Methodological approach of the research
This chapter reviews the evidence for elaborating an action research project within the Vedecom institute. It starts with an enhance explanation of the research design. This chapter gives an overview of the research methodology; Action research has been selected as the main methodology according to it provides enhanced features on collaboration between management researchers and practitioners, facilitates problem-solving, improves the practice and contributes to the science and theory development. Subsequently, initial reflection for collaboration, research question formulation criteria and assessment for complementary methodologies are discussed.
Methodological approach of the research
For conducting this research, the assumptions of a constructivist worldview were implied. The reality has been considered as being constructed by the process of knowing and the researcher interacted with the actors to build the management tools and experiment them. In other words a process of interaction between the researcher and the actors involved built the research findings. Moreover the created knowledge contributed to management science and suggested several managerial implications. The following section explains more details regarding to the methodological approach utilized in this dissertation.
Management science and management practice require getting closer to each other; in fact research methods in management science need to be involved in a field approach and the researcher’s role must include several intervenes such as designing new management tools based on real situations and interactions with the actors (David, 2012). In this regard, management scholars attempt to define pertinent methodologies and suggest useful actions. Several attempts in this subject led to define different types of methodologies for combining management science and management practice such as action research (David, 2012; Lewin, 1951), intervention research (David and Hatchuel, 2008; Hatchuel, 1994; Hatchuel and Molet, 1986; Moisdon, 1984) and collaborative management research (Shani et al., 2008). However academics use different names for entitling these approaches, but all imply to conduct a research which is beneficial both for management science and management practice.
This research is based on constructivist viewpoint and action research methodology; therefore it would be pertinent to investigate the characteristics of this methodology and its application in management science research.
Action research methodology has emerged after the end of the Second World War by Lewin within the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan (Lewin, 1951). By elaborating action research methodology, Lewin applied the theories of social psychology to practical social problems in order to learn from experience and afterward add to the knowledge by modifying the theory or suggesting new theory (Myers, 2013).
Action research practices have influenced effectively the business world. As instance, the “balanced scorecard” (Kaplan and Norton, 2005) was developed as an action research project through a close work between academics and clients; it brought multiple stakeholder perspectives into the financial decision making of the company (Bradbury, 2008).
When action research methodology is adopted by the researcher, it influences the process of the research from the beginning. The departure point in action research methodology is the research design and formulating the research question. The research should be done in the field with the objective to solve a real problem; moreover the research should contribute to the management literature satisfyingly and provide actionable knowledge for practice.
Therefore it is important to design the research based on the action research characteristics. Action research has several characteristics that distinguish it from other forms of research; the collaboration between the researcher and practitioners, finding solutions for real problems in practice, theory development and communicating the results constitute the action research.
The researcher has important role in conducting a research using action research methodology; management researcher who is engaged in action research needs to have several skills in order to conduct the research more efficiently (Pasmore et al., 2008a): researcher should have expertise in theoretical thinking and model creation. Moreover the researcher has to have good analytical reasoning for interpreting detailed empirical work and making theoretical constructs.
Management practice and management science may have different motivations in joining the research. Managers may desire quick solutions for existing problems in order to fix them as soon as possible, on the other hand, researchers are interested in establishing generalizable solutions to widespread issues (Pasmore et al., 2008a), therefore the researcher has to reconcile these different motivations while trying to maintain the quality of research and providing quick, reasonable and actionable solutions for practice.
The researcher has to find equilibrium between “the quest for generalizable patterns and the development of specific applications, between time-consuming analysis and quick fixes, between conceptual reasoning and concrete problem solving” (Pasmore et al., 2008, p.13)
The researcher may make recommendations about possible applications of the research results in real management situations (David and Hatchuel, 2008, p.34).
When using action research methodology, the researcher is forced to work with many people from different hierarchical positions, different organizations and various educational and professional backgrounds. Therefore the researcher requires having social and consultancy skills in addition to research skills.
The researcher may need not only to develop own analytical skills but also has to develop those for others in order to become more successful in bridging knowledge and action (Rooke and Torbert, 2005) and moving toward action-oriented knowledge (Bradbury, 2008).
One of difficulties of action research is to do the action and research at the same time; it is not simple to do a research that solves a practical business problem (Myers, 2013), therefore the researcher needs to manage this situation in terms of time, quality and overall costs of the research project in order to satisfy both academic world and business world.
