Assessment of organizational agility in response to disruptive innovation: a case of an engineering services firm
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework to manage the strategy to counter disruptive innovation by identifying stronger attributes and key strategic areas for improvements in an engineering services context with less freedom to orchestrate product innovation. The authors also val...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of organizational analysis (2005) 2022-12, Vol.30 (6), p.1465-1465 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1465 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1465 |
container_title | International journal of organizational analysis (2005) |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Vasanthan, Perinbanathan Suresh, M. |
description | Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework to manage the strategy to counter disruptive innovation by identifying stronger attributes and key strategic areas for improvements in an engineering services context with less freedom to orchestrate product innovation. The authors also validate the combined use of multi-grade fuzzy, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and gap analysis in developing the strategy to mitigate turbulence.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper presents a framework using a combination of Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility to develop the strategy. The study uses data gathered from a 60-member engineering project team working on an Aircraft Engine Controller design to identify 50 attributes and the related importance and performance ratings. The research study is designed using a three-tier approach. First, multi-grade fuzzy is utilized to measure the overall firm response agility index. In the second step, the IPA is used to analyze the strength and weaknesses of the firm and to identify the attributes where the firm needs to focus. In the past step, gap analysis is used to prioritize the identified attributes. The findings are validated by panel discussions with a different group of experts from the project team and action points were arrived at.
Findings
This research work finds that the firms’ response agility index of 6.97 is comparable to that of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) from previous literature, but still needs a better agility score to effectively counter turbulence from disruptive innovations. It also identifies seven key areas for improvement and their relative priority to effectively improve the response agility by utilizing the least number of resources, the reasons for the gap and the mitigation strategy to close the gap. The findings highlight a few key differences between an engineering services firm in comparison to OEMs and Software Services firms.
Practical implications
The findings help the practitioners with a comparative agility score of an engineering services firm, and an effective way of measuring agility, identify key focus areas and prioritize the actions using a simple set of data that could be collected regularly to keep track of the improvements. The provided strategic framework to improve the agility score can be used for continuous improvement.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the existing literature by developing a framework for outsourcing serv |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2431 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_IJOA-09-2020-2431</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2746906217</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2b2cae92bebf5b8b28b964cf961b4015434bd04de4745d97a9688738e5ff8b9e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkU1LxDAQhosouK7-AG8Bz9V8tUm8LYufLOxFzyFtpyVLm-wm3YX115u6XgRPMzDPOzDPZNktwfeEYPnw9r5e5FjlFFOcU87IWTYjopC5LEpynnrFeC4lKy6zqxg3GBdCSDHLdosYIcYB3Ih8i3zojLNfZrTemR6ZzvZ2PCLrUIC49S4CGj1qbAz77WgPkCbOH37wR2RQbRKQ1hiHwHXWAQTrOhQhHGwNEbU2DNfZRWv6CDe_dZ59Pj99LF_z1frlbblY5TUjfMxpRWsDilZQtUUlKyorVfK6VSWpOCYFZ7xqMG-AC140ShhVSimYhKJtEwpsnt2d9m6D3-0hjnrj9yFdFTUVvFS4pEQkipyoOvgYA7R6G-xgwlETrCezejKrsdKTWT2ZTRl8ysAAwfTNv5E_z2DfeMl8Yg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2746906217</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of organizational agility in response to disruptive innovation: a case of an engineering services firm</title><source>Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection</source><creator>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan ; Suresh, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan ; Suresh, M.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework to manage the strategy to counter disruptive innovation by identifying stronger attributes and key strategic areas for improvements in an engineering services context with less freedom to orchestrate product innovation. The authors also validate the combined use of multi-grade fuzzy, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and gap analysis in developing the strategy to mitigate turbulence.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper presents a framework using a combination of Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility to develop the strategy. The study uses data gathered from a 60-member engineering project team working on an Aircraft Engine Controller design to identify 50 attributes and the related importance and performance ratings. The research study is designed using a three-tier approach. First, multi-grade fuzzy is utilized to measure the overall firm response agility index. In the second step, the IPA is used to analyze the strength and weaknesses of the firm and to identify the attributes where the firm needs to focus. In the past step, gap analysis is used to prioritize the identified attributes. The findings are validated by panel discussions with a different group of experts from the project team and action points were arrived at.
