G2G Organizational strategy and innovation management

G2G

ORGANIZATIONAL

STRATEGY AND

INNOVATION

MANAGEMENT A Case Study within a Dutch Startup

Amsterdam Business School Company Project

Submitted by: Dan Palmer Student Number: 11115513

Supervisor: Prof. Martijn Rademakers Submission Date: 30 August, 2016

Executive Summary

The purpose of this project is to analyze, and apply, pertinent frameworks for both

organizational strategy and innovation management to a globally focused start-up

initiative. Because of the unique challenges that startups face in the current

environment, special care must be taken in terms of both establishing organizational

strategy, as well as fostering continued innovation, in order to deliver their products and

services to the market in the most efficient manner and position themselves for

continued success.

Due to the non-traditional nature of the firm, and the inherent uncertainties in which

startups operate, additional scrutiny is given in order for the firm to have the maximum

opportunity for continued survival, not the least of which is a solid foundation from which

to operate. The G2G platform has been conceived to alleviate some of the pressures

that electric vehicle owners face due to the lack of necessary infrastructure, which

represents a radical departure from traditional business thinking and practices. The for-

profit company has been founded on the basis of meeting the needs of both consumers

and municipalities as the seismic shift away from the internal combustion engine

continues to gather steam.

While there are many applicable theories towards establishing and analyzing how

strategies shape the competitive advantages (or disadvantages) that many firms

currently face, there has not been extensive research done into how strategic pressures

and concerns affect entrepreneurial ventures and the conceptual foundations of their

business models. This paper will analyze the strategy of G2G against a multitude of

organizational and innovation management frameworks, as well as the possible

implications derived therefrom. Additionally, this project will serve as the foundation for

further refinement of the operating strategy, and as a guideline for the human resource

management strategy as the firm continues to expand. Finally, this paper will be a case

study in the conception, revision, and application of a multidisciplinary approach to the

foundation of a startup, and will future steps that the company will need to take as the

business continues to mature.

Preface

This company project was completed as the culmination of my studies for the Masters

of Business Administration at the Amsterdam Business School - University of

Amsterdam. It represents research and analysis completed during the formation of an

entrepreneurial venture with several classmates as co-founders. The genesis of the

idea was the result of a class project, the idea of which inspired the real-world action of

collaborating on a startup venture.

Firstly, I would like to thank my classmates and co-founders, Gali, Neeti, and Yu, whose

academic and professional contributions, abilities to produce unconventional ideas, and

light-hearted senses of humor were instrumental in not only the formation of the

company, but of the project in general. Our ability to professionally and socially interact,

and the resulting open communication and culture which resulted, is nothing short of a

miracle as we negotiated the trials and tribulations of the academic program.

Secondly, Dr. Martijn Rademakers has been instrumental in the completion of this

project. From offering helpful tips and interesting sources, to laying the groundwork of

this analysis via his Corporate Strategy course, his instruction and support has been

extremely helpful.

Finally, I wish to thank my friends and colleagues, who were a constant source support

and motivation (and would reflexively call me out on my procrastination).

Dan Palmer

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 4

A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES ........................................................................................................ 4 B. COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 6 C. INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS ................................................................................................................................... 6 D. COMPANY BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 7

II. CASE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 9

A. THE CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................................................. 10

III. STRATEGY, INNOVATION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ..................................................................... 10

IV. CONNECTING STRATEGY AND INNOVATION ................................................................................................ 11

A. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS, THEORIES, AND TOOLS .................................................................................................. 12 1. Exploration versus Exploitation .................................................................................................................. 14 2. Resource-Based View ................................................................................................................................. 14 3. Core Competencies ..................................................................................................................................... 15 4. Market-Based Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 16 5. Blue Ocean Strategy ................................................................................................................................... 17 6. Porter's Five Forces..................................................................................................................................... 18 7. Identity-Driven Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 18 8. Knowledge-Based Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 19 9. Globally Born .............................................................................................................................................. 21 10. The Ten Types of Innovation .................................................................................................................. 21

V. FRAMEWORK APPLICATION ........................................................................................................................ 22

A. SUMMARY OF G2G’S STRATEGIC VISION .................................................................................................................. 23 B. MEANS-DRIVEN ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 24

1. Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................................ 25 C. MARKET-DRIVEN ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 25

1. Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................................ 27 D. IDENTITY-DRIVEN ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 28

1. Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................................ 28 E. KNOWLEDGE-DRIVEN ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 29

1. Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................................ 30 F. GLOBALLY BORN ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 30

1. Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................................ 31 G. PORTER’S FIVE FORCES ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 32

1. Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................................ 32

VI. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR G2G ........................................................................................................... 33

VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 34

VIII. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 35

A. THE TEN TYPES OF INNOVATION ............................................................................................................................. 35 B. STRATEGIC PARADOXES ........................................................................................................................................ 37 C. TEN TYPES OF INNOVATION ADDRESSED BY G2G ....................................................................................................... 40 D. STRATEGIC MINDSET OF G2G FOUNDERS ................................................................................................................ 44

IX. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 45

I. Background

A. Historical Background of Electric Vehicles

Shifts in the geopolitical landscape, as well as an ever-burgeoning movement for

sustainability have provided the foundation for a revolution in both energy production

and consumption, particularly within the personal and commercial mobility fields.

Depending upon source, nearly half of all hydrocarbons reach the end user in a

transportation-ready form, typically as traditional Finish Motor Gasoline and Distillates.

While fossil fuel based transportation has allowed the modern global economy to grow

at an extremely rapid pace, mounting evidence has shown that the use of such forms of

energy leads to environmental instability, international conflicts, and is being used as a

funding source for terrorism. While hydrocarbons are an excellent source of energy from

an engineering standpoint, their continued use is becoming increasingly unsustainable

in the modern world.

Such pressures, in themselves, are often the impetus for lasting change in both

economic and technological terms, in particular to this case: the reintroduction of the

electric vehicle, which originally made its debut in the late nineteenth century (Kirsch,

2000). However, given the advancements made in petroleum based infrastructure and

internal combustion technology, electric vehicles, generally, could no longer compete in

the marketplace in regards to price1. The resulting pressures led to the rapid decline in

personal use electric vehicles, though it should be noted that many larger scale

transportation networks, such as public transit, continued to use the technology (Loeb,

2004). It was not until the early twenty-first century that the combination of competitive

landscape and other external factors allowed for a successful reintroduction of personal

electric vehicles.

Though competitive, environmental, and security pressures have set the stage for the

successful reintroduction of electric vehicles, the infrastructure required to allow for

1 https://www.britannica.com/technology/automobile#ref=ref918099

ease of transportation is still missing in nearly every marketplace. This lack of resources

is often forcing owners and drivers to compete for limited charge points, adjust travel

logistics, or simply avoid the technology altogether. In fact, one of the major, or

predominant (depending on geographic region), perceived drawbacks with electric

vehicle ownership is acutely tied to lack of infrastructure: drivers are concerned that if a

charge point is not readily available, the drivers will run out of battery, rendering the car

inert and leaving the driver with limited palatable options (Rolim 2012). This is especially

true in within the context of the largest oil consuming market on the planet, the United

States, where not only is the infrastructure tailored to internal combustion engines, but

also the distances between destinations are comparatively larger than most other

countries (Eberle 2010). As such, the largest economy has been reticent to quickly

adopt electric vehicles, despite subsidies offered by employers, municipalities, and the

U.S. Federal government, which has prompted large-scale spending on infrastructure

projects as well as alternative measures to alleviate the “range anxiety” that seems

pervasive among drivers, particularly within geographically large markets2. However,

investments in infrastructure needed have been woefully hard to acquire; in addition to

political uncertainties about incentives, there is also much that is unknown about the

future economic state of the world, the penetration rates for electric vehicles, and the

always looming pressures of technological breakthroughs.

All of these issues have created conflicting attitudes for consumers: the idea of an

electric car is appealing (whether for ecological or economic reasons), but there are

institutional roadblocks to widespread adoption. Sales of internal combustion cars still

dwarf all other categories, despite the collective complaining about gas prices or

political unrest in many oil producing regions. Coupled with the idea of “Peak Oil

Theory”, the future of the gas powered car is definitively in doubt, though it will be a

bitter pill for many to swallow (Deffeyes 2008).

2 http://www.torquenews.com/1079/test-ride-electric-car-free?page=2

B. Competitive Environment for Electric Vehicles

The aforementioned geopolitical and economic pressures have given rise to the

“modern” electric vehicle industry, as both end users and governments seek solutions to

the issues of transportation. Spurred by breakthroughs in both battery and materials

technology, many car manufacturers have begun offering hybrid and pure-electric

vehicle options to the marketplace, yet studies have shown that the penetration rates of

these vehicles has been fragmented and varies by market (Al-Alawi 2013). Additional,

multivariate analysis of the adoption of electric vehicles has statistically illustrated what

many have been saying anecdotally for quite some time: it is not only the purchase

price and financial incentives that motivate buyer behavior, but also a significant and

positive correlation between the availability of charging infrastructure and electric

vehicle market share (Sierzchula 2014). Given this context, car companies, consumers,

and governments all find themselves in a bit of a conundrum - there is latent demand for

electric vehicles, yet an unwillingness to shift away from internal combustion.

