Common use of Future Research Clause in Contracts

Future Research. The findings in Chapter 2 on the open versus closed innovation contradiction in collaborations of heterogeneous actors suggests several avenues for future research. First, future open innovation research should focus on doing longitudinal process studies (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1999). Especially in more digitally-mediated settings studying longitudinal dynamics of opening and closing is feasible given changes can be tracked through digital traces (Kallinikos, Aaltonen, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013). Second, we encourage open innovation scholars to connect to platform research and study open innovation through system architectures. Third, future research should push towards making open innovation a dynamic and two-dimensional construct. To ease this transition scholars can build on the insights from contradictions literature (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2016), which provides several perspectives (e.g. dualism and duality) that can serve different types of open innovation research including further work on open innovation as paradox (Dragsdahl ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & Karafyllia, 2018). Fourth, our study shows that collaborative innovation is challenging especially in settings having open knowledge flows and open system architectures. We used this as an argument for studying contradictions as well as for collaborations between heterogeneous actors, and encourage future research to extend this further. Chapter 3 contributes to literature on interorganizational collaboration (▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012b; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Jarvenpaa, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2015), in particular to the emergent stream of research on distributed collaborations (▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012a; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014) between heterogeneous actors (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2018), and has implications for research on digital infrastructures and platforms (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2015; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2018). The first contribution of our study is that we introduce the concept of micro-alliances to interorganizational collaboration literature. We show that a seemingly integrated interorganizational collaboration can involve multiple embedded micro-alliances that consist of organizations with heterogeneous understandings, perspectives, and interests. Micro-alliances have the fluidity to emerge and dissolve where necessary, and thereby can split up and unite actors where possible. The distinction between decision-making and endorsing actors contributes to the flexibility of micro-alliances. Because of this dual structure, micro-alliances are a vehicle for finding agreement among a group of heterogeneous actors without having to involve all of them in discussions. Our study contributes an understanding of emergent organizing to interorganizational collaboration literature (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2018). Micro-alliances explain how collaboration happens when there are no established technical or organizational resources that can be used for coordination and cooperation. We show that when boundary resources are absent or being developed (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2002, 2004), organizations work together in sub-groups that flexibly emerge and dissolve in order to accommodate differences and dependencies between actors. This also contributes to our understanding of organizational design decisions in the formation stage of meta-organizations (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2005) and interorganizational collaborations (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2012b). Because micro-alliances cannot be designed but emerge naturally, they are able to reflect the differences and dependencies between organizations on decisions such as membership boundaries of meta-organizations (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2012a) or legal structures of alliances (▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 1998). Micro-alliances also contribute to the emergent interest in polycentric governance in interorganizational collaboration (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998) and digital infrastructures literature (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2015; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2018), by adding the notion of process, calling for future research on polycentric governing. Second, prior research has taken the existence of resources that facilitate collaboration for granted (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012a; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2018; ▇’▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2014) or assumed a centralized actor as driver of the development (▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2002; Rosenkopf, ▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2001). We show that common resources emerge in an iterative process of forking and merging options that are developed by organizations collaborating in micro-alliances. This contributes to interorganizational collaboration research by suggesting that divergence between organizations in a collaboration, including opportunistic self-serving behavior, is not necessarily an indication of failure to cooperate. Rather, splitting up the collaboration can be a temporary solution that enables progress in a later stage. This is in line with earlier findings on the value of a dialectical understanding of interorganizational collaboration (Berends, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, 2011; Das & ▇▇▇▇, 2000; De Rond & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2004). What our study also shows is that developing multiple common resources at the same time is important to make progress. The emergent resources can then build on each other’s progress thereby leveraging interdependencies between them. For example, when the development of a common technical interface gets stuck during forking, progress in another interdependent organizational resource, for example membership guidelines, can support merging. This contributes to interorganizational collaboration and digital infrastructure literature on the importance of considering interdependencies between technical and organizational resources (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006; Wareham, Fox, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, 2014). Third, we conclude that both consensus and dissensus are needed in interorganizational collaboration. This aligns with the insight by ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1998) that contestation and collaboration can both be sources of synergy and engagement in interorganizational collaborations. Furthermore, our findings resonate with earlier research that showed that not all interorganizational problems can be resolved in consensus (▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇, 1986) due to heterogeneous understandings, perspectives, and interests of actors, which makes dissensus inevitable. This also offers a micro- level confirmation and partial falsification of the mirroring hypothesis that an organizational structure tends to correspond (i.e. mirror) to the design of a technical system (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 1990; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1996). However, we find that sometimes collaborating actors make valuable progress in dissensus when the reconfiguration of options and micro-alliances is misaligned (i.e. not mirroring). Hence, our analysis shows that micro-level collaborative developments tend to follow the dynamics of a mirroring technical and organizational design but that this includes inevitable dissensus. Lastly, our findings contribute the importance of studying the interdependencies between technical and organizational resources in interorganizational collaboration. We find that often consensus in organizational resources supports dissensus in interdependent technical resources. Such effects need to be accounted for when assessing the conditions in which heterogeneous organizations are most likely to realize consensus (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇, & Rosenkopf, 2018). The findings in Chapter 3 encourage future research to study the development of different types of common resources, for example, design rules (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2000), in collaborations between heterogeneous actors to see if the elements of our process model hold. Especially, future research should look at the role micro-alliances play in complex or even extreme settings, such as the development of common norms and values in settings where collaborators are anonymous (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2015) or in settings where actors are at war (De Rond & Lok, 2016). In contrast, it would also be interesting to study how long-established common resources get disrupted or complemented. For example, how do changes come about in the rules of chess, or how do complementary common resources like chess computers that aid players become introduced, which would require longitudinal process data (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1999), and potentially action- based research, on chess players as well as the World Chess Federation. Our study shows the potential of future research on actor network theory in the development of digital infrastructures. In our research we did not delve deeply into the material power of common resource options and future research can look at how, for example, technological limitations influence development of common resources. This is especially interesting when studying the development of digital infrastructures because one of the key elements of digital innovation is the unbounded potential for recombination of material elements (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2018; ▇▇▇ et al., 2010). Future research is also encouraged to explore the potential of using social network analysis techniques to study material options and social micro-alliances as distinct types of nodes. In such an analysis it is possible to study the role of material power in developing dominant options and micro-alliances. Furthermore, it is possible to integrate a dialectics perspective in such analysis and develop a theory of potential options. Our study showed how often a slightly altered option competed with the focal option from which it emerged. Using social network analysis combined with simulation techniques, the development of potential options can be studied. An important contribution of Chapter 4 is that we shed light on how complex multi-actor collaborations can be sustained over time without displacement of the broad goal that motivated them (Grodal & ▇’▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2017). Our findings show that to realize sustained collaboration requires conceptualizing and contextualizing of a broad goal and underlying disparate sub-goals. These two mechanisms allow heterogeneous actors to postpone and resolve conflict between sub- goals and eventually accept that pursuing conflicting sub-goals is necessary and part of realizing their broad collaborative goal. We contribute to interorganizational collaboration literature by offering a novel perspective on the conflict versus collaboration duality (▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2004; ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1998). Prior research has argued that conflict can be both good and bad for collaborations (Lumineau, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2018). Our contribution is that conflict is neither good nor bad but unavoidable and necessary for collaboratively realizing a broad goal. We show that what matters is how actors perceive their conflicting sub-goals to be related to realizing the broad goal. Another contribution of our study is that we show that postponing and indecision are not necessarily negative for realizing collaborative outcomes (▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2011), but in collaborations among heterogeneous actors are part of the process of realizing collaborative goals. Chapter 4 also contributes to contradictions literature by showing linkages between the processual dynamics of the dialectic perspective and the resolving focus of paradox research. In line with dialectics research we showed that collaborative and conflicting goals are mutually enabling. Over time, the mutual enablement of collaborative and conflicting goals triggers acceptance through sustained collaboration and synthesis in a collaborative-conflict frame. We thus echo conceptual suggestions by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇ (2017) that in contradictions, dialectical conditions such as conflict and mutual enablement are a generative force for paradox- informed solutions. Our findings on how collaborations between heterogeneous actors organize and manage the collaborative versus conflicting goals contradiction promote various avenues for future research. I encourage future research to study conceptualizing and contextualizing in different settings where there is interest in collaboration between actors with heterogeneous backgrounds. Particularly, it would be interesting to study how conceptualizing and contextualizing happens in politically-laden settings such as the European Union. Closer to home, the arena of management research provides fertile ground in which we are currently enjoying the start of a period of research on artificial intelligence where different research streams seek dominance. Given that conferences provide a platform for establishing field domains (▇▇▇▇▇, 2008), longitudinal data collection can start now by scraping textual data from conference websites, such as paper abstracts, full papers, and presentations. Future research is encouraged to delve into the dialectics of collaboration and conflict. Prior research has often taken a one-sided view, valuing collaboration over conflict. Echoing De Rond and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2004), such a functionalist perspective may not do justice to the value of conflict for collaboration. Our study is a first attempt at showing how conflict can become accepted as a part of collaboration, and future research on collaborations between heterogeneous actors is encouraged to explore other mechanisms that enable conflict to become assimilated into collaboration. Such research extends into economics and mathematics research, by studying how a conflict in game theory (i.e. a losing strategy) can actually be a sub-game part of a collaboration strategy in another game. As such, future research can elaborate and study conceptualizing and contextualizing as social mechanisms for managing ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s paradox (▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1999), known as a situation where a combination of losing strategies becomes a winning strategy. Our research shows that postponing need not necessarily be of negative influence to realizing collaborative goals in collaborations between heterogeneous actors. Future research is encouraged to further study postponing and indecision as a resource for collaboration and discover other settings where these counterintuitive dynamics hold. An interesting study could be done looking at the role of software beta-versions as an object that materialized postponing strategies and the opportunities they bring for catalyzing collaborative conflict. One of the limitations we encountered in using digital methods for qualitative data was the limited potential for analyzing collaboration and conflict in texts. We encourage future interdisciplinary research among management scholars, computer scientists, and language scholars for developing and validating dictionaries to measure collaboration and conflict in texts. In June 2018, ▇▇▇▇ & Company (2018) in collaboration with the World Economic Forum published a Digital Transformation Roadmap in which collaboration and innovation between heterogeneous actors is reported as an important enabler of digital transformation. Furthermore, the report acknowledges the critical role of digital infrastructures and platforms as catalyzers of collaboration. Although firms and organizations may have years of valuable experience in collaboration with external actors with similar backgrounds and overlapping interests, digitalization promotes collaboration with actors that have heterogeneous backgrounds and interests. The findings of this dissertation provide relevant insights for managers preparing their organizations for digital transformation. Broadly, managers need to be aware that collaboration between heterogeneous actors as part of digital transformation will inevitably present contradictory demands and preferences. Next, I describe some practical handles and tools that enable managers to deal with some of these contradictions, including: (1) open versus closed innovation, (2) centralized versus decentralized control, and (3) collaborative versus conflicting goals.