Refine
Document Type
- Journal article (25)
- Conference proceeding (13)
- Working Paper (4)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (44)
Institute
- ESB Business School (44)
Publisher
- MIT Center for Information Systems Research (17)
- Association for Information Systems (10)
- The Kelley School of Business, Indiana University (4)
- MIT (3)
- Hochschule Reutlingen (2)
- Curran Associates Inc. (1)
- Harvard Business School (1)
- Harvard Business School Publishing (1)
- MFG Stiftung Baden-Württemberg (1)
- Springer (1)
As businesses grow and diversify, they almost inevitably make their range of offerings more complex. Complexity brings costs - but smart use of today’s digital technologies can help companies finesse the trade-offs between complexity´s costs and benefits. Imagine a retailer that has 10 million products and hundreds of variations for each product yet keeps it simple for customers to make a choice. Impossible? Not today. Amazon.com Inc. creates value from its product complexity with simple customer-facing processes, such as search, ratings, reviews and suggestions. Now imagine a diversified high-tech company with locally differentiated products in 60 categories in more than 100 different countries. A mess of internal processes and systems? Not necessarily. Royal Philips creates value by providing locally relevant products to different markets, while keeping the vast majority of its processes standardized on digitized platforms. Until now, managing business complexity has usually involved a trade-off. This trade-off forced companies to compromise between creating value from complexity and benefiting from the efficiencies of simplicity. As businesses entered new geographies, developed new products, opened new channels and added more granular customer segments, they made their offerings more complex with the intention of adding value. But, as an almost inevitable consequence, companies also made it more difficult for customers to interact with the company and more unwieldy for employees to get things done. However, with today´s increased digitization, companies can finesse this trade-off; they can increase valueadding complexity in their product offerings while keeping processes for customers and employees simple. Our research suggests that companies operating in this "complexity sweet spot" outperform their competitors on profitability. In this article, we explain how companies achieve this breakthrough in the digital world.
By integrating its previously separate insurance, banking and investment products around customer life events (e.g., buying a car, getting married or buying a house), USAA is able to deliver a superior customer experience. To achieve the integration, USAA had to re-architect its business by redesigning structures, roles, incentives, processes and IT systems. The USAA case provides four principles for architecting a business to provide superior customer experience, which will become increasingly important in the digital economy.
The digital economy has created intense demands for innovations. Companies are responding in part by creating new digital products and services to meet increasing customer expectations.
MIT CISR findings indicate that product variety is NOT directly related to firm performance, and IS related to increased difficulties for costumers and employees.
Recent MIT CISR research found that an obsessive focus on innovation is a characteristic of CIOs of top-performing firms. There are now more ways than ever that a firm can be disrupted by and disruptive with digital innovations. Indeed, a growing number of firms and individuals are using increasingly powerful digital technologies and figuring out ways to develop better products and services, better customer and employee experiences, and new business models. The new digital imperative is to compete with more types of digital innovations - and IT units must refine approaches to producing them. Based on an in-depth caste study, this briefing takes a look at how German car manufacturer AUDI AG has expanded its portfolio of digital innovations.
The MIT Center for Information Systems Research surveyed 255 executives in 2015 to investigate how companies are managing business complexity. This report details the findings from our analysis of the survey data:
1. Some product complexity adds value, some does not. Specifically, companies with more links (aka integration) in their product and service portfolio are higher performing. - 2. Product variety makes it more difficult for costumers and employees to get things done. These customers and employee difficulties impair a company's performance. - 3. Companies that excel at making it easy for employees and customers to get things done differentiate themselves by applying a set of complexity management practices around enterprise architecture, role reconfiguration, and the use of metrics and incentive systems.
Based on these findings, we recommend that companies make product complexity a strategic chois, invest in the abovementioned complexity management practices, and use costumer and employee dfficulties as key metrics for product innovation.
The proliferation of convergence of digital technologies SMACIT (social, mobile, analytics, cloud, and Internet of Things) has created significant threats and opportunities to established companies. Business leaders must rethink their business strategies and develop what we refer to as a digital strategy. Our research shows four keys to successfully defining and executing a digital strategy:
1. zeroing in on a customer engagement or digitized solutions strategy to guide the transformation, 2. building operational excellence, 3. creating a powerful digital services backbone to facilitate rapid innovation and responsiveness, and 4. ensuring ongoing organizational redesign. A list of publications from the research is provided at the end of this document.
In 2016, German car manufacturer the Audi Group (AUDI AG) was working on an expanding array of digital innovations. The goals of these innovations varied, and included strengthening customer- and employee-facing processes, digitally enhancing existing products, and developing new, potentially disruptive business models. Audi's IT unit was critical to each of these efforts. This case examines the different ways in which digitization can help to enhance and transform an organization's processes, products, and business models. The case also highlights the challenges that may arise as organizations attempt to expand and diversify their portfolio of digital innovations.
In its 100+ years of company history, IBM reinvented itself multiple times. In the last 20 years, IBM had shifted from individual products to integrated solutions and moved to become a globally integrated enterprise with standardized processes. In 2014, the expanding adoption of social, mobile, analytics, and cloud (SMAC) technologies generated excitement in the industry. IBM believed these technologies presented a huge growth opportunity. Simultaneously, management viewed SMAC technologies as disruptive forces demanding transformative changes to how IBM worked. And introducing new ways of working to 400,000 employees in 175 countries was a daunting task.