Within the industry, the response has been to rely heavily upon the continued

development of longer lasting batteries and both public and private investments in

infrastructure, as evidenced by the outlays of Tesla Motors, Inc. in both fields,

respectively34. And while it can be argued that Elon Musk is in several businesses, to

include power distribution, there is a palpable disconnect between the industries of

manufacturing vehicles and providing energy. Companies such as Tesla Motors, and

others, are likely engaging in these measures as ancillary activities to drive sales of

vehicles.

C. Infrastructure Concerns

While it may be difficult to place exact values on the geopolitical and environmental

benefits that switching to electric vehicles can provide, extensive studies have been

done in regards to the economics of governmentally provided charging stations. At best,

3 https://www.tesla.com/energy 4 https://www.tesla.com/supercharge

the installation of infrastructure related directly to the charging of vehicles has been

described as “risky”; a study of fast charging stations within the German market showed

that the high capital expenditures required to install a charging station was not

economical in most of the projected scenarios (Schroeder 2012). And while some

institutions and governments have, and will continue to, install public use charging

stations, it can be reasonably argued that they are doing so with a non-economic

incentive.

Given that the installation requirements of asset and investment intensive charging

stations remains highly volatile, with questions arising around future technology

developments, electric vehicle penetration rates, uncertain incentive plans, among

others, it remains unlikely that large scale development will supply the needed

infrastructure for electric vehicles, or supplant the traditional fossil fuel infrastructure

currently in place (Schroeder 2012). There are few, if any, reasonable governments who

do not see the need for such investment, but even fewer have committed the necessary

resources to allow for such an infrastructure update.

Additionally, widespread economic and political uncertainties have prompted many

governments to reconsider infrastructure investment of any kind. This has stifled the

potential electric vehicle market, though as noted above, private firms have attempted to

pick up some of the burden that others have thus far been unwilling to undertake.

D. Company Background and Description

The challenges faced by all actors within the electric vehicle ecosystem represent an

excellent opportunity for G2G: to establish a platform that not only helps service the

needs of the end users, by providing a system to alleviate the issue of “range anxiety”,

but also reduce the burden on car manufacturers and governments alike in terms of

infrastructure buildout. By reimagining what is required to “fuel” a car, the company

hopes to address concerns for all stakeholders, and to do so profitably. Doing so

requires a holistic and multidisciplinary approach; many orthodoxies about business,

consumer behavior, even the concept of the electric grid had to be challenged.

The startup initiative, G2G, was founded by four classmates from the Amsterdam

Business School as a final class project for the Innovation Management elective offered

in the M.B.A. curriculum as an elective. Comically, it grew out of the idea to deliver

gasoline to parked cars on the street, but legal and safety concerns made such an

endeavor a non-starter. However, we felt like we were truly on to something in regards

to the very basic pain-point we were trying to address: if most other services and

products are available on demand, why isn’t energy? Through many iterations, heated

debates, and cups of coffee, we arrived at an answer to that fundamental question,

while simultaneously exploiting an emerging opportunity within the market; we would

deliver the energy that electric (and hybrid) vehicles required, without having to plug into

the grid.

G2G is exploring the concept that sources of energy need not be tied to the

infrastructure, at least at the point of delivery. Similar concepts are pervasive in other

industries: you do not need a pizza oven in order to acquire some pizza, so why do you

need a plug to get some electricity? The company firmly believes that this is a major

driver of range anxiety, which has hindered the adoption of electric vehicles worldwide.

In addition, this also provides a solution to the question of the investment intensive

infrastructure construction that many municipalities and large corporations are hesitant

to undertake. By unplugging the plug-in car, G2G is aiming to capitalize on an

underserved market, alleviate pain points of buyers and suppliers, and capture a

significant amount of the value chain in the process.

It is expected that globally, electric vehicle sales will grow by 20 to 30 times in the next

quarter-century, and many municipalities will continue to struggle to provide the

necessary infrastructure to charge electric vehicles at locations other than the

consumer's place of residence5. Currently, charging relies on the use of designated

charging points and at-home wall solutions that require a fixed location and a

5 http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/07/06/triple-digit-electric-vehicle-growth-doesnt-dampen-norways-thirst-for-oil/#7cd1cf483e00

connection to the electrical grid; this represents a particular challenge in highly dense

urban areas, where parking is often at a high premium, and there are not enough

charge points to service the expected number of electric vehicles that will soon populate

the roadways.

G2G intends to provide an alternative solution for vehicle charging, by removing the

requirement for a grid connection and thus a fixed location for charging needs, in the

form of an on-demand mobile electricity delivery service. In the first phase, G2G sought

to create a platform that leverages the technology of its potential partners via their built-

in open APIs, and will be able to bring the necessary battery charge to the location of

the customer, alleviating the consumer's anxiety as well as pressure on the

infrastructure. The second phase will also incorporate additional monitoring on the

platform, and would function as an autonomous (from the consumer's perspective)

charging service, to be offered in parallel with the on-demand service.

II. Case Description

Given that Electric Vehicles, their markets, and born-global companies are

comparatively new to the business landscape, it is imperative that G2G establish a

flexible organizational strategy and innovation frameworks to deal with the dynamism of

the market. To that end, this study will build on, and incorporate, theories and

frameworks related to both organizational strategy and innovation, through the non-

traditional lens of a born-global firm. To establish a well-defined, yet flexible, operating

strategy, that places G2G in the most advantageous position to capitalize on a currently

underserved market while fostering collaboration and innovation will be paramount to

the success of the firm as a going concern.

The company has recently completed the ideation phase, and has begun market

validation and some very rudimentary organizational planning. This represents an

unusual opportunity in, and of, itself: there is no institutional inertia preventing the firm

from organizing how it sees fit; it can optimally structure itself as a knowledge and

learning organization from the start, and recommendations of this project can be put

directly into use in a real-world setting. Additionally, as a technology start-up,

continuous innovation will represent a key pillar to the success of the venture. To spur

innovation and collaboration, several innovation-based frameworks will be analyzed and

incorporated into the managerial recommendations that this paper aims to provide in a

holistic manner, and will function as the underlying strategy for the firm.

A. The Case Study

This case study will include a multifaceted examination of the pertinent strategic and

innovation frameworks, an analysis of how the concepts were applied, and a direction

on further strategic development within the firm.

III. Strategy, Innovation, and Organizational Learning

Though a more recent area of research and interest within the context of business,

Organizational Strategy has received an immense amount of attention within the past

50 years. It has been proven extremely difficult to establish a set of universal rules that

should govern a business - not only is the process highly complex and malleable, but

each company operates with a set of unique circumstances (Miles 1978). There is,

however, an understanding about the importance of strategy; many decisions have

lasting effects on a firm, for better or worse, and the nebulous idea of “strategy” is the

cornerstone of many modern business concepts, theories, and courses (Porter 1996).

From Henry Mintzberg to Sun Tzu, influential people have taught us that strategy is

important, yet very few seem to elaborate much beyond the nebulous concept, or if they

do, it is under a very esoteric set of circumstances. Additionally, there seem to be as

many possible theories as there are PhD students to write about them - from the

Traditional to the Knowledge-Based Views, or Core Competencies to Blue Ocean, there

are many difficult tradeoffs to make for management that will significantly impact the

future of their respective firms. There is, however, a common theme that runs through

the heart of all strategic theories and links them to a common thread: competitive

advantage. A well-executed strategy, whatever form it may take, is the foundation for

any company’s hope at being an ongoing concern (Porter 1989).

Closely tied to strategy and strategic thinking, innovation has come to the forefront of

economic thought in the past few decades, as smaller and more nimble firms develop

models that completely up-end the existing status quo. The use of “disruption” within the

context of business might be an overused trope in the modern economy, yet the

theoretical foundations stretch back many decades, and are built upon the idea of

creative destruction (Schumpeter 1942). Having described innovation as one of the

main drivers of economic growth, Joseph Schumpeter’s book (which ultimately predicts

the end of capitalism), has been adopted into modern economic and business dogma,

where the struggle to find new ways to use the firm’s resources, new ways to engage

customers, even new business models, rely heavily on the process of innovation

(Ireland 2007).

Ultimately, it has been empirically shown that the level of innovation built into the core

values of an organization is directly correlated to the organizational performance, both

in terms of technological and non-technological terms (Subramanian 1996). In addition,

a high level of innovative thinking is directly correlated to organizational cultures that

emphasize learning, that are quick to adapt to changing market conditions, and that

engage employees at a much higher level (Hurley 1998). Thus, it is immensely

important that G2G, as well as other firms, place significant emphasis on spurring

innovation, as it is intrinsically linked to the long-term survival chances of the business.

IV. Connecting Strategy and Innovation

For the purposes of this study, an assumption has been made about the direct

relationship between the success or failure of a product and the success or failure of the

firm that offers said product (Klepper 1996). This was reached in the following manner:

if we assume that a for-profit firm retails a single product, the firm’s economic outlook

and performance should exactly match that of the individual product which it produces.

