IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v55y2018i7p1278-1316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit

Author

Listed:
  • Yuliya Snihur
  • Llewellyn D. W. Thomas
  • Robert A. Burgelman

Abstract

Based on a longitudinal case study, this paper presents an ecosystem‐level process model of the interlocking key activities of the business model disruptor, other ecosystem participants (customers, partners, media, analysts), and the incumbent. Together these constitute a strategic process of ecosystem evolution from incumbent‐centred to disruptor‐centred. We identify the phenomenon of a ‘disruptor's gambit’, where the disruptor reveals its intentions early on through effective framing, followed by rapid adaptation of its business model to satisfy ecosystem needs. These processes generate a virtuous framing‐adaptation cycle, where feed‐forward and feedback enable rapid response to customers and partners, while engaging them as force multipliers during new ecosystem creation. Our findings suggest that framing constitutes a dynamic strategic process enabling disruptors to reduce uncertainty, dislodge powerful incumbents, and shape new ecosystems through business model innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:55:y:2018:i:7:p:1278-1316
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.12343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12343
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.12343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    2. Shon R. Hiatt & Jake B. Grandy & Brandon H. Lee, 2015. "Organizational Responses to Public and Private Politics: An Analysis of Climate Change Activists and U.S. Oil and Gas Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1769-1786, December.
    3. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & Eric Yanfei Zhao & Greg Fisher & Michael Lounsbury & Danny Miller, 2017. "Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 93-113, January.
    4. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    5. Jonathan Wareham & Paul B. Fox & Josep Lluís Cano Giner, 2014. "Technology Ecosystem Governance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1195-1215, August.
    6. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    7. Andrea Mantovani & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2016. "Equilibrium Innovation Ecosystems: The Dark Side of Collaborating with Complementors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(2), pages 534-549, February.
    8. Doganova, Liliana & Eyquem-Renault, Marie, 2009. "What do business models do?: Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1559-1570, December.
    9. Hayagreeva Rao, 1994. "The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 29-44, December.
    10. Clark G. Gilbert, 2006. "Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 150-167, February.
    11. Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari & Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 2016. "The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1829-1853, September.
    12. C. Marlene Fiol, 2002. "Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational Identities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 653-666, December.
    13. Simona Giorgi, 2017. "The Mind and Heart of Resonance: The Role of Cognition and Emotions in Frame Effectiveness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 711-738, July.
    14. Robert A Burgelman, 2011. "Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal qualitative research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 42(5), pages 591-601, June.
    15. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Burgelman, Robert A. & Grove, Andrew S., 2007. "Cross-Boundary Disruptors: Powerful Inter-Industry Entrepreneurial Change Agents," Research Papers 1978, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    18. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 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, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    19. Andreea N. Kiss & Pamela S. Barr, 2015. "New venture strategic adaptation: The interplay of belief structures and industry context," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(8), pages 1245-1263, August.
    20. Burgelman, Robert A., 2011. "Bridging History and Reductionism: A Key Role for Longitudinal Qualitative Research," Research Papers 2045r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Van Dyck, Marc & Lüttgens, Dirk & Diener, Kathleen & Piller, Frank & Pollok, Patrick, 2024. "From product to platform: How incumbents' assumptions and choices shape their platform strategy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    2. Sandip Mukhopadhyay & Jason Whalley, 2022. "The emergence and evolution of a disruptive platform ecosystem: evidence from the Indian mobile services industry," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 669-686, June.
    3. Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari & Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 2016. "The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1829-1853, September.
    4. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    5. Petzold, Neele & Schmidt, Alexander Lennart & Scaringella, Laurent, 2023. "How to overcome the disruptor's dilemma: Exploring strategic alliance reconfiguration of new market entrants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    7. Godart, Frédéric & Pistilli, Luca, 2024. "The multifaceted concept of disruption: A typology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Thomas, Llewellyn D.W. & Autio, Erkko & Gann, David M., 2022. "Processes of ecosystem emergence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Jacqueline Mees-Buss & Catherine Welch & D. Eleanor Westney, 2019. "What happened to the transnational? The emergence of the neo-global corporation," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(9), pages 1513-1543, December.
    11. Eero Vaara & Juha-Antti Lamberg, 2016. "Taking historical embeddedness seriously : Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research," Post-Print hal-02276732, HAL.
    12. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    13. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    14. Saeed Khanagha & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari & Sotirios Paroutis & Luciano Oviedo, 2022. "Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of Cisco and fog computing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 476-506, March.
    15. Younger, Shannon & Fisher, Greg, 2020. "The exemplar enigma: New venture image formation in an emergent organizational category," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    16. Matsuo, Kenji, 2022. "When a dominant CEO hinders exploration in a firm: A longitudinal case study from Japan," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 143-154.
    17. Jean‐François Soublière & Christi Lockwood, 2022. "Achieving cultural resonance: Four strategies toward rallying support for entrepreneurial endeavors," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1499-1527, August.
    18. Constantinides, Panos & Slavova, Mira, 2020. "From a monopoly to an entrepreneurial field: The constitution of possibilities in South African energy," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(6).
    19. Lijie Feng & Jiarui Lu & Jinfeng Wang, 2021. "A Systematic Review of Enterprise Innovation Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-26, May.
    20. Reischauer, Georg & Engelmann, Alexander & Gawer, Annabelle & Hoffmann, Werner H., 2024. "The slipstream strategy: How high-status OEMs coopete with platforms to maintain their digital extensions' edge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(7).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:55:y:2018:i:7:p:1278-1316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.