Based on personal interviews with 17 IBM business and IT executives, the case illustrates organizational challenges of introducing current technologies that even providers of these technologies face – in other words, when they “eat their own cooking.” It demonstrates the difficulties large companies face when implementing technologies that students use daily and take for granted.
The digital economy poses existential threats to — and game-changing opportunities for — companies that were successful in the pre-digital economy. What will distinguish those companies that successfully transform from those that become historical footnotes? This is the question a group of six researchers and consultants from Boston Consulting Group set out to examine. The team conducted in-depth interviews with senior executives at twenty-seven companies in different industries to explore the strategies and organizational initiatives they relied on to seize the opportunities associated with new, readily accessible digital technologies. This paper summarizes findings from this research and offers recommendations to business leaders responsible for digital business success.
Started as a mono-line focused purely on savings, in late 2012 ING Direct Spain was becoming a full-service bank. To this end, the bank had substantially increased its product- and channel-portfolio. ING Direct Spain originally provided "simple", "good value for money" products in an "easy to deal with" way at low cost supported by a direct model. But with the growth in its product portfolio during the previous decade and the ambitious goal of becoming a full-service bank, an increase in complexity seemed inevitable. Like many businesses in the global, digital economy, ING Direct Spain found it needed to decide which complexity created value for its customers and which one not. It also learned that IT can contribute to complexity and/or help manage complexity.
This case offers a close look at challenges of growing a company by increasing product complexity to provide comprehensive yet simple services.
As "the most international company on earth", DHL Express promised to deliver packages between almost any pair of countries within a defined time-frame. To fulfill this promise, the company had introduced a set of global business and technology standards. While standardization had many advantages (improving service for multinational customers, faster response to changes in import/export regulations, sharing of best practices etc.), it created impediments to local innovation and responsiveness in DHL Express' network of 220 countries/territories. Reconciling standardization-innovation tradeoffs is a critical management issue for global companies in the digital economy.
This case describes one large, successful company's approach to the tradeoff of standardization versus innovation.
Executive education in IS is under the scrutiny of many institution for the potential to bring in financial revenues. However teaching executives can be a very challenging task because of the previous experiences, variation in their previous education, and multiplicity of motivations for pursuing a continuous education. The panel aims at sharing successful experiences and highlighting challenges of dealing with executive audiences. The panel will present the results of a large survey among executive students and identify the three most significant elements emerged from the survey: the importance of theory that is actionable, the importance of varied pedagogical tools and practices, and the importance of relevance beyond practical tools. Based on a survey that will be distributed to the audience at the beginning of the panel, the audience will be actively engaged in sharing their experiences on the three topics aiming at capitalize and sum up the collective knowledge of the room.
IOS 2.0 : new aspects on inter-organizational integration through enterprise 2.0 technologies
(2015)
This special theme of „Electronic Markets“ focuses on research concerned with the use of social technologies and "2.0" principles in the interaction between organization (i.e., with "inter-organizational systems (IOS) 2.0"). This theme falls within the larger space of Enterprise 2.0 research, but focuses in particular on inter-organizational use (between enterprises), not intra-organizational use (in a single enterprise). While there is great interest in practice regarding the use of 2.0 technologies to support intra-organizational communication, collaboration and interaction, information systems (IS) research has largely been oblivious to this important use of social technologies.
In 2013, Royal Philips was two years into a daunting transformation. Following declining financial performance, CEO Frans van Houten aimed to turn the Dutch icon into a "high-performing Company" by 2017. This case study examines the challenges of the business-driven IT transformation at Royal Philips, a diversified technology company. The case discusses three crucial issues. First, the case reflects on Philips’ aim at creating value from combining locally relevant products and services while also leveraging its global scale and scope. Rewarded and unrewarded business complexity is analyzed. Second, the case identifies the need to design and align multiple elements of an enterprise (organizational, cultural, technical) to balance local responsiveness with global scale. Third, the case explains the role of IT (as an asset instead of a liability) in Philips’ transformation and discusses the new IT landscape with its digital platforms, and the new practices to create effective business-IT partnerships.
The use of digital, IT-based components in physical products is becoming increasingly relevant in practice. Surprisingly, the strategic impact of these "digitized products" has not received a lot of attention in IS research so far. Extant papers on the topic rely on ambiguous terminology (e.g., "smart products", "cyber-physical systems", "digital product-service systems") and underlying concepts differ widely. Based on an extensive literature review, this article provides an overview of the different terms and identifies five conceptual elements that form the building blocks of digitized products in research: "hybridity" (i.e., the combination of digital and physical components), connectivity, smartness, digitized product-service bundles (servitization of digitized products), and digitized product ecosystems. The implication for practitioners is that each element comes with different managerial challenges that companies need to address when incorporating the respective element in their products. The research implication is that each conceptual element is supported by different theoretical streams.
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.
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.
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.
IT platforms as the foundation of digitized processes and products are vital in a digital economy. However, many companies’ platforms are liabilities, not strategic assets because of their complexity. Consequently, companies initiate IT complexity reduction programs. But these technology-centric programs at best provide temporary relief. Soon after, companies’ platforms become just as complex as before. Based on four case studies, we identify three non-technical drivers of platform complexity: (1) Lacking awareness of consequences business decisions have on platform complexity, (2) Lacking motivation to avoid platform complexity, (3) Lacking authority to protect platforms from complexity. We propose measures to address these drivers that can help achieve more sustainable impact on platform complexity: (1) Removing information asymmetries between those creating complexity and those dealing with complexity, (2) Redefining incentives to include long-term effects on platform complexity, (3) Redressing power imbalances between those who create complexity and those who have to manage it.
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.