Adding additional products, and diversifying the revenue streams for the firm does

reduce the chance of firm failure due to a single product failure, in aggregate, but there

is still an inextricable link between offering performance and that of the company as a

whole (Klepper 1996).

To this end, the concept of product life cycle plays a very important role in determining

the future of a company. As products age, they are typically replaced by better variants

or fall out of favor, causing the economic benefits derived from the product to diminish

(Klepper 1996). In fact, this behavior regarding the product life cycle is actually quite

predictable, as most products follow a set progression through the following stages,

termed here: Introduction, Growth, Maturity, and Decline (Polli 1969). Other analyses on

product life cycle are even more granular, further dividing the stages, but they all follow

the same eventual pattern: the eventual decline and death of the offering.

As previously established, any firm that relies on a particular product, or bundle of

products, will eventually fail as the basket of products enter decline. The modern

industrial revolution and communications era has only sped this process up; products

progress much quicker through the life cycle, and the introduction of a new offering can

destroy competitors virtually overnight, a process that has been coined by some not as

disruptive innovation, but as devastating innovation (Downes 2013). A remedy for this

seemingly inevitable death is the introduction of new products, which requires

innovation, by definition6. Firms must consider innovation management when

(re)establishing their operating strategies; this applies to multinational conglomerates

and startups, alike.

A. Conceptual Frameworks, Theories, and Tools

In this section, there are two concepts that influence the selection and implementation

of an organizational strategy, yet do not necessarily lie within the bounds of what is

generally considered a “strategy”. As such, they will be listed separately, but it is

6 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/innovation

important for the reader to note that they have a significant impact on organizational

choices and strategic decisions.

Pervasive throughout the course of the company project, as well as through this paper,

is the notion that all of the decisions made, for better and for worse, have to be viewed

through the lens of bounded rationality. To think of humanity as a perfectly rational

being is deeply flawed, we are not willing to, nor even capable of, evaluating every

possible course of action, nor the litany of consequences that arise therefrom

(Gigerenzer 1996). The founders of G2G accepted this concept; some of our decisions

would be suboptimal, unexplainable, or even result in beneficial ways that we could not

explain. We would live a real life example of how to start a company with the unwritten

motto of “Good Enough”.

With this in mind, it is important to remember that some of the decision made during the

course of the project were not explicitly rational. Though there was an attempt to

evaluate and analyze all decisions against the applicable frameworks, theories, and

tools during the course of the project, it was simply infeasible. Some decisions were

made by intuition alone, particularly at the early stages of the project when the facets of

consequences were highly ambiguous. This project will attempt to evaluate some of

those decisions against the applicable frameworks, and incorporate the results into the

recommendations, even when the choices made were not explicitly rational. However,

there is an unforeseen benefit to acting in such an irrational way: by testing our

inductive reasoning against real-world results, we set in place the foundation for an

organizational strategy that incorporates learning (Arthur 1994).

This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather represents different organizational

strategies that were evaluated during the course of the project. Models that were

deemed overly-simplistic, unrealistic, or not applicable, such as Porter’s Generic

Strategies, were not evaluated at all. The strategies listed below received at least partial

consideration during the formation of G2G; it should be noted that some were accepted,

in part, to the formation of the operating plan and business model, while others were

deemed to be of little to no value.

More recently developed strategies, or those that are still being developed, are also

listed here. As previously mentioned, it is not the intention for this list to be exhaustive,

but rather as an explanation of different concepts that were explored during the course

of this study. Many of the strategies listed below were evaluated and incorporated into

the final organizational strategy.

1. Exploration versus Exploitation

It is a given that each organization faces a multitude of choices, some of which are

mutually exclusive, such as the deployment of limited resources. Extrapolated into a

strategic sense, there is a trade-off that firms must make, the choice between exploring

for new opportunities in the search for future economic benefits or exploiting existing

opportunities to maximize the current economic benefits available to the firm (March

1991). Neither strategy is sustainable for the firm when practiced at the extreme: too

much focus on future opportunities will leave the company vulnerable in the current

context, while overly focusing on exploitation will result in a lack of future cash flows.

Each firm must make a strategic choice as to where on the spectrum they wish to

operate; whether their focus is generally more on the present, or more towards the

future (March 1991). This decision is generally much easier for a startup where initially

they have few, if any, current opportunities to exploit, and can focus on exploration, yet

must constantly evaluate their decisions in the context of future opportunities for

exploitation (Porter 1996).

2. Resource-Based View

Often coupled with the VRIO framework, the resource-based view of the

competitiveness of a firm is still popular and applicable in modern circumstances, and

quite easy to adapt to many circumstances. This theory posits that the majority of

success (or failure) of a company relies upon the ownership and exploitation of

resources controlled by a company (Barney 1991). The basis of the theory lies upon the

idea that a firm owns or controls one or more types of resources; the classical resources

such as cash, equipment, or labor; and/or neo-classical intangible resources such as

intellectual capital, intellectual property, or human capital. These resources are then

exploited to generate value by the company, acting as the key inputs to whatever

processes the company employs to deliver value to their customers. The level of, and

duration of, value with each particular resource is generally progressively evaluated

under four criteria: valuable, rarity, imitability, and organizational support (Barney 1991).

For instance, if a resource is valuable, but rather common (not rare), at most the

company exploiting this resource could hope to achieve would be competitive parity.

However, should a resource meet all four criteria, the resource-based view suggests

that it will lead to a sustained competitive advantage (Barney 1991).

Many entrepreneurial ventures use this strategy because of its simplicity and because

of the context in which the ventures are formed; entrepreneurs have to make the best

out of what meager resources they control, in an attempt to attain a competitive

advantage and deliver value to their customers.

3. Core Competencies

Though also considered a means-driven strategy, the concept of core competencies

differs from the resource-based view in several ways. Similarly, it has an internal focus;

that a firm can extract value from methodologies and items within its control, and does

not have to overly rely on external factors related to its line of business. The key

differentiator between core competencies and the resource-based view is the nature of

the intangible assets that the business uses to drive value creation; both related to the

substance, and the ownership, of those assets (Prahalad 1990).

For example, a core competency for a business may revolve around its ability to create

an exciting and engaging brand, which customers will perceive as having additional

value over the firm’s competitors. If it is truly a core competency, the process to create

the brand does not explicitly lie within the human capital the firm has, but rather the

processes the firm uses to leverage the human capital available to it (Prahalad 1990). It

should not matter, within reason, who the firm employs in its marketing department, the

ability to create valuable brands should lie within the business itself.

This is often a tricky subject to parse, because so much overlaps with the resource-

based view, but in the opinion of this author, there needs to be a distinction, due to the

nature of entrepreneurial ventures. The typical startup possesses very few, if any,

resources, yet must figure out how to create value; for a typical technology startup, it is

the business’ ability to find innovative ways to extract value that matters, not necessarily

the skills of a particular individual or value of an asset. Though the distinction between

core competencies and knowledge-based strategies becomes a little murky when the

headcount of a business is very small, and differentiating between the founder(s) and

the company becomes increasingly difficult, the distinction is an important one for the

purposes of this project.

4. Market-Based Strategy

This is a classical strategy that nearly all of us are familiar with, even in the absence of

and formal instruction; you look for opportunities to profit in the market, and then tailor

your value proposition to meet those needs (Anderson 2006). A “classical” business

strategy, one would find most of the practitioners are likely large firms, who, already in

possession of a myriad of resources, begin to look externally for opportunities to

generate value, often in the form of new markets (Ghemawat 2001). A market-based

strategy also provides the underpinning for other, more recent concepts, such as Blue

Ocean strategy, and is generally considered the foundation of an “Outside-In”

entrepreneurial mindset.

Particularly in the case of multinational enterprises, the market-based has historically

dominated the strategic thinking amongst the management; having saturated their home

markets with goods and services, they begin to look for new opportunities, either by

refining their current offerings, or seeking new markets in which to deliver value

(Anderson 2006). While the market-based view is not necessarily related to international

business, per se, there is an easily identifiable parable: foreign markets are often very

explicit in their demands, they see goods a different market and say “we want that, too”.

Outside the context of a large enterprise, the market-based view also influences

startups and small businesses, alike. Even in the most inwardly focused firm, there is

someone asking if there is a need for the product in the market, though perhaps the

consumers are not aware. Not only does such a mindset essential when considering a

customer focused offering, but also provides an opportunity to evaluate the needs of the

marketplace.

5. Blue Ocean Strategy

The Blue Ocean strategy is the next logical iteration of the market-based view, and

relies heavily on some of the fundamental concepts contained therein. The literature

posits that all industries and markets can be broken down into two mutually-exclusive

types: Red Oceans and Blue Oceans (Kim 2005). Conceptually, Red Oceans are

industries and markets where there are intense competitive pressures, where the

industry boundaries are generally well defined, and where companies attempt to

outperform their competitors under a generally accepted set of competitive rules (Kim

2005). Logically, this leads to an ever increasing burden on companies, and they turn

the oceans bloody as the potential for profits is hampered by competitors.

