationship between software portfolio architecture and IT agility at the level of the individual applications in the architecture. In particular, we draw from modular systems theory to develop a series of hypotheses about how different types of coupling impact the ability to update, remove or replace the software applications in a firm’s portfolio. We test our hypotheses using longitudinal data from a large financial services firm, comprising over 1,000 applications and over 3,000 dependencies between them. Our methods allow us to disentangle the effects of different types and levels of coupling.
Our analysis reveals that applications with higher levels of coupling cost more to update, are harder to remove, and are harder to replace, than those with lower coupling. The measures of coupling that best explain differences in IT agility include all indirect dependencies between software applications (i.e., they include coupling and dependency relationships that are not easily visible to the system architect). Our results reveal the critical importance of software portfolio design decisions, in developing a portfolio of applications that can evolve and adapt over time.
THE PROBLEM: Companies create problems for customers and employees when product innovation goes unmanaged. Eventually, excessive operational complexity hurts the bottom line.
THREE SOLUTIONS: Focus on product integration, not product proliferation. Make sure your product developers work closely with customerfacing and operational employees. And settle on a high-level purpose that can guide decision making.