Person:
HARTIGH, Erık Den

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

WoSScopusGoogle ScholarORCID

Name

Job Title

First Name

Erık Den

Last Name

HARTIGH
OrgUnit Logo
Organizational Unit

Filters

2011 - 201972020 - 20232
Reset filters

Settings

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    The effect of internal and external technology sourcing on firm performance throughout the technology life cycle
    (Informa Group Company, 2012) Stolwijk, C. C. M.; Vanhaverbeke, W. P. M.; Ortt, J. R.; Pieters, M. W.; den Hartigh, Erik; Beers, C. van; Entrepreneurship; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    In studies about the impact of technology sourcing on firm performance, the impact of the technology life cycle has thus far received scant attention. This paper investigates this topic from the knowledge-based perspective. Data was gathered from 22 PLD (Programmable Logic Device) manufacturers in the integrated circuit industry between 1986 and 2005, and used to test two hypotheses based on panel analysis: (1) that strategic alliance networks, as a mode of external technology sourcing, have a positive effect on a firm's innovative and market performance early in the technology life cycle, and (2) that internal development as a mode of internal technology sourcing has a positive effect on a firm's innovative and market performance later in the technology life cycle. Although both hypotheses are supported as far as market performance is concerned, neither is supported when it comes to innovative performance.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Conference ObjectPublicationOpen Access
    Company innovation system: a conceptualization
    (Operations and Information Management Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, 2018-04-25) den Hartigh, Erik; Entrepreneurship; Nunes, B.; Emrouznejad, A.; Bennett, D.; Pretorius, L.; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    We conceptualize the company as an innovation system that consists of components, relationships and attributes, with the purpose to produce innovation. The systems approach to innovation has received limited attention at the company level. While it is widely accepted for nations, sectors, regions and technologies, and while some company-level foundations and building blocks have been proposed, the dominant approach at company level is to regard innovation as a process. Components of a company innovation system are actors or resources. Relationships refer to the configuration of these components: an innovation process now becomes one of the possible configurations of components in a system. Attributes of a company innovation system are capabilities and other system properties, such as innovative culture or infrastructure. We explore the concept of company innovation system by analyzing and comparing case examples of ABB Group, Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, eBay, Hitachi, HTC, Lockheed Martin, Philips, Qualcomm, Salesforce.com and Southwest Airlines. We find that using the company innovation system approach, we can map innovation systems at the company level. We can identify the components, such as R&D departments, labs, venture organizations, teams, employees, C-level offices and facilitating tools. We can identify relationships such as single or multiple configurations, simple or complex configurations, technology-driven, market-driven or interactive configurations, and open or closed configurations. We can identify attributes such as creativity versus efficiency emphasis, systematic versus non-systematic approaches, adaptiveness of the system, and large project-focus versus experimentation focus. The findings indicate that companies design, configure and coordinate their innovation systems in different ways. Our current findings are tentative and preliminary and only provide descriptive insights of the case examples. A well-conceptualized and validated company innovation system approach may give managers relevant insights to address the problems of designing, configuring and coordinating their company innovation systems. Academically, the company innovation system approach provides complementary insights to the existing company-level innovation approaches.
  • Placeholder
    Conference ObjectPublicationMetadata only
    Digital technology and the stages of digital business transformation
    (IEEE, 2022) Mutlu, Irmak; den Hartigh, Erik; Üçler, Çağlar; Entrepreneurship; Professional Flight Program; HARTIGH, Erık Den; ÜÇLER, Çağlar; Mutlu, Irmak
    Companies use digital technology to transform their business. Digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation have been proposed as stages in this business transformation process. Researchers have also proposed a variety of maturity models to assess this transformation. The distinctions and the ontology between the stages of digital transformation are not always clearly defined. Using expert interviews and literature review this paper derived a domain-specific ontology from commonly expressed keywords. Based on this, five stages of digital transformation were distinguished and defined: (i) digital passive, (ii) digitization, (iii) digitalization, (iv) digital transition and (v) digital transformation. These five stages may be used in further research as a rubric to assess digital business transformation.
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    Cooperating with technologically (dis)similar alliance partners: the influence of the technology life cycle and the impact on innovative and market performance
    (Taylor & Francis, 2015) Stolwijk, C. C. M.; den Hartigh, Erik; Vanhaverbeke, W. P. M.; Ortt, J. R.; Beers, C. van; Entrepreneurship; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    In this paper, we investigate the cooperative relationships of innovating firms with (dis)similar partners during the technology life cycle. We test the impact of such cooperative relationships on the innovative and market performance of these firms. To do so, we use a sample of 83 Application Specific Integrated Circuit firms over the period 1986–2005. We find that working with partners that are technologically similar improves innovative and market performance early on in the technology life cycle. Working with partners that are technologically dissimilar improves innovative and market performance later on in the technology life cycle. These results indicate that innovating firms have to change their partnership from technologically similar towards technologically dissimilar over the technology life cycle.
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry
    (Elsevier, 2016) den Hartigh, Erik; Ortt, J. R.; Van de Kaa, G.; Stolwijk, C. C. M.; Entrepreneurship; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    We conduct a case study of the battle for market dominance between the industry platforms led by Apple and by IBM in the early personal computer industry (1977–1986). Platform leaders such as Apple or IBM need to consider many technological, strategic, and network factors in managing their industry platforms. We explore how platform leaders deploy these factors and their interactions during a battle for market dominance. We find that platform leaders choose various control modes to do so, ranging from central control to distributed control. The adoption of these control modes is dependent on the choice of being first entrant with a technological discontinuity (central control) or follower (distributed control). Within a control mode, technological, strategic, and network factors are managed in a coherent way.
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    Configurations of digital platforms for manufacturing: An analysis of seven cases according to platform functions and types
    (Springer, 2023-06-24) den Hartigh, Erik; Stolwijk, C.C.M.; Ortt, J.R.; Punter, L.M.; Entrepreneurship; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    We analyze organizational configurations of digital platforms for manufacturing according to two dimensions: platform functions and platform types. Platform functions refer to the organizational functions of platforms: manufacturing, data sharing, market making, and innovation. Platform types refer to a typology of how platforms are organized: as internal, supply chain, or industry type. We combine those dimensions into a framework and use that to analyze seven cases of digital platforms from the manufacturing sector. Our research answers calls for conceptual clarity and scoping of the digital platform concept and mends relative lack of attention toward digital platforms for the manufacturing sector. We find that digital platforms for manufacturing come in different, partly unexpected, configurations: (1) not all functions are necessarily organizationally part of the platform, (2) not all functions are necessarily organized according to the same platform type, but (3) also not all random configurations of platform types and functions seem to be possible. This complexity highlights the importance of the innovation function for exploring effective configurations of digital platforms for manufacturing.
  • Placeholder
    Conference ObjectPublicationMetadata only
    Technology standards battles and business networks during the technology life cycle: propositions and a plan for further research
    (IEEE, 2011) den Hartigh, Erik; Ortt, R.; Kaa, G. van de; Stolwijk, C.; Entrepreneurship; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    In this paper we explore the relationship between business networks and technology standards battles for dominance during the technology life cycle. Based on brief reviews of existing theory and research, we relate (1) standard dominance to the technology life cycle, (2) the business network to standard dominance and (3) the technology life cycle to the business network. We expect the technology life cycle to be a moderator of the relationship between the business network and technology standard dominance. We formulate propositions of how size, diversity and density of the business network contribute to standard dominance during the technology life cycle and we propose a way to further study these propositions.
  • Placeholder
    ArticlePublicationMetadata only
    The joint evolution of alliance networks and technology: a survey of the empirical literature
    (Elsevier, 2013-09) Stolwijk, C. C. M.; Ortt, J. R.; den Hartigh, Erik; Entrepreneurship; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    In this paper, we provide an overview and assessment of existing empirical literature on the joint evolution of alliance networks and technology. We selected 38 empirical studies that investigate this joint evolution and summarize their results based on the variables they address, representing the composition and structure of the alliance networks and the technology development. We find that most of the results regarding network variables and their effect on technology development are either missing, inconsistent or difficult to compare because of different industry contexts. In most studies, the measurement of technology development – the technology life cycle – is either neglected or not carried out systematically. The more complex structural network variables, such as tie strength, structural holes or structural equivalence, receive little attention. We conclude that the body of knowledge of the joint evolution of alliance network and technology is growing, but not in a systematic way. We identify a clear need for further systematic research into the co-evolutionary aspects of the relationship between alliance networks and technology.
  • Placeholder
    Book PartPublicationMetadata only
    Measuring the health of a business ecosystem
    (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2013-04-30) den Hartigh, Erik; Visscher, W.; Tol, M.; Salas, A. J.; Entrepreneurship; Jansen, S.; Brinkkemper, S.; Cusumano, M. A.; HARTIGH, Erık Den
    A business ecosystem is a network of partners around a core technology, who depend on each other for their success and survival (Den Hartigh and van Asseldonk, 2004). An essential characteristic that distinguishes the business ecosystem concept from sectors or supply networks is the explicit modeling of the mutual dependence of the partners: when one partner leaves the network, the value of the network for the others may decline. When a new partner enters the network, the value of the network for all others may rise. Each member of a business ecosystem ultimately shares the fate of the system as a whole. The term Business Ecosystem was coined by Moore (1993) in his Harvard Business Review article “Predators and Prey” and further conceptualized in his book The Death of Competition (1996). Iansiti and Levien (2002; 2004a; 2004b) extended the business ecosystem concept in a working paper, in their Harvard Business Review article “Strategy as Ecology” and in their book The Keystone Advantage. In many high-tech markets, companies do not engage in the competitive battle on their own, but they are part of a coalition of companies around a “platform” technology. A key mechanism here is the presence of network effects. This means that a product becomes more attractive as more customers start using it and as more suppliers offer complementary products and services. The consequence is that competition increasingly takes place on the platform level.