Conversely, Blue Oceans represent industries and markets that are not currently in

existence, and thus are uncontested, allowing for the opportunity for higher profitability

due to the lack of competition (Kim 2005). Though often thought of as outside the

bounds of current industries, this is not always the case: sometimes a Blue Ocean can

be created within the bounds of a Red Ocean simply by redefining the boundaries of the

competitive landscape, or creating a more innovative way to create and capture value

while simultaneously reducing costs (Kim 2005). The identification and establishment of

these “Blue Oceans” relies on several frameworks put forth by Kim et al., and will be

addressed in the analysis section.

6. Porter's Five Forces

Michael Porter’s seminal work is an attempt to create a universal tool that industry

participants could use to evaluate the opportunity for profitability vis-a-vis the firm’s

competitors. The conceptual simplicity of the model makes it a popular tool when a firm

is establishing (or reestablishing) the organizational strategy, because it breaks all the

real-world complexity down into five “fundamental” business forces (Porter 2008). With

the Five Forces tool, evaluating the attractiveness of a particular industry is an

assessment of the threat of potential entrants, the threat of substitutes, the bargaining

power of suppliers, the bargaining power of buyers, and rivalry intensity among existing

firms (Porter 2008). When all the forces are low, an industry might be very attractive to

enter, and conversely, if all the forces are high, it may be an unattractive industry in

which to compete.

7. Identity-Driven Strategy

Within the context and complexity of the “Modern Industrial Revolution”, there are many

who would argue that the abovementioned strategies are too simple, and that

evaluation along the traditional lines are incomplete. One of the emerging strategies that

was evaluated was the concept of an identity-driven strategy: that it was incumbent on a

company to not only create profit, but also to also deliver value to stakeholders,

economic or otherwise (Freeman 2010). This theory argues that the purpose of a firm is

not solely to its owners, but to society as a whole, and has recently gained a lot of

traction in the business community, with concepts such as fair trade, sustainable, and

socially responsible business.

Though conceptually sound, there is often difficulty in establishing who qualifies as a

stakeholder; theoretically it could be every entity, globally, or it could be a very select

few. An important concept when evaluating stakeholders is salience: some stakeholders

are more important than others, and it is generally a good idea to evaluate their needs

in a methodical way, with the most important getting the most consideration (Mitchell

1997).

8. Knowledge-Based Strategy

In the contemporary economy, or what some refer to as the “Modern Industrial

Revolution”, many theorists and practitioners have begun to eschew the concept that an

organization’s strategy should rely on the more traditional views. Their argument

suggests that considering both the inside-out and outside-in views of a firm will not

produce any long lasting tangible competitive advantage when executed properly, but

rather competitive parity, as all firms are not attempting to leverage their internal

mechanisms and actively scanning the market for opportunity (Grant 1996).

It has been demonstrated, within small and medium-sized businesses, that internal

characteristics are not the major driver of competitive advantages within these firms, but

rather their ability to leverage knowledge-based resources (Wiklund 2003). This

phenomenon is not unique to smaller businesses, though often more pronounced, but

rather applies to firms of all sizes, and suggests that firms that undertake the

development of knowledge within the individuals (as opposed to firm knowledge, or core

competencies), and facilitate the sharing of knowledge between employees, have been

able to secure an advantage over their rivals (Grant 1996). Given this research, paying

particular attention to the knowledge-based approach seems most fitting when an

entrepreneurial venture is establishing the strategy for the organization; not only could it

lead to development of other forms of competitive advantage, but it also helps spur

innovation, which is the epitome of value creation for a startup (Nonaka 1995).

Unfortunately, establishing a knowledge driven company is not an easy feat to

accomplish: there are technological, structural, and cultural “infrastructure” concerns

that must be addressed and developed, which adds to the complexity of the firm’s

organization (Gold 2001). Technological concerns, alone, add greatly to the complexity

of instituting an effective learning enterprise; internal technology must be sufficient to

allow for ease of tacit and expressed knowledge, which can take many different forms

(Grant 1996). Additionally, in a more traditionally organized firm, where different

business functions are provided by different business units, internal structures are often

cited as inhibiting the effective transfer of knowledge (Gold 2001).

On top of all of the aforementioned, cultural concerns represent a significant challenge

to effective management (Gold 2001). Some companies have a culture that promotes

interaction between employees, which fosters information and knowledge exchange,

while others have cultures which actively suppress such behaviors, which could

potentially damage any competitive advantage that a company enjoys. Because

company culture is often hard to manage and has many antecedents, many firms

struggle with the issue, but culture directly impacts an employee’s willingness to transfer

knowledge (Osterloh 2000).

Knowledge-based strategy suggests that the true competitive advantage that a firm

could enjoy is highly correlated to the knowledge contained within the firm. Practitioners

who follow this theory often place a great emphasis on human resource strategy and

acquiring and retaining human capital (Zack 1999). Because of the consumable nature

of tangible assets, the definitive life of many intangible assets, and the volatility inherent

in labor, it can be argued that any competitive advantage gained from more traditional

strategies (such as those listed above), is not only unsustainable, but often fleeting

(Zach 1999). Competitors can quickly copy products, services, or techniques, and such

supposed drivers of value no longer represent sources of competitive advantage, but

simply what is required to do business in the modern era (Kim 2005).

Conversely, knowledge has a degree of tacitness; it is often hard to describe, hard to

imitate, and is not diminished with use, but rather increased. On face value, fostering

learning and the sharing of knowledge makes sense, having a smarter workforce is an

advantage against competitors. This concept also holds true in practice: knowledge is

considered the most strategically important resource, and intellectual capabilities are

strongly correlated to firm performance (Zach 1999). To this end, this strategy

incorporates the concept of creating a Learning Organization, where the foundations are

put in place to further develop and refine knowledge within the company, as well as the

individual employees.

9. Globally Born

The concept of Globally Born is a relatively new entrant into the field of strategy, having

been appropriated from the world of marketing, and though while not an entire strategic

theory of itself, it heavily modifies other theories by providing a unique context in which

the formulation and execution of the organizational strategy occurs (Moen 2002). The

driving force behind the emergence of this mindset is the high interconnectivity of

customers and the idea that goods and services no longer need to be tangible; a

company can sell a virtual item to anyone on the planet, and thus is operating in a

global respect.

Startups, in particular, are often seen employing this strategy: they design their offering

to quickly scale across borders and markets, and often pay no heed to geographic

distance, though cultural, administrative, and economic distances must still be

considered (Ghemawat 2001). Being a globally born company offers a particular set of

challenges: no longer can a business cautiously expand into new markets, but rather

the initial offering must withstand the scrutiny of a global marketplace from the onset,

while still dealing with local circumstances.

This presents an interesting challenge when dealing with the strategic paradox of

localization versus globalization: many startups wish to quickly scale and expand into

international markets, yet must constantly evaluate different markets from a local

perspective (De Wit 2010).

10. The Ten Types of Innovation

Innovation, within the context of new offerings of products and services, has been

broken down into ten different areas which are placed into three separate groupings

(Keeley 2013). A complete listing of the Ten Types of Innovation can be found in

Appendix A. This framework was used so that G2G could classify different aspects of its

offering as points of differentiation against current orthodoxies, with the intent of

creating a disruptive service. There is strong statistical evidence that both the viability

and the impact of an innovation is positively correlated to the number of innovation

types that product or service possesses (Varis 2010). A description of how G2G is

addressing the Ten Types of Innovation can be found in Appendix C.

B. Linking Strategy with Innovation

As previously discussed, both theory and evidence illustrate the importance of

innovation, particularly within the startup ecosystem. In order to compete, and

potentially disrupt, larger firms with greater access to resources, it is important that a

technology based entrepreneurial venture focus on the creation and delivery of value to

the customer in a novel way (Varis 2010). Startups, by their nature, have an interesting

advantage against their larger competition, unburdened by history or institutional inertia,

startups are free to challenge established orthodoxies in search of new business

models and products, which represents a sizable strategic advantage (Hamel 1993).

Additionally, if we accept the premise of big bang disruption, there is mounting evidence

that despite the resources enjoyed by an industry, innovative products and services can

not only out-compete, but often completely devastate many legacy industries (Downes

2013). It is posited within this framework that a highly innovative offering, one which

redefines as many of the Ten Types of Innovation as possible, holds the greatest

chance to not only create economic performance, but secure a longer lasting

competitive advantage (Varis 2010).

Finally, the theme of innovation is pervasive throughout the other strategy concepts

outlined in the paper; nearly all of the organizational strategies rely on some aspect of

innovativeness, particularly the newer theories, such as the knowledge-based view

(Leonard-Barton 1995). Not only will developing a novel concept help set the stage for

later strategic decisions and frameworks, but also is the underlying driver for the

creation of value (Schumpeter 1934).