Choice of the industry
The context of this dissertation is innovation projects in automotive industry and mobility services. However this dissertation has been started following the request of the Vedecom institute whose mission is innovation in automotive and transportation industries, but the automotive industry stands also as an important body of knowledge for management studies while several management concepts like “platforms”, “business units”, “market forecasting”, “production planning” (Moore, 1996), “lean management” and “new product development” find their origins in automotive industry. In addition automotive industry has deeply reconceptualized in past two decades by introducing new technological innovations (Maniak and Midler, 2014) and new business models. As nowadays we witness several innovations in terms of technology and service in automotive industry which have changed conventional BtoC business model of automotive manufacturers regarding private car use.
The case of the Vedecom institute whose main mission refers to research projects in mobility and transport issues stands as the principal case of this dissertation. Moreover, today, the main contribution of the Vedecom institute concerns autonomous vehicles which is new in automobile industry. If nowadays Vedecom works on the research on autonomous vehicles, it is not a research domain determined from the beginning, it is a research field that has evolved over time. In parallel to the Vedecom institute case, the Bollore group case has been studied as a case study. The starting point for thinking about choosing the Bollore group as the case study was its recent offer in urban mobility: the electric vehicle carsharing service. The electric carsharing service which is provided by the Bollore group is even new for the group because Bollore stands as an established firm in totally different domains and industries. In other words, Bollore has been operating and existing before the introduction of disruptive innovation and its associated business model.
Both of the cases bring out the automotive industry from its traditional boundaries and its conventional customers and try to integrate it more directly to urban transport decision makings and enhance the automobile market.
Initial reflection for collaboration
Action research methodology represents the collaboration between management practice and management science that make them closer and mutually reinforcing. Action research methodology finds its roots in the strategies for enhancing the use of research in practice and forging closer bonds between split worlds of knowledge generation and knowledge application (Bradbury, 2008). Accordingly the collaboration is the interaction between a researcher or research team and a practitioner or group of practitioners.
Action research methodology helps the researcher to collect data from the organizations in order to produce knowledge. Action research facilitates a research “in” the field (David, 2012) as the practitioners know the field from their points of view and are able to give their information. The researcher may be act like an outsider but usually like a coworker of practitioners (Zuber-Skerrit, 1992).
Action research methodology assists the managers and researchers to frame collaboratively a research agenda that responds to the questions of practice and develops implications for action while it is interesting theoretically and reinforces the academic knowledge.
As soon as I joined the project as a researcher in 2013, we organized a meeting with the general director and the director of Eco-mobility program. This two-hour meeting was an initial reflection and presentation of the project by the directors. The aim of the initial reflection was to explore the dimensions of the project and understand how different people see it. Therefore in this stage we avoided getting into arguments for reaching agreements. We just provided a favorable condition in which participants expressed their viewpoints.
According to this meeting:
– The internal organization of Vedecom was consisted of a general director, a program director for Eco-mobility, a program director for vehicle and a training director. Vedecom also had recruited 20 PhD students.
– Satory existed in the mind of directors as the location of project.
– Directors had different backgrounds and they had come together recently. Therefore they did not have a same organizational culture and they did not have a common agreement on what the project was and where it would be launched.
– It appeared that the director of the Eco-mobility program was searching for some public funds for the project while he did not have any estimation of the overall costs of urban passenger transport in Satory.
– Several mobility solutions were understudy and protecting the view of the Palace of Versailles was an important criteria. For example two engineering companies (INGEROP and E.R.I.C) had realized a study for CASQY1 (The urban community of Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines) in April 2013 for connecting several locations by telecabin in Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines.
This meeting revealed the existence of several ambiguities; the project was not defined, it was not agreed that the project would be launched by which product, whether the product would be accompanied with a service or no, where it would be implemented and which urban community would be concerned directly. Satory was mentioned during the meeting as the eventual location of the project; Satory belongs to the urban community of Versailles1 and the urban community of Versailles belongs to Department of Yvelines and the Department of Yvelines is in the Ile-De-France Region. We studied the annual reports and websites of these public authorities in order to understand if they have any plan for Satory. This study clarified that however the urban community of Versailles had several plans for economic development (e.g. creation of business incubators, support of the competitiveness clusters, attracting new enterprises, development of Satory), urban development (e.g. support of housing construction), environment protection (e.g. waste management, energy consumption reduction, noise and air pollution diminution) but it did not have any major plan for transportation. Therefore, it was far to expect the urban community of Versailles to contribute financially to the Vedecom’s project.
