IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v163y2021ics0040162520312543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

READY, STEADY, DIGITAL?! How foresight activities do (NOT) affect individual technological frames for managerial SENSEMAKING

Author

Listed:
  • Klos, Christoph
  • Spieth, Patrick

Abstract

This qualitative study explores how managers use their individual technological frames for sensemaking during technology foresight activities. Although the positive effects of technology foresight activities are well documented, there is limited research, which analyzes the influence of foresight on managerial frames for sensemaking. We lack detailed descriptions how managers sensemaking processes are influenced, since most research studies do not analyze individual technological frames before, during, and after foresight activities are conducted. This study targets this gap by analyzing managerial frames for sensemaking at three different points in time. To do so, we conducted several technology foresight workshops with participants from the German construction sector. The collected data comprises 32 in-depth interviews, 12 group discussions, and complementary records from six companies, three organizations, and two universities. The findings show that managers apply and adapt their individual technological frames during foresight activities. Technological advantages are recognized, and the managers are able to create a detailed vision of their organization's future development. However, to our surprising, the managers returned to their initial technological frames after the workshop, because the daily business life and established routines did not allow to apply the adapted sensemaking mechanisms. The study's findings offer three contribution: First, we show that managers distinguish their sensemaking in perceived sensegiving and sensebreaking during foresight activities. Second, we describe the gravitating influence of a dominating organizational frame, which leads managers to ignore the results of foresight activities. Third, we question the long-term interrelations of foresight activities and technological frames.

Suggested Citation

  • Klos, Christoph & Spieth, Patrick, 2021. "READY, STEADY, DIGITAL?! How foresight activities do (NOT) affect individual technological frames for managerial SENSEMAKING," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:163:y:2021:i:c:s0040162520312543
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520312543
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120428?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Mikalef, Patrick & Pateli, Adamantia, 2017. "Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-16.
    3. Mary J. Benner & Mary Tripsas, 2012. "The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 277-302, March.
    4. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    5. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    6. Ramírez, Rafael & Österman, Riku & Grönquist, Daniel, 2013. "Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic capabilities to frame managerial attention," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 825-838.
    7. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    8. Helfat, Constance E. & Raubitschek, Ruth S., 2018. "Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1391-1399.
    9. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2013. "Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 801-814.
    10. Georg von Krogh & Ikujiro Nonaka & Lise Rechsteiner, 2012. "Leadership in Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Review and Framework," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 240-277, January.
    11. Rohrbeck, René & Schwarz, Jan Oliver, 2013. "The value contribution of strategic foresight: Insights from an empirical study of large European companies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1593-1606.
    12. Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    13. Rohrbeck, René & Kum, Menes Etingue, 2018. "Corporate foresight and its impact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 105-116.
    14. Wu, Hang & Chen, Jin & Jiao, Hao, 2016. "Dynamic capabilities as a mediator linking international diversification and innovation performance of firms in an emerging economy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2678-2686.
    15. Constance E. Helfat & Margaret A. Peteraf, 2015. "Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 831-850, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sakellariou, Evy & Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2022. "Foresight, sensemaking, and new product development: Constructing meanings for the future," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Moqaddamerad, Sara & Ali, Murad, 2024. "Strategic foresight and business model innovation: The sequential mediating role of sensemaking and learning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. Sambo Lyson Zulu & Ali M. Saad, 2023. "A Sensemaking Perspective of Digitalisation in Construction Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.

    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. Callen Anthony & Andrew J. Nelson & Mary Tripsas, 2016. "“Who Are You?…I Really Wanna Know”: Product Meaning and Competitive Positioning in the Nascent Synthesizer Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 163-183, September.
    2. Jan Oliver Schwarz & René Rohrbeck & Bernhard Wach, 2020. "Corporate foresight as a microfoundation of dynamic capabilities," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
    3. 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.
    4. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    5. Riccardo Vecchiato & Giampiero Favato & Francesco di Maddaloni & Hang Do, 2020. "Foresight, cognition, and long‐term performance: Insights from the automotive industry and opportunities for future research," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), March.
    6. 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.
    7. Bunduchi, Raluca & Crișan-Mitra, Cătălina & Salanță, Irina-Iulia & Crișan, Emil Lucian, 2022. "Digital product innovation approaches in entrepreneurial firms – the role of entrepreneurs’ cognitive frames," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Rahul Kapoor & Daniel Wilde, 2023. "Peering into a crystal ball: Forecasting behavior and industry foresight," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 704-736, March.
    9. Mary J. Benner & Ram Ranganathan, 2017. "Measuring Up? Persistence and Change in Analysts’ Evaluative Schemas Following Technological Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 760-780, August.
    10. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    11. Engås, Karen G. & Raja, Jawwad Z. & Neufang, Isabelle Fabienne, 2023. "Decoding technological frames: An exploratory study of access to and meaningful engagement with digital technologies in agriculture," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Tim Heubeck & Reinhard Meckl, 2022. "Antecedents to cognitive business model evaluation: a dynamic managerial capabilities perspective," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(8), pages 2441-2466, November.
    13. Sarah Kaplan & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2013. "Temporal Work in Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 965-995, August.
    14. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    15. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    16. Godart, Frédéric & Pistilli, Luca, 2024. "The multifaceted concept of disruption: A typology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Rory McDonald & Cheng Gao, 2019. "Pivoting Isn’t Enough? Managing Strategic Reorientation in New Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1289-1318, November.
    18. Dean A. Shepherd & Jeffery S. Mcmullen & William Ocasio, 2017. "Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportunity beliefs for strategic action," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 626-644, March.
    19. Pinar Ozcan & Douglas Hannah, 2020. "Social Origins of Great Strategies Advertising Suppliers to Realize Disruptive Social Media Technology," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 193-217, September.
    20. Uzunca, Bilgehan & Sharapov, Dmitry & Tee, Richard, 2022. "Governance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).

    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:eee:tefoso:v:163:y:2021:i:c:s0040162520312543. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.