V. Framework Application

This section is an analysis and discussion of potential competitive advantages for G2G,

vis-a-vis the capabilities of the founders, as well as the strategic and innovation

concepts previously identified. The major themes discussed amongst the management

of G2G will be further explored, as well as some of the theoretical and practical

concepts that drove the thinking and decisions of the founders. While any

entrepreneurial venture is chaotic and undertaken with great uncertainty, the initial

formation of the company was exponentially more so. Decisions made during this

seminal period will continue to drastically influence the direction of the company, frame

the strategic decision making, and will likely determine the success or failure of the

startup initiative. Because of the resources, capabilities, and mindsets of the founders,

particular attention will be paid to both the Knowledge-Based and Blue Ocean

strategies.

A. Summary of G2G’s Strategic Vision

The business model of G2G relies heavily creating a unique value proposition by

reimagining many facets of a traditional service platform within the context of the Ten

Types of Innovation as described in the appendices, in an attempt to create a Blue

Ocean in which to compete. Given the bounds of the skills and resources of the

founders, not all aspects of innovation were reasonable, which will be further discussed

in the appendices.

It is the aim of G2G to deliver value to its stakeholders by creating a decentralized

electricity delivery service that provides the vehicle owners with convenience and

anxiety alleviation, while simultaneously reducing the demand for nonessential

investment in power grid infrastructure, via a mobile based platform. By combining a

dynamic profit model, an open network of providers, and a structure that shifts assets to

independent contractors, G2G can provide a touch-less service platform, via mobile

application channels, that will redefine how the electric vehicle users view and interact

with energy providers.

B. Means-Driven Analysis

Startups, by definition, usually lack in many of the resources enjoyed by their larger

counterparts, and is often cited as reasons that startups fail7. In general, one would

suspect that analyzing a startup’s competitiveness with the resource-based view is an

act in futility - most resources are unavailable to microenterprises. This, however, is not

explicitly the case when it comes to strategy formation, and its relation to the future

business model of a company. Due to the enduring nature of strategic decisions,

entrepreneurs must conceptualize and evaluate certain resource-based arguments,

even if they are not pertinent at the time when the company is founded.

Extensive research exists linking the impact of strategic planning on the performance

and profitability of businesses, though unfortunately not much of it has been focused on

small and medium sized enterprises. However, some of the concepts are applicable,

despite the differences in size and industry, and underscore the needs for strategic

planning to increase performance and profitability (Schoeffler 1974). A key takeaway

from the study, which predates Barney’s work, but fits in well with the resource-based

view of organizational strategy, is the concept of efficient deployment of resources,

particularly in terms of investment intensity and expenditure management.

In its current state, G2G is lacking many resources that it could employ to produce a

competitive advantage: it has a negligible amount of capital and virtually no IT

resources or assets. These potential threats are not lost on the founders: of foremost

concern is the creation of a digital platform that the company can leverage to deliver

value to its potential customers. Additionally, management recognizes that the

acquisition of both resources and skills are essential to the establishment of core

competencies (Prahalad 1990). However, given the current, exploratory nature of the

startup, the lack of resources controlled within the bounds of the firm represents a

significant challenge to future business prospects, as well as hurdles for the strategic

shift towards exploitation.

7 https://www.cbinsights.com/research-reports/The-20-Reasons-Startups-Fail.pdf

1. Managerial Implications

The lack of resources and core competencies within a startup such as G2G is not a

surprising result, yet it represents a massive barrier to the continued existence of the

firm. Though innovation can be considered a core competency, without access to

valuable resources, the company is currently operating at a competitive disadvantage,

and is unable to leverage a means-driven strategy to deliver value to the customer

(Kandampully 2002). It is imperative that the management unify on a strategic execution

plan to begin development of the platform, which has the potential to be a resource that

will help the firm establish a competitive advantage, or the company will face certain

failure.

Additionally, the dearth of available resources has significantly shaped the

organizational strategy in terms of product performance and product system. These

decisions were made from a resource-based view: redesigning batteries, or physical

charging equipment, is an expensive process, which would require significant

investments in research and development, and those resources are simply not available

to the company at this time.

C. Market-Driven Analysis

From both a theoretical and practical standpoint, the market-based view is extremely

common amongst startup initiatives, and has been widely written about by both

practitioners and theorists. Conceptually, it is very straight-forward: segments of the

marketplace with few competitors would naturally be more appealing to new ventures,

particularly when they have comparatively fewer resources (Kim 2005). If, as Kim

states, “the market universe is composed of [...] Red Oceans and Blue Oceans”, it

makes intuitive sense for smaller companies to seek out areas where there is less

competition to improve their chances for survival (Kim 2005).

Additionally, there is evidence that companies that have a higher market-based view, or

orientation, are also companies that tend to be more innovative and have higher

degrees of organizational learning (Hurley 1998). As previously noted, innovation is a

key concept in strategic planning, but unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence that

high market orientation causes or results from innovation (Hurley 1998). However, the

issue of causality within the context of a startup is a moot point; because startups are

able to define themselves and their strategies without concern for alienating current

customers, they can specifically design their strategy however they please (Porter

1996).

In terms of creating “Blue Oceans”, empirical evidence suggests that the profit and

growth consequences of seeking out untapped markets has an outsized effect on

performance: while “Blue Ocean” opportunities represented less than one-seventh of

product launches, they accounted for nearly two-thirds of profits realized by a company

(Kim 2005).

The management of G2G believes that they have created a unique solution to the

challenge of delivering energy to vehicles. An industry strategy canvas was created to

compare the experience of a hybrid vehicle customer with G2G offering and three

substitutes: gasoline, home charging, and charge stations (Figure 1). The offering has

distinct points of differentiation versus all three substitutes: it excels in areas related to

convenience, as well as user experience.

Figure 1

Key points to the Four Actions Framework:

Eliminate:

Need for a vehicle to be stationary, in a designated geographic location in

order to be fueled/charged. G2G’s strategic vision is to bring the necessary

energy to the end user, regardless of where the vehicle is physically located.

Reduce:

Cognitive and physical effort required in order to charge a vehicle. The

platform will provide all the information to the energy supplier, so that a single

interaction with the system is all that is required to initiate the service.

Raise:

Price. While the service will employ a floating price ceiling, which would make

it cheaper than traditional gasoline, G2G does not intend to compete with

other charging solutions in regards to pricing.

Create:

A pleasant user experience. G2G is shifting the customer experience of

charging a vehicle from a physical task that needs to be completed, to a

virtual experience via their proposed smartphone application. The strategic

direction for later iterations will include a completely automated charge

management system.


Based upon an outside-in perspective, it appears that G2G is doing quite well, and has

effectively identified a “Blue Ocean” in which it intends to compete. The firm has created

several points of differentiation within the energy supply, and by innovating the business

model, the delivery network, and the user experience, G2G is attempting to redefine the

boundaries of the industry.

These are, however, somewhat speculative, and heavily rely on the proper execution of

the development phase, as well as acquiring the necessary talent and resources. It is

also incumbent upon the management to continually refine their value proposition in

response to operating in different geographic markets, as well as changes in consumer

behavior. Additionally, the company needs to undertake significant market research in

order to validate some of the assumptions that have gone into this analysis: it could very

well be that the reason the “ocean is blue” is due to the fact that it is ultimately an

unattractive space in which to operate.

D. Identity-Driven Analysis

Though initially not considered, identity-driven concepts came to play a major role in

determining how decisions would be made in the company. Initially, new ideas

originated from a drive towards economic efficiency by the company, ranging from the

mechanism for delivering electricity to the engagement of customers. However, many of

these ideas were not congruent with the concept of sustainability that was at the core of

the product offering - it made little sense for the company to use gasoline powered

vehicles to deliver a green solution.

Additionally, there are other implications with a sustainable enterprise, such as the need

to engage many different stakeholders, as opposed to focusing solely on the concerns

of shareholders. Because G2G wishes to create a platform that engages both energy

suppliers and energy buyers, certain aspects of the Ten Types of Innovation had to be

addressed, particularly how to leverage the network aspect to deliver value to both

parties.


The concepts of “who we are as a company” and “how the world perceives us” are

powerful drivers in the formulation of strategy within a company. The former deals with

the internal motivations of management, such as the choice between shareholder and

stakeholder views of the purpose of business, and the resulting strategic decisions

therein (Freeman 2010). These are not decisions that are always rational from a for-

profit business perspective, but must be accounted for nonetheless: if a startup places a

greater amount of salience on a stakeholder than is the norm, it can be expected that

they will make suboptimal economic decisions when accounting for that stakeholder’s

demands.

But this is linked to the latter, or how the world perceives the firm, and can also be a

source of economic benefit; a powerful and compelling brand has been identified as a

competitive advantage in many studies, and can drive above-normal profits, even when

other areas are lacking (Cravens 2006).

In this aspect, G2G may have a sizable advantage over established businesses; it can

define its identity, while corporates often have to initiate a sizeable investment in order

to change their identity. For example, by evaluating an identity driven strategy, G2G has

structured its platform in such a way that economically encourages suppliers to also

adapt a more sustainable model.