Research question formulation
As discussed above, the objective of adopting action research methodology is dual effectiveness and productiveness both in management science and management practice. Therefore for research question formulation, these two factors must be considered.
The action research methodology is used when a real problem exists and it is recognized at least in practice, therefore practitioners and scientists collaborate together on a factual problem.
Action research targets real problems and aims to assist practitioners facing factual concerns; therefore it includes iterative cycles of identifying a problem, planning, acting and evaluating (David, 2012). Action research explores existing state and provides possible reflections for transforming it (David, 2012). It is not as same as other research methodologies in which the researcher studies organizational phenomena with no will to change it; on the contrary the aim of action researcher is to create change in parallel to studying the process (Baburoglu and Ravn, 1992).
Action research concerns about the research “in the field” in contrast to the research “on the field”. Research “on the field” is what the researches do by adopting the observation methodology, when they observe the phenomena from the outside for extracting constants and regularities. On the contrary, action researchers integrate themselves in the field to collect empirical data in order to design appropriate models and management tools, furthermore they investigate in what extend these management tools and models work (David, 2012).
As action research methodology deals with a factual problem, therefore the first step is to identify the primary problems that require to be answered in the host organization (Susman and Evered, 1978). Research questions necessitate to be formulated in cooperation with management practitioners in the organization (Bradbury, 2008) for being sure that they approve the existence of a real problem in the organization.
The aim of action research is to generate knowledge that is valid in scientific community and is practical in practice. In action research, the produced knowledge during the research serves practice while simultaneously contributes to academic and theoretical understanding in management and organizations fields (Mohrman et al., 2008). In other words, action research process influences the development of both academic and practice communities (Coghlan and Shani, 2008). Action research is contextual and it is not deduced from general normative theories, because it engages in the real problem within the field to generate knowledge for theory and practice (David, 2012) .Therefore in using action research methodology, the objective is not just to apply scientific knowledge to the practice, it is also about contributing to the body of knowledge (Myers, 2013). Therefore this double functionality of action research influence the research question formulation processes.
Through action research, all the endeavors to solve a real existing problem end to the generation of practical knowledge and contribution to literature. Reaching the objectives of action research including the contribution to academic literature and generating practical knowledge for practice requires appropriate research framework.
Knowledge becomes more actionable if theoretical conclusions lead to provide managerial implications. Therefore “management implications” of the research validates its actionable knowledge generation for practice.
Actionable knowledge is the knowledge that allows the implementation of a singular solution to a contextual problem (David and Hatchuel, 2008, p.36). Actionable knowledge for practice stands as a measure to evaluate the quality of the action research in practice; the capability to produce a desired effect according to the acquired knowledge is generating scientific knowledge applicable for practice (Bradbury, 2008). In other words, through applying the action research methodology, not only the scientific knowledge is generated but also it is applied in practice in order to overcome real problems.
When a research is conducted by action research methodology, it should guarantee that the results are actionable for the practice while they address research gaps and contribute to the scientific literature.
Literature survey and refining initial research questions
The aim of action research is to provide both managerial implications and theoretical contributions at the end of the research project. Therefore conducting the action research for a real problem in practice requires mobilizing existing knowledge in order to first, refine the research question and second, make sure that solving the problem will fill a literature gap in management science.
Advancing the scientific knowledge necessitates several prerequisites; the researcher should be aware of the existing literature. Understanding the work of others avoids reinventing the wheel, allows the researcher to build upon the foundations constructed by other scholars (Pasmore et al., 2008b). In other words when researchers are more aware of other scholars’ contributions, they progress more rapidly and the quality of their research improves significantly. Moreover literature review is the principal factor for positioning the research questions which are being constructed progressively (Dumez, 2013).
According to the first meeting with the directors for having an initial reflection of the project, it seemed that they need to know who the actors for urban passenger transportation in Satory are and what their contributions are. From the beginning, I started to find the relevant literature according to the context of project. Several body of literature have appeared pertinent for further reading; the business model and business ecosystem concepts, public private partnerships. The literature review showed that however the business model concept has the potential to be used in this project but its demonstration and evaluation are less understood. Moreover, most of the scholars have the firm-level perspective which makes the business model concept inappropriate for multi actor contexts. Therefore the business ecosystem concept appeared as a pertinent underlying infrastructure for the business model of a public private ecosystem. However the business model concept provides a system-level view of all the actors both from public and private sectors as well as the users, but it does not explain the interrelations among the actors. So it seemed useful to transpose the value network concept to the business ecosystem in order to be able to understand the value exchanges among the actors. These actions led to design a conceptual framework for the business model of a public private ecosystem (for more information see chapter 5). The conceptual framework made the business model concept applicable to the multi actor contexts; therefore it stands a theoretical contribution which helped also to address a real problem upon it. Based on this conceptual framework I designed a management tool prototype (for more information see chapter 7). The prototype of the management tool has been designed and applied to a carsharing service. Afterward this prototype has been used for the case of Satory.
Reflecting for further research questions
As this research has been realized through the collaboration with the Vedecom institute, therefore, action research methodology has been used to address the question in practice. Several scholars consider that the action research is a progressive problem solving process that includes iterative cycles. For example Susman and Evered (1978) consider a cyclical process for action research (see figure 2); they assume five phases in a cyclical process: Diagnosing (identifying or defining a problem), Action planning (considering alternative courses of action for solving a problem), Action taking (selecting a course of action), Evaluating (studying the consequences of an action) and Specifying learning (identifying general findings).
Zuber-Skerrit (2001) suggests a schematic model as a spiral of cycles that each of them consists of four phases: planning, acting, observing and reflecting (see figure 3).
In summary, action research is a continuous and iterative process. In this dissertation the iterative characteristics of action research manifests particularly in designing new research question according to previous cycles of research. Dumez, (2013) explains that the research question in not created just at the beginning of the research, but several research questions may be created during the research.
As described before, this research was started for assisting Vedecom institute in understanding the cost-revenue structure among different actors of the mobility ecosystem in Satory (phase A corresponds to chapter 7). This problem of practice has been studied beside literature review on business models. The literature review revealed that there are several research gaps; therefore the utility of research in terms of theoretical contribution has been confirmed. A cycle of actions (e.g. data collection, analysis, etc.) has been accomplished. The first cycle of research has replied the real problem in practice by providing a management tool for demonstration and evaluation the business model of a public private ecosystem. But through the first cycle, the need for a general conceptual framework has manifested. Therefore the research question B was defined as “how to design a conceptual framework for the business model of a public private ecosystem?” (Phase B corresponds to chapter 5). This cycle has been accomplished by a deep literature review of several concepts (i.e. business ecosystem, value network, value, etc.) in different management science disciplines. This cycle of research helped to have framework for the business model of ecosystem. Consequently we were able to bring up new research questions: first, regarding to the business model innovation mechanisms (phase C corresponds to chapter 6), second regarding to the dynamics of an innovation ecosystem over time (phase D corresponds to chapter 8). For solving each of these questions, different actions (e.g. data collection, analysis, etc.) have taken place.
As a result a conceptual framework has been designed and based on the conceptual framework a management device for demonstrating and evaluating the business model of a public private ecosystem has been created and used. According to the conceptual framework, the business model of an ecosystem includes the offer and demand systems as well as the value structure. The management tool unlocks specifically the cost-revenue structure as a subset of value structure.
However the application of the management device has answered the problem of Vedecom satisfyingly and added something new to the management science but it seemed that this research has the potential for more development. The business model dynamics appeared as an interesting issue for further research. The business model dynamics can be translated both as the interaction among the business model components and also the business model dynamics over time. The first approach is deliberated comprehensively in chapter 5 and the second approach is explained in chapter 7.
The first approach led to define a new research question as “what are the mechanisms of business model innovation?” The effectuation logic has been transposed to the business model concept. In this regard two cases were studied, first one refers to the case of Bollore who has changed its business model in recent two decades and entered new businesses. The second case refers to the trajectory of the Vedecom institute and shows how the business model of a research program has been evolved.
Figure 4 shows the progressive process of action research during my research; an initial reflection resulted to a primary research question, afterward a series of actions such as data collection and analysis have been done. According to the results another research question has raised and the process has been continuing until the end of the research. As it is illustrated in this scheme, “Reflection” in each phase not only encouraged me for another research question but directly provided theoretical contributions and managerial implications.
Assessment for complementary methodologies
No methodology is perfect and complete enough for conducting research in an organization (Pasmore et al., 2008b). One type of methodology may not cover the global research question thoroughly. However management research has tended to offer a dichotomy of approaches, in reality, multiple methods are required to conduct the research, in other words research projects usually include different research questions; therefore a research method may be appropriate for one question but not for another (Gray, 2013).
Each research method has its particular strengths and weaknesses and it may cover a part of required data. Therefore using multiple methods for collecting the data from different sources and over different times, provides a more exhaustive data by profiting from strengths of each method (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Gray, 2013).
The research question may be too complex and too big that it requires being break down to several sub-questions which need different methodologies to be answered. Another reason to complete action research methodology with other methodologies such as case study research refers to the collaboration mechanism between management science and management practice; in other words through action research methodology, the researcher has access to the organization and expect to collect data from the organization, on the other hand organization expect rapid and practical answers for its in-life questions. The challenge arises when the organization in not mature itself and it is in its early stages, the challenge aggravated when the organization is not only immature but also wants to work on innovation. Here the researcher is forced to accompany action research methodology by other methodologies such as case study research methodology. The researcher has two objectives to do; first, as the organization is new therefore it needs to be nourished by academic concepts and theories and the researcher brings the academic knowledge to the practice. This helps the organization to have access to actionable knowledge and use it to develop itself. Second, the new established organization wins time to develop data which will be used in action research methodology. Therefore using a complementary methodology alongside the action research methodology is beneficial both for researcher and the organization.
As this dissertation deals with the management of a public-private ecosystem for innovation and more profoundly designing pertinent management tools related to the business model concept, therefore this research is more complicated than being covered just by one type of methodology. Moreover the researcher joined the organization when it had not even a juridical status; therefore it was really in the first stages while it wanted to work on innovation. This is why different methodologies were applied in parallel. The main used methodology in this dissertation is action research which is enriched by using case study research methodology to answer some sub-questions of the research. The organization in which we aimed to conduct action research was new and at the same time was very demanding for new concepts, therefore case study research targeted both contributing to the theory and providing pertinent managerial implications. In this regard the organization was nourished with effective results in very early stages while generating data for action research methodology; Data generation also has reinforced the formalization process of the organization. Moreover data collection for this dissertation is a bundle of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Data collection by qualitative and quantitative approaches
Research design when using action research methodology may require benefiting from further qualitative and quantitative approaches. Complementary qualitative approaches may include wide range of interviews and focus groups, while quantitative approaches may include surveys (Bradbury, 2008). Through action research methodology, some complementary approaches may be used while the researcher aims to conduct the research in the field. Table 1 shows the summary of data sources.
Table of contents :
PART I: RESEARCH STRATEGY: ELABORATING AN ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT AT THE VEDECOM INSTITUTE
2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE RESEARCH
2.2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE RESEARCH
2.3. CHOICE OF THE INDUSTRY
2.4. INITIAL REFLECTION FOR COLLABORATION
2.5. RESEARCH QUESTION FORMULATION
2.5.1. Literature survey and refining initial research questions
2.5.2. Reflecting for further research questions
2.6. ASSESSMENT FOR COMPLEMENTARY METHODOLOGIES
2.7. DATA COLLECTION BY QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES
2.8. EVALUATION OF THE METHODOLOGY AND EXPLOITATION THE RESULTS
3. PRESENTATION OF THE VEDECOM INSTITUTE CASE
3.2. INTERACTIONS AMONG THE ACTORS AND EVOLUTION PATH OF THE PROJECTS
3.2.1. Research program on transportation issues
3.2.2. French government’s priority on road transport safety
3.2.3. French government call for competitiveness clusters tender
3.2.4. Developing a competitiveness cluster
3.2.5. The fusion of two competitive clusters
3.2.6. Establishment of the Mov’eoTec competitiveness cluster
3.2.7. Mov’eoTec foundation creation
3.2.8. French government call for IEED projects
3.2.9. Establishment of the Vedecom Institute
3.2.10. ITE Vedecom and the ANR’s funds
3.2.11. Shaping the innovation experimentation
3.3. CHALLENGES AND MOTIVATIONS OF THE ACTORS FOR INNOVATION IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORTATION
3.3.1. Economic factors
3.3.2. Energy consumption, pollution and climate change
3.3.3. Customer’ interest change
3.3.4. Emerging new actors
3.4. TOWARDS SHARED AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL SOLUTIONS AND STRATEGIES
3.4.1. Commitment on innovation
3.4.2. Supporting collaborations and partnerships
3.4.3. Image, attractiveness and competitiveness
3.4.4. Promoting the automotive and transportation industries
3.5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
PART II: REVIEWING THE LITERATURE AND IDENTIFYING THE RESEARCH GAPS FOR DESIGNING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE BUSINESS MODEL
4. LITERATURE OVERVIEW AND RESEARCH GAPS
4.2. ANALYSIS OF THE BUSINESS MODEL DEFINITIONS
4.3. DISCUSSING THE BUSINESS MODEL TRENDS
4.4. CATEGORIZING THE BUSINESS MODEL COMPONENTS
4.5. CONCLUDING THE REFLECTIONS ON BUSINESS MODEL CONCEPT AND IDENTIFYING THE RESEARCH GAPS
4.5.1. Incompatible development of the business model concept alongside multi-actor concepts
4.5.2. Dispersed considerations for the business model components
4.5.3. Inadequate responsiveness to the business model dynamics
5. DESIGNING A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE BUSINESS MODEL OF A PUBLIC PRIVATE ECOSYSTEM
5.2. BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM AND ITS VALUE NETWORK AS THE UNDERLYING MULTI-ACTOR STRUCTURE
5.3. BUSINESS MODEL COMPONENTS
5.3.1. Offer and demand systems’ configurations
5.3.2. Value structure
5.4. BUSINESS MODEL DYNAMICS
5.5. CONCEPTUALIZING THE BUSINESS MODEL OF ECOSYSTEM, ITS COMPONENTS AND DYNAMICS
PART III: DISCUSSING THE RESULTS: BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION MECHANISMS, A MANAGEMENT TOOL DESIGN AND THE BUSINESS MODEL DYNAM
6. BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION THROUGH EFFECTUAL PROCESSES
6.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
6.2.1. Effectuation logic in entrepreneurship literature
6.2.2. Effectuation reasoning versus causation reasoning
6.2.3. Effectuation multidimensional construct
6.3. BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION
6.3.1. Reactive and proactive business model innovation approaches
6.3.2. Effectuation reasoning conformity to proactive business model innovation
6.3.3. Dealing with business model components in reactive and proactive approaches
6.3.4. Visualization of the effectual business model innovation
6.4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
6.4.1. Theoretical contributions
6.4.2. Managerial implications
7. DESIGNING A MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE PUBLIC PRIVATE ECOSYSTEM
7.2. HIGHLIGHTING INADEQUACIES OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
7.2.1. Business model demonstration
7.2.2. Scope of analysis in business models
7.2.3. Business model evaluation
7.2.4. Stating the objective
7.3. EXPLAINING THE FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING THE MANAGEMENT TOOL
7.4. PROTOTYPING A MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR CARSHARING
7.4.1. Data collection and analysis
7.4.2. Prototyping a management tool for the business model
7.5. INVESTIGATING THE BUSINESS MODEL OF ECOSYSTEM FOR INITIATING THE INNOVATION PROJECT
7.5.1. Describing the process
7.5.2. Urban passenger transportation in Satory
7.5.3. Autonomous vehicle background, incentives and experimentation
7.6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
8. BUSINESS MODEL DYNAMICS OF THE INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM
8.2. CHARACTERISTICS AND CHALLENGES OF AN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM
8.3. SYNOPSIS OF PROCESS
8.4. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
8.4.1. Monitoring value creation and value capture
8.4.2. Shifting from an innovation ecosystem
9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
9.1. THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
9.1.1. A conceptual framework for the business model of a public private ecosystem
9.1.2. An entrepreneurial approach for the business model innovation
9.1.3. New management tool for business model of public private ecosystems
9.1.4. New insights for business model dynamics
9.2. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.2.1. Practical outcomes of the action research for the project
9.2.2. Insights for managers regarding evolutions in automotive and transportation industries
PART IV : SYNTHESE EN FRANÇAIS
CONTEXTE DE LA RECHERCHE
REVUE DE LITTERATURE
DESCRIPTION DU CAS