Findings
This research work finds that the firms’ response agility index of 6.97 is comparable to that of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) from previous literature, but still needs a better agility score to effectively counter turbulence from disruptive innovations. It also identifies seven key areas for improvement and their relative priority to effectively improve the response agility by utilizing the least number of resources, the reasons for the gap and the mitigation strategy to close the gap. The findings highlight a few key differences between an engineering services firm in comparison to OEMs and Software Services firms.
Practical implications
The findings help the practitioners with a comparative agility score of an engineering services firm, and an effective way of measuring agility, identify key focus areas and prioritize the actions using a simple set of data that could be collected regularly to keep track of the improvements. The provided strategic framework to improve the agility score can be used for continuous improvement.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the existing literature by developing a framework for outsourcing services companies to cope with the turbulence by using dynamic capabilities and organizational agility. It also adds to the literature by extending the validity of IPA and gap analysis in making strategic decisions in an industrial set-up.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1934-8835</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-8561</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1934-8835</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2431</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Aircraft ; Artificial intelligence ; Competitive advantage ; Disruptive innovation ; Engineering firms ; Information technology ; Internet of Things ; Manufacturing ; OEM ; Product development ; Technological change</subject><ispartof>International journal of organizational analysis (2005), 2022-12, Vol.30 (6), p.1465-1465</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2b2cae92bebf5b8b28b964cf961b4015434bd04de4745d97a9688738e5ff8b9e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2b2cae92bebf5b8b28b964cf961b4015434bd04de4745d97a9688738e5ff8b9e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2431/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21695,27924,27925,53244</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suresh, M.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of organizational agility in response to disruptive innovation: a case of an engineering services firm</title><title>International journal of organizational analysis (2005)</title><description>Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework to manage the strategy to counter disruptive innovation by identifying stronger attributes and key strategic areas for improvements in an engineering services context with less freedom to orchestrate product innovation. The authors also validate the combined use of multi-grade fuzzy, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and gap analysis in developing the strategy to mitigate turbulence.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper presents a framework using a combination of Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility to develop the strategy. The study uses data gathered from a 60-member engineering project team working on an Aircraft Engine Controller design to identify 50 attributes and the related importance and performance ratings. The research study is designed using a three-tier approach. First, multi-grade fuzzy is utilized to measure the overall firm response agility index. In the second step, the IPA is used to analyze the strength and weaknesses of the firm and to identify the attributes where the firm needs to focus. In the past step, gap analysis is used to prioritize the identified attributes. The findings are validated by panel discussions with a different group of experts from the project team and action points were arrived at.
Findings
This research work finds that the firms’ response agility index of 6.97 is comparable to that of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) from previous literature, but still needs a better agility score to effectively counter turbulence from disruptive innovations. It also identifies seven key areas for improvement and their relative priority to effectively improve the response agility by utilizing the least number of resources, the reasons for the gap and the mitigation strategy to close the gap. The findings highlight a few key differences between an engineering services firm in comparison to OEMs and Software Services firms.
Practical implications
The findings help the practitioners with a comparative agility score of an engineering services firm, and an effective way of measuring agility, identify key focus areas and prioritize the actions using a simple set of data that could be collected regularly to keep track of the improvements. The provided strategic framework to improve the agility score can be used for continuous improvement.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the existing literature by developing a framework for outsourcing services companies to cope with the turbulence by using dynamic capabilities and organizational agility. It also adds to the literature by extending the validity of IPA and gap analysis in making strategic decisions in an industrial set-up.</description><subject>Aircraft</subject><subject>Artificial intelligence</subject><subject>Competitive advantage</subject><subject>Disruptive innovation</subject><subject>Engineering firms</subject><subject>Information technology</subject><subject>Internet of Things</subject><subject>Manufacturing</subject><subject>OEM</subject><subject>Product development</subject><subject>Technological change</subject><issn>1934-8835</issn><issn>1758-8561</issn><issn>1934-8835</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptkU1LxDAQhosouK7-AG8Bz9V8tUm8LYufLOxFzyFtpyVLm-wm3YX115u6XgRPMzDPOzDPZNktwfeEYPnw9r5e5FjlFFOcU87IWTYjopC5LEpynnrFeC4lKy6zqxg3GBdCSDHLdosYIcYB3Ih8i3zojLNfZrTemR6ZzvZ2PCLrUIC49S4CGj1qbAz77WgPkCbOH37wR2RQbRKQ1hiHwHXWAQTrOhQhHGwNEbU2DNfZRWv6CDe_dZ59Pj99LF_z1frlbblY5TUjfMxpRWsDilZQtUUlKyorVfK6VSWpOCYFZ7xqMG-AC140ShhVSimYhKJtEwpsnt2d9m6D3-0hjnrj9yFdFTUVvFS4pEQkipyoOvgYA7R6G-xgwlETrCezejKrsdKTWT2ZTRl8ysAAwfTNv5E_z2DfeMl8Yg</recordid><startdate>20221207</startdate><enddate>20221207</enddate><creator>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan</creator><creator>Suresh, M.