E. Knowledge-Driven Analysis

The determination on how a startup initiative will foster and develop knowledge, as well

as manage that knowledge within the firm, should be the primary focus of strategy

development, as it has not only considered the most strategically important resource

available to a business, but also has proven to be a determinant of many other aspects

covered in this paper. While each company will require a different level of emphasis on

knowledge management, the strong link between knowledge strategy and innovation

has been well established (Grant 1996).

Particularly with companies that wish to develop a disruptive offering, defining and

developing an organizational strategy that places high importance on the creation and

diffusion of employee knowledge will prove instrumental in the ability of a startup to

develop competitive advantages (Gold 2001). Most, if not all, of the strategic paradoxes

play an important role in determining the knowledge-based strategy that a company will

pursue, and specific care should be taken in crafting a strategy that matches the

capabilities of the management and the company as a whole (De Wit 2010).

Based on extensive discussions among the founders, dialogues with local

entrepreneurs, and extensive theoretical and empirical evidence, the development and

implementation of a knowledge based strategy was the foremost concern during the

initial phases of the company formation. All of the founders understood the importance

of innovation, and wished to create an institutional and cultural environment that would

foster the development of innovative ideas. While the strategic survey of the founders

did not produce a consensus in any of the strategic tensions, even amongst the

dissenters, the importance of creating a company that fosters creativity, openness of

communication, and a less structured organizational context, was recognized early in

the process. It was also noted that a knowledge-based strategy was one of the few

frameworks with which the founders of G2G thought the firm could effectively compete

and hope to establish an advantage.


The idea of establishing a knowledge based strategy was understood and favored by all

of G2G’s founders, though the implementation of that strategy is not necessarily as

clear-cut. The founders agreed that most sources of competitive advantage, particularly

any which could be sustained, were reliant upon the knowledge possessed by

individuals within the firm, and that creating an organization that would be conducive to

the sharing of knowledge was a top priority.

To that end, extensive time and effort were logically focused on how to create and

maintain human capital, and how to lay the groundwork to foster a culture that would

enhance the competitive advantage that the firm wished to exploit (Li 2016). Though the

company is currently a microenterprise, extensive care must be devoted to developing a

coherent and comprehensive human resource strategy: the introduction of variability, by

means of selective hiring, can be a source of organizational learning (March 1991).

F. Globally Born Analysis

Under the assumption that a startup’s offering is truly disruptive, and highly scalable,

consideration should be given to the idea that internationalization will occur in a very

short time frame. Entering into international markets adds to the complexity of an

organization; traditional firms have to deal with cultural, administrative, geographic, and

economic distances which are not always readily apparent (Ghemawat 2001). Despite

these challenges, studies show that some startups are uniquely qualified to tackle these

issues at an early stage: performance in international markets is significantly correlated

to an entrepreneurial orientation and unique products, both of which are often a

derivation of innovative capabilities supported by a knowledge-based strategy of the

firm (Knight 2004).

G2G’s focus on innovative thinking and creating a highly-scalable offering lent itself well

to the concept of immediate expansion into international markets. Though Amsterdam

was selected as the initial test market, the platform is not bounded to a particular

geographic region. This is, in part, due to the very low investment in hard assets; the

offering of G2G, the marketplace, and the customer engagement, takes place in a

virtual manner. As such, the complexity surrounding geographic distance is diminished,

though the complexity of simultaneously operating in a global marketplace presents

significant challenges.


An analysis of the globally born nature of G2G provides insight into potential

advantages and disadvantages that the firm will face as it nears the launch of the

platform. The strengths focus on the abilities of the founders to adapt to different

markets; two of the founders have experience in operating a startup venture, and the

diversity of all of the founders is likely to help spur innovative thinking and the ability to

address a diverse set of challenges. The weaknesses to a globally born strategy are

primarily represented as a matter of complexity, and the resulting operational costs that

are incurred as a business operates in different countries.

Unmanaged growth and entry into new markets could quickly overwhelm the

capabilities of the firm, and establishing company and brand awareness in each market

represents a significant struggle (Chetty 2004). Particular care must be taken when

selecting markets in which to expand, as it represents not only a potential for the firm to

incur sizable losses, but also identity related risks, such as G2G’s reputation.

G. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis

Establishing the competitive landscape in which a firm competes is both difficult and

essential, and will vary with the nature of the offering of the startup (Porter 2008). The

five forces model is intrinsically linked to how the management views the network

paradox: should the firm cooperate, or compete, and how will it position itself versus

future rivalry (De Wit 2010). Firms that are entering an established industry may wish to

evaluate this aspect with increased importance, while those that are attempting to

create a new industry or niche, may find that this analysis is less important than other

considerations. However, even in the latter case, it is important for a startup to engage

in strategic thinking in regards to how the industry may look at a state in the future,

which could impact decisions made in the present.

Within the context of G2G, not all aspects of the framework apply, though it was still

carefully evaluated when creating the initial business plan. In particular, if a G2G

achieves a high-level of success, the threat of new entrants increases exponentially,

and consideration must be given as to how to deal with future competitive forces.


The threat of new entrants into the industry, and the potential to disrupt G2G’s business

is a threat that must be addressed from day one. In an attempt to mitigate this threat,

G2G has purposely added complexity into their business model, given additional

considerations to various stakeholders, and intends to globalize at a rapid pace. To

prevent potential competitors, G2G needs to continue to erect barriers to entry, through

the establishment of a strong brand, entering into agreements with car manufacturers

and governments, and creating a robust network of suppliers.

Attention must be given as to how to potentially “lock” customers into the service in the

hopes of increasing the switching costs, and continual iterative improvements must be

made in order to dissuade potential entrants into the industry. Additionally, G2G needs

to create some form of proprietary experience with the service that would be hard for a

new entrant to replicate, such as a quality user experience for the application, or

proprietary logistical algorithms.

The threat of new entrants and the threat of substitutes is also having an effect on the

human capital of the firm: the threats have created uncertainty about the platform, and

has led to some disagreements about the strategic direction of the firm.

VI. Future Considerations for G2G

G2G faces significant challenges as the business continues to progress: from the

acquisition and creation of valuable resources, to the exploration of potential markets,

there are many questions that need to be answered for company to survive. From an

inside-out perspective, the company is operating at a significant competitive

disadvantage; its lack of resources and core competencies are hampering additional

development of the platform, and also threatens the continued existence for the firm. In

retrospect, the lack of attention given to the more traditional strategies, particularly

resource and core competencies, was a strategic mistake during the initial ideation

phase of the firm.

However, from an outside-in, as well as identity-based and knowledge-based view, the

situation is much less dire. It is clear that the firm has placed significant value on

seeking out a “Blue Ocean”, establishing an identity that helps it differentiate itself, and

creating an organization that encourages learning. It is the founders’ hope that the

strategic decisions inherent in the business model help it establish a strong identity that

will help it attract talent, while maintaining the current open culture that the firm currently

enjoys.

The next step for the firm, in light of the analysis above, should be to complete the

market validation for the offering, and complete the development of the platform. This

will require a painful, but necessary, transition away from pure exploration, towards

exploitation.

VII. Conclusion

Firms of all size have to grapple with the questions surrounding strategies, where

formulation is often as much of an art as a science, and decisions can have long-lasting

beneficial (or detrimental) effects on profitability of a firm. As mentioned in the paper,

significant research has been done in the field over the past 50 years, as organizations

discover the value of strategy, and an increasing amount of attention has been paid to

innovation, as legacy industries fall by the wayside. However, much of the focus has

been on how corporations and multinational enterprises develop strategic advantages,

or concepts on how to build innovation into their business models, with far too little

attention being paid to smaller businesses.

Startups and entrepreneurs face an increasingly complex and uncertain world as they

undertake the founding of a new venture. There are near unlimited possibilities to create

a valuable offering for potential customers, but also as many potential pitfalls,

particularly when a startup fails to develop a strategic plan. This paper was an attempt

to apply the prevailing theories into the context of a technology startup, and illustrate the

reasoning behind, and evaluation of, strategic decisions that were made at the earliest

point in a company’s lifecycle.

The G2G concept was initially conceived as a class-assignment and thought exercise

on how many of the Ten Types of Innovation we could address in a simple business

canvas, but as the idea progressed, the founders discovered there were many implicit

and explicit strategic decisions that needed to be made, and the available frameworks

had a large influence on how the business concept developed. Out of this need, the

basis of this paper was formed: we needed a systematic approach to how we would

address these choices, and ultimately how we envisioned the company as a whole.

VIII. Appendices

A. The Ten Types of Innovation

Configuration

The related four innovation types are considered Configuration innovations; they deal

specifically with the internal workings of a firm, and how by (re)designing the structure of

a firm, or challenging particular orthodoxies, a product or service could be considered

innovative.

a) Profit Model

Innovating the profit, or business, model requires offering a new way to deliver value

and capture profit, within the confines of a given industry. An example would be the

introduction of “Freemium” applications, where the user is allowed to access the

application at no cost, but required to pay for additional functionality if he or she so

chooses.

b) Network

Network innovation is defined as how a firm joins with external parties to create value.

An example of this would be open innovation platforms employed by pharmaceutical

companies, which allow other firms to benefit from each other’s resources and

capabilities, and focus on their particular core competencies.

c) Structure

New or different alignment of talent and assets within the firm is termed structure

innovation. This could be novel ways of deploying resources, such as in the case of

Spotify, where employees are assigned to projects in an ad hoc manner, which can

foster more creative solutions.

d) Process

Process innovation is implementing a new way for the firm to develop and create of

offerings. An example would be “Pretotyping”, used by Google, which allows them to

rapidly test, develop, and market new products and features.

Offering

The offering subgroup relates to what is classically considered innovation, it

encompasses the aspects of the product or service, as well as the ecosystem related

therein. It is heavily focused on the output of the firm, and relies upon the production of

something superior to the firm’s competitors.

a) Product Performance

Product performance is a measure of how you differentiate the product or service

offerings against competitors. An example would be Intel releasing a new, faster

microprocessor. Product performance tends to be tied to the technological capabilities

of a firm, and often asset intensive.

b) Product System

Product system innovation generally centers around the creation of complementary

products and services, which help acquire additional revenue streams, as well as

increase the lifetime value of a customer. An example would be Apple’s iTunes store,

which encourages the purchase of other Apple accessories to get a better experience.

Experience

Experience innovation focuses on the customer, and how they perceive and use your

offering. While traditionally considered more support functions, there has been many

companies who reimagined the customer experience and have disrupted their

industries.

a) Service

Service innovation is defined as how a firm ensures and enhances the value of its

offerings. It does not necessarily mean offering superior customer service, there are

instances where consumers are willing to forgo any customer service, if there are

mitigating factors. An example of such is EasyJet, which offers bare-bones service, in

exchange for rock-bottom ticket prices.

b) Channel

Channel innovation often captures the attention of many marketing departments and

professionals, as it relies on finding a new way to connect your offerings with customers

and users. An older, but powerful, example is the Amazon.com bookstore, which

connected with users via the internet, as opposed to the more established brick-and-

mortar bookstore.

c) Brand

Brand innovation is how the firm represents its offerings and businesses to the public.

Building a strong and innovative brand can help drive customers to the offerings, even if

they are dissimilar. Virgin, which operates everything from record stores to spaceships,

is an excellent example of brand innovation.

d) Customer Engagement

Customer engagement focuses on how a firm can foster a distinctive experience when

using a firm’s offering. It generally requires reimagining what a product should “do”,

such as a smart-watch, which tracks the movement of users, provides phone

functionality, in addition to providing the time.

B. Strategic Paradoxes

Despite the type organizational strategy that a company chooses to focus on, there are

ten major strategic paradoxes that all companies must address that determine the

overall strategic direction a company will pursue (De Wit 2010). Outlined below are ten

issues that cause strategy tension, along with a brief explanation. Surveys of the

founders of G2G in regards to these paradoxes can be found in the appendices.

Process Related

a) Strategic Thinking - Logic and Creativity

This describes the general mindset of a person or group when thinking about a

particular problem or issue that a company faces. Should logic prevail when seeking

superior results, or should it be a more creative process? In reality, it is rarely one

extreme or another, though individuals will tend to prefer one of the options more than

the other. But, in aggregate, the mix of logic and creativity within the management of a

company will help guide and set the tone as to how challenges are conceptualized and

addressed.

b) Strategy Formation - Deliberateness and Emergence

Strategy formation is highly applicable, and observable in the economic world. How

often do the best plans go awry? Or a company is blindsided because they were caught

in unfamiliar territory? The idea about how strategy formation, and its corollary,

implementation, is a choice that managers have to make about how much they wish to

plan, versus how much they will see where the market takes them. Too much planning

may make a firm inflexible and unable to adapt to a changing marketplace; complete

lack of planning may result in a lack of direction and stagnation.

c) Strategic Change - Revolution and Evolution

When the markets change around a company, the collective preference between

revolution and evolution will determine the speed and manner in which the company

responds. This also holds true for processes like innovation, a company may wish to

release game-changing new products, or simply iterate on existing offerings, both in the

hopes of prolonging the life cycle of the company. It has been hypothesized, though not

proven, that this is significantly tied to the level of risk acceptance of the firm.

Content Related

a) Business Level - Markets and Resources

As discussed in a previous section, this paradox is how the company views its

resources and potential markets, and how it wishes to deliver value along those lines.

The inside-out versus the outside-in perspectives are truly fundamental. Should we use

our resources to build a product and search for a market to sell it in, or should we look

what the market is demanding, and acquire the resources necessary to meet that

demand?

b) Corporate Level - Responsiveness and Synergy

Responsiveness and synergy is an interesting conundrum, because modern business

education suggests that synergy is an excellent way to cut costs, and thus increase

profit. Unfortunately, synergy comes with a dark side: when processes are overly

synthesized, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to make adjustments to a process

without having effects on many other areas of the business. The contrary also holds

true: if there is no synergy, the company is free to respond to stimuli as needed, but the

company will also have much higher resource expenditures.

c) Network Level - Competition and Cooperation

At the network level, competition and cooperation are the two ends of the spectrum on

how an individual, or company, views other players in the same space. It is a reflection

on the general demeanor of how the management team views business. Should the

competition be crushed, or are they partners? Interestingly, the barometer seems to drift

from one side to the other as time progresses: if there is too much competition in the

marketplace, cooperation could be an advantage; if there is too much cooperation in the

industry, competition could potentially claim outsized profits.

Context Related

a) Industry Context - Compliance and Choice

Compliance and choice are both choices a firm makes, and a result of the practices in

the industry in which the firm operates. However, even in the context of highly regulated

industries, some firms are more prone to “rock the boat”, while others pride themselves

on a “spotless record”. The differences between the two can be summed up as where

those firms fall along the compliance and choice paradox.

b) Organizational Context - Control and Chaos

The culture of the company, along with internal processes, can often be analyzed in the

organizational context. Control and chaos set the tone for the culture, but also have a

large influence on the other ten concepts listed here. Certain predilections lend

themselves better to a controlling or a chaotic environment, and decisions about

organizational context can either help reinforce, or extinguish, such behavior.

c) International Context - Globalization and Localization

This is the internationalization context in which the firm operates, as well as the context

to which it aspires. Some firms function much better on a local level, while others strive

to be multinational enterprises. Strategically, the firms will face much different choices

and pressures, and the firms will have to respond in the appropriate way.

Purpose

a) Organizational Purpose - Profit and Responsibility

The final tension is a representation of the overall purpose of the company, akin to a

moral judgement about what the function of a business should be. If the purpose of a

company is only wealth creation, the management clearly favors profit; if the good of

humanity is the primary concern, the management clearly favors responsibility. As with

many other of the paradoxes, it is rare to find an example where a company operates at

the extreme, but knowing where a company lies along this scale can help determine

future decisions and the general outlook of the management.

C. Ten Types of Innovation Addressed by G2G

Profit Model

The profit model of G2G is based upon dynamic pricing of a convenience service, and

will vary based upon the supply of charging units as well as the demand of the electric

vehicles within a given area. When an imbalance exists between supply and demand,

the platform will automatically adjust the pricing of the service, in an attempt to match

the two economic forces while capturing the most profit possible (Cachon 2009). In

order to keep the service economically viable, as well as fitting in within the mantra of

sustainability, a pricing ceiling will be enforced, which will correspond to the prevailing

price of traditional gasoline.

The company foresees this model to engage different types of customers in different

manners, as the needs of each type differ on a fundamental level. For plug-in hybrid

electric vehicle owners, the platform will function less as a convenience service, and

more as a traditional energy supplier. This will allow G2G to remain a competitive option

for hybrid vehicle owners, who often have much smaller range limitations for battery

operation, and often have to switch to traditional fuel sources. Conversely, all-electric

vehicles generally have a much greater range available in terms of battery, and their

motive for using the service would more likely be that of convenience. Not only does

G2G remove the challenge of finding an appropriate location to charge a vehicle, which

is a sizable difficulty in many cities, but also leverages the fact that a vehicle is

stationary over 90% of the time, allowing every parking spot to be a charging location.

Network

The G2G business model employs an open-ended supplier network to deliver its value

proposition to the end customer; actual suppliers will be independent entities who can

choose to participate as they see fit, much like the system Uber employs for its taxi

service. Any entity has the potential to be a service provider, provided they possess the

prerequisite resources, in this case, a battery, a connecting cable, and access to the

application. Because of the commoditized nature of the deliverable (electricity), and the

one-way nature of the transfer (vehicles are not capable of charging batteries),

management of G2G has decided that selection of suppliers is not a necessary

requirement for the service. Unlike other convenience services, delivery of the service

does not have an inherent aspect of customer satisfaction; customers will have little-to-

no interaction with the suppliers.

A conscience decision not to overly engage in logistical planning was made by the

founders of the G2G platform, and rests on a derivation of the concept of open

innovation: just as an open innovation platform allows for companies to focus on areas

in which they excel, knowledge of local geography and traffic is best decided by the

local providers, instead of complex scheduling and route planning being done by the

application (Chesbrough 2006). Additionally, though G2G does not have any restrictions

on how the batteries (and consequently the electricity) are transported, the founders

believe that economic forces would inspire innovative transportation of the batteries to

reduce the cost born by the supplier in terms of their transportation requirements. The

drive to maximize profit will serve as an economic deterrent for less sustainable energy

sources: filling the batteries via solar power, could create a near-costless operation for

the suppliers.

Structure

Closely related to the network innovation is the structural innovation built into G2G’s

business model: tangible assets are shifted to the individual contractor, while G2G

provides the information required for the suppliers to deliver the requested service.

Though access to the capital markets is difficult for all startups, G2G is embracing the

“little guy” attitude and building it directly into its value proposition. Based on Seth

Godin’s work The Bootstrapper’s Bible, the concept of seeking out opportunities that

require minimal capital has proven to be a widely accepted methodology for technology

based startup initiatives (Harrison 2004).

Directly tied to this point is the concept of growth versus scaling. In a typical company,

growth entails increasing the means of production, which consequently increases the

costs of production. As long as revenues continue to remain above costs, a company

would be considered to be “growing”. Conversely, the concept of scaling does not

require substantial additional investments to generate more revenue. G2G is operating

as a knowledge-based enterprise, its true value is not in the tangible assets of the

company, but rather in the processes and core-competencies, and it can easily expand

or contract to meet the requirements and opportunities within the market (Grant 1996).

Service

The touch-less service model is an unusual aspect of traditional energy delivery:

whether customers have to use a traditional gasoline fueling station, or plug their car

into a charging point, there is some interaction required at the point of delivery. The

G2G platform intends to completely eliminate customer interaction at the point of

delivery by technological means: the customer will request service via a mobile

application, and indicate the location of their vehicle, while all other aspects of the

transaction are handled by the G2G platform. Vehicle identification, payment methods,

even the near-field communications required to unlock the battery cover, will all be

handled within the application, allowing for the service to be delivered with minimal

effort expended by the end-user.

Channel

Unlike more traditional energy providers, G2G will engage end-users in a purely virtual

manner; much like Uber, the application will rely on the ubiquity of smartphones for

customer engagement. The choice of channel directly influences the behavior of the

customer, and their perceptions of the value of the service, and it is G2G’s intent to

capitalize on the fact that many potential users are in possession of their smartphones

nearly all the time (Van Doorn 2010).

Customer Engagement

The core differentiator between G2G’s offering and traditional methods of electric

vehicle charging is how the company intends to engage their customers. Unlike legacy

methods, G2G will enable the customer to request a charge from their smartphone,

instead of the customer seeking out charge points, or servicing their vehicles

themselves. Real-time data, gathered from the both the application and the APIs that

most electric vehicles provide allow the customer to get information about the battery

status of their car, as well as the location and estimated delivery time for service

providers within their given geographic location. Potential later stages of the offering are

intended to make the entire management of the battery accessible via smartphone, in a

completely automated manner.

Facets Not Covered

Product system and product performance are explicitly not points of innovation that

G2G intends to incorporate into their offering, as the founders believe that they are

simply beyond the scope of the businesses knowledge and potential core

competencies. These decisions were also made from a resource-based view:

redesigning batteries, or physical charging equipment, is an expensive process, which

would require significant investments in research and development, and those

resources are simply not available to the company at this time. Additionally, at the time

of initial offering, innovating on brand did not make logical sense: G2G is not

established within the marketplace, which makes the concept of brand innovation a

moot point.

D. Strategic Mindset of G2G Founders

The information within this table is a result of a survey, and represents the profiles of the

founders in terms of strategic styles. Each item was scored on a scale from one to five

along the spectrum of the strategic tensions and paradoxes described, with “one”

representing a strong preference towards the first option, “five” representing a strong

preference towards the second option, and a “three” indicating no preference.

Paradox Yu Gali Neeti Dan

Logic vs. Creativity 2 3 5 5

Deliberateness vs. Emergence 3 2 4 3

Revolution vs. Evolution 1 4 4 1

Markets vs. Resources 1 1 2 4

Responsiveness vs. Synergy 5 3 4 2

Competition vs. Cooperation 5 4 5 1

Compliance vs. Choice 4 2 4 4

Control vs. Chaos 4 1 3 5

Globalization vs. Localization 4 3 5 4

Profitability vs. Responsibility 1 2 4 1

IX. References

Al-Alawi, B. M., & Bradley, T. H. (2013). Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric

vehicle market modeling studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 21, 190-

203.

Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., & Van Rossum, W. (2006). Customer value propositions

in business markets. Harvard business review, 84(3), 90.

Arthur, W. B. (1994). Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The American

economic review, 84(2), 406-411.

Barney, Jay. "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage." Journal of

management 17.1 (1991): 99-120.

Cachon, G., & Terwiesch, C. (2009). Matching supply with demand (Vol. 2). Singapore:

McGraw-Hill.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and

profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Chetty, S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004). A strategic approach to internationalization: a

traditional versus a “born-global” approach. Journal of International Marketing, 12(1),

57-81.

Cravens, D. W., & Piercy, N. (2006). Strategic marketing (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy: process, content, context; an international

perspective. Cengage Learning EMEA.

Deffeyes, K. S. (2008). Hubbert's peak: the impending world oil shortage (New Edition).

Princeton University Press.

Downes, L., & Nunes, P. (2013). Big bang disruption. Harvard business review, 44-56.

Eberle, U., & von Helmolt, R. (2010). Sustainable transportation based on electric

vehicle concepts: a brief overview. Energy & Environmental Science, 3(6), 689-699.

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge

University Press.

Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. Harvard business review, 79(8), 137-147.

Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of

bounded rationality. Psychological review, 103(4), 650.

Gold, A. H., & Arvind Malhotra, A. H. S. (2001). Knowledge management: An

organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems,

18(1), 185-214.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic

management journal, 17(S2), 109-122.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1993). Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard

business review, 71(2), 75-84.

Harrison, R. T., Mason, C. M., & Girling, P. (2004). Financial bootstrapping and venture

development in the software industry. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,

16(4), 307-333.

Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational

learning: an integration and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing, 42-54.

Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive

advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), 49-59.

Kandampully, J. (2002). Innovation as the core competency of a service organisation:

the role of technology, knowledge and networks. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 5(1), 18-26.

Keeley, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R., & Quinn, B. (2013). Ten types of innovation: The

discipline of building breakthroughs. John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: from theory to practice.

California Management Review, 47(3), 105-121.

Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The

American economic review, 562-583.

Kirsch, D. A. (2000). The electric vehicle and the burden of history.

Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the

born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124-141.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the

sources of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for

Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Li, Y., Mishra, N., Palmer, D., & Ronen, G. (2016). Good2Go: Strategic HRM Plan,

Building in for Change and Growth in a Startup. Unpublished paper, Amsterdam

Business School.

Loeb, A. (2004). Steam versus electric versus internal combustion: choosing vehicle

technology at the start of the automotive age. Transportation Research Record: Journal

of the Transportation Research Board, (1885), 1-7.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.

Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational

strategy, structure, and process. Academy of management review, 3(3), 546-562.

Mitchell R. K., Agle BR and Wood DJ. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder

identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.

Academy of Management Review: 853-886.

Moen, O., & Servais, P. (2002). Born Global or Gradual Global? Examining the Export

Behavior of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal of International Marketing,

10(3), 49-72.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese

companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.

Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational

forms. Organization science, 11(5), 538-550.

Polli, R., & Cook, V. (1969). Validity of the product life cycle. The Journal of Business,

42(4), 385-400.

Porter, M. E. (1989). From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. In Readings in

Strategic Management (pp. 234-255). Macmillan Education UK.

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy?. Published November.

Porter M. E. (2008) The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Harvard

Business Review 86(1): 78-93.

Prahalad C. K. and Hamel G. (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard

Business Review 68(3): 79-91.

Rolim, C. C., Gonçalves, G. N., Farias, T. L., & Rodrigues, Ó. (2012). Impacts of electric

vehicle adoption on driver behavior and environmental performance. Procedia-Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 54, 706-715.

Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R. D., & Heany, D. F. (1974). Impact of strategic planning on

profit performance (pp. 137-145). Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard

University.

Schroeder, A., & Traber, T. (2012). The economics of fast charging infrastructure for

electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 43, 136-144.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,

capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55). Transaction publishers.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy.

Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., & van Wee, B. (2014). The influence of financial

incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy,

68, 183-194.

Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: exploring the

relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations,

and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631-647.

Varis, M., & Littunen, H. (2010). Types of innovation, sources of information and

performance in entrepreneurial SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management,

13(2), 128-154.

Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C.

(2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research

directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge‐based resources, entrepreneurial

orientation, and the performance of small and medium‐sized businesses. Strategic

management journal, 24(13), 1307-1314.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California management review,

41(3), 125-145.

G2G Organizational strategy and innovation management

Documents

Transcript of G2G Organizational strategy and innovation management