Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 889

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns1

Svahn, Fredrik, Mathiassen, Lars, Lindgren, Rikard·2017·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.12
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Past research provides instructive yet incomplete answers as to how incumbent firms can address competing concerns as they embrace digital innovation. In particular, it offers only partial explanations of why different concerns emerge, how they manifest, and how firms can manage them. In response, we present a longitudinal case study of Volvo Cars’connected car initiative. Combining extant literature with insights from the case, we argue that incumbent firms face four competing concerns—capability (existing versus requisite), focus (product versus process), collaboration (internal versus external), and governance (control versus flexibility)—and that these concerns are systemically interrelated. Firms must therefore manage these concerns cohesively by continuously balancing new opportunities and established practices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.12

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Alexander, 1999, The Origins of Pattern Theory, IEEE Software, 16, 71, 10.1109/52.795104 · DOI
  2. Anderson, 1990, Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604, 10.2307/2393511 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Andersson, 2005, The Mobile–Stationary Divide in Ubiquitous Computing Environments: Lessons from the Transport Industry, Information Systems Management, 22, 65, 10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90031.7 · DOI
  4. Andersson, 2008, Architectural Knowledge in Inter-Organizational IT Innovation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 19, 10.1016/j.jsis.2008.01.002 · DOI
  5. Ansari, 2016, The Disruptor’s Dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. Television Ecosystem, Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1829, 10.1002/smj.2442 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Avital, 2009, From Generative Fit to Generative Capacity: Exploring an Emerging Dimension of Information Systems Design and Task Performance, Information Systems Journal, 19, 345, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00291.x · DOI
  7. Baldwin, 1997, Managing in the Age of Modularity, Harvard Business Review, 75, 84
  8. Baldwin, 2000, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, 10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Barrett, 2012, Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work, Organization Science, 23, 1448, 10.1287/orsc.1100.0639 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Boland, 2007, Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction, Organization Science, 18, 631, 10.1287/orsc.1070.0304 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Boudreau, 2010, Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access Vs. Devolving Control, Management Science, 56, 1849, 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Boudreau, 2009, How to Manage Outside Innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review, 50, 69
  13. Dougherty, 2012, Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation, Organization Science, 23, 1467, 10.1287/orsc.1110.0700 · DOI · Paper page
  14. El Sawy, 2010, Research Commentary: Seeking the Configurations of Digital Ecodynamics: It Takes Three to Tango, Information Systems Research, 21, 835, 10.1287/isre.1100.0326 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Garud, 2008, Incomplete by Design and Designing for Incompleteness, Organization Studies, 29, 351, 10.1177/0170840607088018 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gregory, 2015, Paradoxes and the Nature of Ambidexterity in It Transformation Programs, Information Systems Research, 26, 57, 10.1287/isre.2014.0554 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Henfridsson, 2014, Information Systems Strategizing, Organizational Sub-Communities, and the Emergence of a Sustainability Strategy, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23, 11, 10.1016/j.jsis.2013.11.001 · DOI
  18. Henfridsson, 2005, Multi-Contextuality in Ubiquitous Computing: Investigating the Car Case through Action Research, Information and Organization, 15, 95, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.02.009 · DOI
  19. Henfridsson, 2010, User Involvement in Developing Mobile and Temporarily Interconnected Systems, Information Systems Journal, 20, 119, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00337.x · DOI
  20. Henfridsson, 2014, Managing Technological Change in the Digital Age: The Role of Architectural Frames, Journal of Information Technology, 29, 27, 10.1057/jit.2013.30 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Henfridsson, 2014, The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship, Organization Science, 25, 932, 10.1287/orsc.2013.0883 · DOI
  22. Jonsson, 2009, Turn to the Material: Remote Diagnostics Systems and New Forms of Boundary-Spanning, Information and Organization, 19, 233, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.07.001 · DOI
  23. Jonsson, 2008, Technologies for Value Creation: An Exploration of Remote Diagnostics Systems in the Manufacturing Industry, Information Systems Journal, 18, 227, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00267.x · DOI
  24. Lee, 2012, Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry, Organization Science, 23, 1428, 10.1287/orsc.1110.0707 · DOI
  25. Leifer, 2001, Implementing Radical Innovation in Mature Firms: The Role of Hubs, Academy of Management Executive, 15, 102
  26. Lenfle, 2009, The Launch of Innovative Product-Related Services: Lessons from Automotive Telematics, Research Policy, 38, 156, 10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.020 · DOI
  27. Lewis, 2000, Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide, Academy of Management Review, 25, 760, 10.2307/259204 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Lindgren, 2008, Multi-Contextuality in Boundary-Spanning Practices, Information Systems Journal, 18, 641, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00245.x · DOI
  29. Lucas, 2009, Disruptive Technology: How Kodak Missed the Digital Photography Revolution, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18, 46, 10.1016/j.jsis.2009.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Mathiassen, 2002, Collaborative Practice Research, Information Technology & People, 15, 321, 10.1108/09593840210453115 · doi:10.1108/09593840210453115
  31. Miles, 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
  32. Nambisan, 2013, Information Technology and Product/Service Innovation: A Brief Assessment and Some Suggestions for Future Research, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 215, 10.17705/1jais.00327 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Robertson, 1998, Planning for Product Platforms, Sloan Management Review, 39, 19
  34. Robey, 1999, Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications, Information Systems Research, 10, 167, 10.1287/isre.10.2.167 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Sanderson, 1995, Managing Product Families: The Case of the Sony Walkman, Research Policy, 24, 761, 10.1016/0048-7333(94)00797-B · DOI · Paper page
  36. Selander, 2013, Capability Search and Redeem across Digital Ecosystems, Journal of Information Technology, 28, 183, 10.1057/jit.2013.14 · DOI
  37. Tanriverdi, 2010, Research Commentary—Reframing the Dominant Quests of Information Systems Strategy Research for Complex Adaptive Business Systems, Information Systems Research, 21, 822, 10.1287/isre.1100.0317 · DOI
  38. Teece, 2012, Dynamic Capabilities: Routines Versus Entrepreneurial Action, Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1395, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01080.x · DOI · Paper page
  39. Teece, 2014, The Foundations of Enterprise Performance: Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities in an (Economic) Theory of Firms, Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 328, 10.5465/amp.2013.0116 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Tilson, 2010, Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing Is Research Agenda, Information Systems Research, 21, 748, 10.1287/isre.1100.0318 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Tripsas, 2009, Technology, Identity, and Inertia through the Lens of ‘The Digital Photography Company, Organization Science, 20, 441, 10.1287/orsc.1080.0419 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Utterback, 1975, A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation, Omega, 3, 639, 10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Van de Ven, 2007, Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, 10.1093/oso/9780199226290.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Wareham, 2014, Technology Ecosystem Governance, Organization Science, 25, 1195, 10.1287/orsc.2014.0895 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Westergren, 2012, Exploring Preconditions for Open Innovation: Value Networks in Industrial Firms, Information and Organization, 22, 209, 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2012.05.001 · DOI
  46. Hippel, 1990, Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable, Research Policy, 19, 407, 10.1016/0048-7333(90)90049-C · DOI · Paper page
  47. Woodard, 2013, Design Capital and Design Moves: The Logic of Digital Business Strategy, MIS Quarterly, 37, 537, 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.10 · DOI
  48. Yin, 2009, Case Study Research: Design and Methods
  49. Yoo, 2013, The Tables Have Turned: How Can the Information Systems Field Contribute to Technology and Innovation Management Research?, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 227, 10.17705/1jais.00334 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Zittrain, 2006, The Generative Internet, Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974

Cited by

See all 889

Metadata

Authors
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2017-03-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
239-253
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.12
OpenAlex
W2601853749
Cited by
889
References
9
FWCI
87.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.12
The paper
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.12

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.