</creator><general>Emerald Publishing Limited</general><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221207</creationdate><title>Assessment of organizational agility in response to disruptive innovation: a case of an engineering services firm</title><author>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan ; Suresh, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-2b2cae92bebf5b8b28b964cf961b4015434bd04de4745d97a9688738e5ff8b9e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aircraft</topic><topic>Artificial intelligence</topic><topic>Competitive advantage</topic><topic>Disruptive innovation</topic><topic>Engineering firms</topic><topic>Information technology</topic><topic>Internet of Things</topic><topic>Manufacturing</topic><topic>OEM</topic><topic>Product development</topic><topic>Technological change</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suresh, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>International journal of organizational analysis (2005)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vasanthan, Perinbanathan</au><au>Suresh, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of organizational agility in response to disruptive innovation: a case of an engineering services firm</atitle><jtitle>International journal of organizational analysis (2005)</jtitle><date>2022-12-07</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1465</spage><epage>1465</epage><pages>1465-1465</pages><issn>1934-8835</issn><eissn>1758-8561</eissn><eissn>1934-8835</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework to manage the strategy to counter disruptive innovation by identifying stronger attributes and key strategic areas for improvements in an engineering services context with less freedom to orchestrate product innovation. The authors also validate the combined use of multi-grade fuzzy, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) and gap analysis in developing the strategy to mitigate turbulence.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper presents a framework using a combination of Dynamic Capabilities and Organizational Agility to develop the strategy. The study uses data gathered from a 60-member engineering project team working on an Aircraft Engine Controller design to identify 50 attributes and the related importance and performance ratings. The research study is designed using a three-tier approach. First, multi-grade fuzzy is utilized to measure the overall firm response agility index. In the second step, the IPA is used to analyze the strength and weaknesses of the firm and to identify the attributes where the firm needs to focus. In the past step, gap analysis is used to prioritize the identified attributes. The findings are validated by panel discussions with a different group of experts from the project team and action points were arrived at.
Findings
This research work finds that the firms’ response agility index of 6.97 is comparable to that of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) from previous literature, but still needs a better agility score to effectively counter turbulence from disruptive innovations. It also identifies seven key areas for improvement and their relative priority to effectively improve the response agility by utilizing the least number of resources, the reasons for the gap and the mitigation strategy to close the gap. The findings highlight a few key differences between an engineering services firm in comparison to OEMs and Software Services firms.
Practical implications
The findings help the practitioners with a comparative agility score of an engineering services firm, and an effective way of measuring agility, identify key focus areas and prioritize the actions using a simple set of data that could be collected regularly to keep track of the improvements. The provided strategic framework to improve the agility score can be used for continuous improvement.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the existing literature by developing a framework for outsourcing services companies to cope with the turbulence by using dynamic capabilities and organizational agility. It also adds to the literature by extending the validity of IPA and gap analysis in making strategic decisions in an industrial set-up.</abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2431</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1934-8835 |
ispartof | International journal of organizational analysis (2005), 2022-12, Vol.30 (6), p.1465-1465 |
issn | 1934-8835 1758-8561 1934-8835 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_IJOA-09-2020-2431 |
source | Standard: Emerald eJournal Premier Collection |
subjects | Aircraft Artificial intelligence Competitive advantage Disruptive innovation Engineering firms Information technology Internet of Things Manufacturing OEM Product development Technological change |
title | Assessment of organizational agility in response to disruptive innovation: a case of an engineering services firm |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T12%3A15%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20organizational%20agility%20in%20response%20to%20disruptive%20innovation:%20a%20case%20of%20an%20engineering%20services%20firm&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20organizational%20analysis%20(2005)&rft.au=Vasanthan,%20Perinbanathan&rft.date=2022-12-07&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1465&rft.epage=1465&rft.pages=1465-1465&rft.issn=1934-8835&rft.eissn=1758-8561&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2431&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E2746906217%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2746906217&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |