Most
studies have focused on what the Global 5000 should be doing in order to
restructure and fully integrate their value chains, but none have focused
on the reasons that very few have even attempted this restructuring, much
less done so successfully. Research results in existence today generally
focus on cultural/mindset barriers (i.e. organizational resistance to
change) whereas this study includes those barriers and:
·
The
role of governmental and financial institutions;
·
Existing formal and informal stakeholder networks;
·
Governmental policies affecting information sharing and collaboration.
This
study investigated the relatively new concept of how companies have
successfully embraced and taken advantage of information abundance through
adopting disruptive rather than incremental business model change. The
study examines the dichotomy between what CEO’s state as their public
position versus results that have actually been achieved by Global 5000,
and initiatives that are actually underway:
·
Review
top initiatives in their business strategy
·
Determine whether the appropriate levers and incentives are in place to
ensure the success of the initiatives
Most
studies to date have been U.S. and Canada centric and have not yet
examined the reasons that many Global 5000 companies located outside of
the U.S. and Canada have not been able to integrate their value chain to
take advantage of information abundance.
Theoretical Foundations
Traditional economic theory assumes efficient adoption of technology when
what may apply is a variant of this theory that considers human
organizational problems. Contract Theory and Theory of the Firm are
reasonable starting points to create a theoretical foundation for this
study; however, neither theory addresses why firms do not transform. This
issue is not well addressed in economic literature.
Another
source that is particularly relevant is Clayton Christensen’s theory of
Disruptive Technologies, from Innovators Dilemma, which addresses
the issue of why so many successful companies, who invested heavily in
technology still lose market leadership when faced with disruptive
technological and market structure changes. The theory does not address,
however, the issues that arise by various regions, particularly in Western
Europe and Asia Pacific and how those might be different from Northern
America.
