Exploring the Role of Popular Management Theories for BMI Research



A theory is nothing more than a new tool to provide explanation of an empirical phenomenon or conceptional statement. Many grand theories could contribute to business model research, and they can spice up business model research by helping to look at the phenomenon from new angles. Twenty renowned theories in management science with potential for future research in exploring the field of business models are presented in this chapter. It introduces each of the theories separately in a compact format. In addition, an analysis of the business model literature that has explicitly drawn on the respective theory is presented. Ultimately, avenues for future research are proposed. In doing so, this study is amongst the first analyses that reviews the literature on business models from a theoretical perspective and, as a result, derives principal gaps in the field.


Business models Business model innovation New theoretical views Review of 20 management theories Avenues for future research Future research directions 


  1. Ahn, J., Lee, D., & Lee, S. (2006). Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development: Lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning, 39, 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American Economic Review, 62(5), 777–795.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1967). Today’s problems with tomorrow’s organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aspara, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Laukia, A., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Strategic management of business model transformation: Lessons from Nokia. Management Decision, 49(4), 622–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Axelrod, R. (1976). The structure of decision: Cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human Relations, 7(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barney, J. B. (1986a). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage ? The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barney, J. B. (1986b). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barney, J. B. (1986c). Types of competition and the theory of strategy: Toward an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 791–800.Google Scholar
  13. Barney, J. B. (1988). Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: Reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.Google Scholar
  15. Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G., & Gann, D. M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy, 43(2), 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory-the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheiten (pp. 183–198). Göttingen: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research of for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press.Google Scholar
  22. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cangelosi, V. E., & Dill, W. R. (1965). Organizational learning : Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(2), 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy process research: Focusing on corporate self-renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 414–440.Google Scholar
  30. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity : A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (2015). Absorptive capacity : A new perspective on and innovation learning, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
  32. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(S1), S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (2002). Shaping the political arena. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  34. Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.Google Scholar
  37. Danneels, E. (2006). Dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on firms and industries. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.Google Scholar
  40. Denicolai, S., Ramirez, M., & Tidd, J. (2014). Creating and capturing value from external knowledge: The moderating role of knowledge intensity. R&D Management, 44(3), 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  43. Duncan, R. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 75–123.Google Scholar
  44. Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010). Business model replication for early and rapid internationalisation: The ING direct experience. Long Range Planning, 43(5), 655–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.Google Scholar
  46. Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research, 36(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Eden, C. (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management studies, 29(3), 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Eisenhardt, M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  50. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. (2013). Imitation processes and their application for business model innovation: An explorative study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(01).Google Scholar
  52. Eppler, M. J., Hoffmann, F., & Bresciani, S. (2011). New business models through collaborative idea generation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(06), 1323–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1(1), 149–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: Where are we? Where do we go from here? Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.Google Scholar
  56. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management : A stakeholder approach. Marshfield: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Freeman, R. E. (2014). Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In W. M. Hoffman, R. E. Frederick, & M. S. Schwartz (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality (pp. 184–191). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  59. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  60. Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator: 55 models that will revolutionise your business. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd..Google Scholar
  61. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gnatzy, T., & Moser, R. (2012). Scenario development for an evolving health insurance industry in rural India: INPUT for business model innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4), 688–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1983), 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Grant, R. M. (1988). On ‘dominant logic’, relatedness and the link between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Habtay, S. R. (2012). A firm-level analysis on the relative difference between technology-driven and market-driven disruptive business model innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), 290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hall, J., & Wagner, M. (2012). Integrating sustainability into firms’ processes: Performance effects and the moderating role of business models and innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(3), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Winter), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? The Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Jawahar, I., & McLaughlin, G. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414.Google Scholar
  79. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.Google Scholar
  81. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of management journal, 15(4), 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1973). Contingency views of organization and management. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  84. Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity : Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a Cloud business model. R&D Management, 44(3), 322–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. The Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganization learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances. Organization Science, 22(6), 1517–1538.Google Scholar
  91. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967a). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967b). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1–47.Google Scholar
  94. Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lee, G., Delone, W., & Epinosa, J. A. (2006). Ambidextrous coping strategies in globally distributed software development projects. Communications of the ACM, 49, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lenox, M. J., & King, A. (2004). Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Levina, N., & Vaaste, E. (2004). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for information systems’ implementation use. Information systems working papers series, New York University, Stern School of Business & Long Island University.Google Scholar
  98. Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Malhotra, Y. (Ed.) (2000). Knowledge management and virtual organizations. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  101. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. March, J. G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  103. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  104. Markides, C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Marx, K. (2004). The role of the social context for strategy-making : Examining the impact of embeddedness on the performance of strategic initiatives. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Medcof, J. W. (2001). Resource-based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units. Strategic Management Journal, 22(11), 999–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: A stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience : Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  110. Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-ortega, L. (2010). Creation and implementation of a new business model : A disarming case study. Management, 13(4), 266–297.Google Scholar
  111. Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Moore, G. A. (2005). Strategy and your stronger hand (cover story). Harvard Bsiness Review, 83, 62–72.Google Scholar
  113. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  114. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  115. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  116. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  117. O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74-83Google Scholar
  118. O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Otley, D. T. (1980). The contingency theory of management accounting: Achievement and prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(4), 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2004). A research framework for analysing eBusiness models. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(4), 302–314.Google Scholar
  122. Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: A contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  124. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1979). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  125. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(02), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Porter, M. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Buesiness Review, 137–145.Google Scholar
  127. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and economic growth. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.Google Scholar
  130. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., & Zimmermann, A. (2015). How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organization Science, 26(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  132. Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Ruttan, V. W. (1997). Induced innovation, evolutionary theory and path dependence: Sources of technical change. The Economic Journal, 107(444), 1520–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Sánchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-income markets. European Management Review, 7(3), 138–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Schwenk, C. R. (1988). The cognitive perspective on strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 25(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior; A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  139. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.Google Scholar
  141. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.Google Scholar
  142. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (Third Edit.). London, UK: The Free Press, Collier Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  143. Simon, H. A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250(4988), 1665–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Simon, H. A. (1991). Organizations and markets. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Sydow, J., Schreyog, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. The Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Taylor, S., & Crocker, J. (1983). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. Higgens, C. Herman, & J. Zauna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  150. Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and corporate change, 3(3), 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169–183.Google Scholar
  153. Tillquist, J., King, J. L., & Woo, C. (2002). A representational scheme for analyzing information technology and organizational dependency. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1994). The influence of decision aids on choice strategies: An experimental analysis of the role of cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(1), 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Tolman, E. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 1(55), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population. The Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471–481.Google Scholar
  158. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  161. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Weber, R. (1992). On the Gittins index for multiarmed bandits. The Annals of Applied Probability, 2(4), 1024–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  164. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  166. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism : Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  169. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Winterhalter, S., Zeschky, M. B., & Gassmann, O. (2015). Managing dual business models in emerging markets: An ambidexterity perspective. R&D Management, 4, 464–479.Google Scholar
  171. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  172. Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2015). How is ambidexterity initiated? The emergent charter definition process. Organization Science, 26(4), 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and the Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Technology ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Strategic Management and EntrepreneurshipUniversity of LucerneLucerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations