| مشخصات مقاله | |
| ترجمه عنوان مقاله | نوآوری مدل کسب و کار در شرکت های پاسخ تقاضا: فراتر از دوگانگی رژیم نیچه |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Business model innovation in demand response firms: Beyond the niche-regime dichotomy |
| انتشار | مقاله سال ۲۰۲۱ |
| تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | ۱۷ صفحه |
| هزینه | دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد. |
| پایگاه داده | نشریه الزویر |
| نوع نگارش مقاله |
مقاله پژوهشی (Research Article) |
| مقاله بیس | این مقاله بیس میباشد |
| نوع مقاله | ISI |
| فرمت مقاله انگلیسی | |
| فرضیه | ندارد |
| مدل مفهومی | دارد، بخش ۲٫ Conceptual background and analytical framework صفحه ۲ |
| پرسشنامه | ندارد |
| متغیر | ندارد |
| رفرنس | دارد |
| رشته های مرتبط | مدیریت |
| گرایش های مرتبط | مدیریت کسب و کار، مدیریت عملکرد |
| نوع ارائه مقاله |
ژورنال |
| مجله | Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions – نوآوری زیست محیطی و تحولات اجتماعی |
| دانشگاه | Aalto University, School of Business, Finland |
| کلمات کلیدی | مدل کسب و کار، تحول پایداری، مدیریت سمت تقاضا، پیکربندی مجدد بخشی، تعامل چند فناورانه |
| کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی | Business model, Sustainability transition, Demand-side management, Sectoral reconfiguration, Multi-technology interaction |
| شناسه دیجیتال – doi |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.02.002 |
| کد محصول | E16061 |
| وضعیت ترجمه مقاله | ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید. |
| دانلود رایگان مقاله | دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
| سفارش ترجمه این مقاله | سفارش ترجمه این مقاله |
| فهرست مطالب مقاله: |
| Abstract Keywords Introduction Conceptual background and analytical framework Demand response in Finland Data and methods Results Discussion Conclusions Declaration of Competing Interest Acknowledgements Appendix A. Reserve marketplaces and DR participation in Finland (Fingrid, 2020b, 2020c) Appendix B. First stage coding scheme Appendix C. Details of the demand response companies studied References |
| بخشی از متن مقاله: |
| ABSTRACT Demand response (DR) is an innovation emerging at the intersection of the energy and information and communications technology sectors. This paper aims to investigate the drivers of—and differences in—business model innovation (BMI) behaviours of firms operating in these two interacting industries. Results from 22 semi-structured interviews with representatives of Finnish DR companies show that external drivers of BMI include regulation, competition, and the demise of the telecom industry following the fall of Nokia. Whereas technology start-ups and companies from adjacent industries are motivated by entrepreneurial opportunities, incumbent energy companies are driven by the threat of losing their existing customers and need to increase efficiency. The BMI behaviours observed do not fall neatly into the often-used dichotomous categories of niche/new entrant and regime/incumbent, as firms show behaviours from both extremes. To overcome this binary thinking, we propose a morphological box model that represents the extreme states of firm BMI while allowing for flexibility. Introduction In response to concerns over the perceived lack of agency in sustainability transitions research, the topic of actors’ roles and strategies in socio-technical change has been gaining increasing attention (de Haan and Rotmans, 2018; Farla et al., 2012; Fischer and Newig, 2016; Ruggiero et al., 2021; Wittmayer et al., 2016). Actors can adopt different strategies at different levels of structuration—i. e. at regime or niche level—and can pursue single strategies or a constellation of strategies that change over time (Wittmayer et al., 2016). This can range from those advocating a particular niche, those not favouring a specific niche but making space for change at the regime level, and those actively opposing change (Kivimaa et al., 2019). Firm strategies have generally tended to be conceptualised along two, rather simplified, lines: incumbents and front-runners. Incumbent actors may include firms that maintain the status quo through the power they possess for the purposes of resisting change (Geels, 2014b; Johnstone et al., 2017), thus contributing to the stability of regime structures (Geels, 2014b). In contrast, ‘niche actors’—often considered to include entrepreneurs, start-ups, and spin-offs (Wittmayer et al., 2016)—are seen as front-runners, dedicated ‘outsiders or fringe actors’ in small networks who pioneer path-breaking innovations that challenge incumbent regime structures (Geels and Schot, 2007: 400). However, reality is much more complex; and we should not expect all incumbent firms in an industry to follow similar strategies. |