Purpose: This paper reviews research on the intersection between additive manufacturing technologies (AMTs) and business models (BM). The purpose of the review is to synthesize past research for the benefit of researchers, to describe the dominant research themes and aggregated research questions and to identify research gaps in the literature. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of secondary data was conducted. The 288 publications in the review appeared in peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings papers and book chapters. All publications are listed in this paper by publication year and publication source. The review also distinguishes between empirical and non-empirical studies, describes methodological approaches and categorizes the publications by unit of analysis and by theme. Findings: Research on the intersection between AMT and BM, which has increased significantly in the last three years, reflects firms' and industries' growing interest in digital manufacturing processes. This review identifies twelve dominant themes in the literature that contribute important insights to the field. Aggregated research questions are identified in each theme. Research advances and gaps are presented. Four themes relate directly to BM: (1) BM types, (2) BM and technology, (3) BM design and processes and (4) BM value and supply chains. Originality/value: This review is the first systematic literature review on the intersection between AMT and BM. As such, the review provides a guide for researchers as they explore gaps in the research and develop research questions on an aggregated level. The review also supports users of such technologies as they review their business practices and models in the so-called Digital Revolution. © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited.

Firms increasingly use artificial intelligence (AI) to innovate. Yet, the current literature offers fragmented guidance regarding its use in innovation processes. This study argues that the exponential use of AI has resulted in a mass of disorganised knowledge, creating confusion and frustration surrounding how managers navigate from conventional to digital innovation processes. A systematic literature review was carried out to examine studies investigating AI innovation published over the last decade (2011–2021). The results suggest that AI is present across all innovation phases and that firms have created three unique capabilities: AI-enabled ideation, AI-enabled development, and AI-enabled commercialisation. This article enriches the innovation management literature, and it equips managers with practical guidance in the use of AI.

This paper adds new knowledge on how raw materials should be managed in iron and steelmaking firms. While previous research has contributed significantly to how firms should deal with functional challenges related to raw materials, the understanding of Raw Materials Management from a holistic perspective is largely lacking, and extant research does not provide qualified advice to firms on this matter. This study provides such knowledge by drawing on insights from Höganäs AB, a world leader in ferrous powder metallurgy, and their efforts to identify key aspects and principles of raw materials management. Our elaboration of a more holistic view on raw materials management builds on two elements. First, we depict five external uncertainties and three internal conditions that impact firm-level raw materials management. Second, we present six critical capabilities that underpin proficient firm-level raw materials management. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for both firms aiming to increase their raw materials proficiency and to future investigations into this important area. © The Author(s) 2018

The literature on the front end in the New Product Development (NPD) literature is fragmented with respect to the identification and analysis of the factors that are critical to successful product development. The article has a two-fold purpose. First, it describes, analyses, and synthesizes those factors through a literature review of the research on the front end in NPD. Second, it conceptualizes a framework that features two types of success factors: foundational success factors (common to all the firm’s projects) and project-specific success factors (appropriate for the firm’s individual projects). The article makes recommendations for the management of this important phase of product development, discusses limitations of relevant previous research, and offers suggestions for future research. The article makes a theoretical contribution with its analysis and synthesis of the reasons for success in front-end activities and a practical contribution with its conceptual framework that can be used as an analytical tool by firms and their product managers. © 2017 The Author(s)

The paper explores the population of business model innovation processes of incumbent rms Thus, the paper identi es and describes different types of business model innovation processes and set out to characterize their relations We suggest that there are (at least) seven types of business model innovation processes: i) No process, (ii) “lazy approach”, (iii) tools approach, (iv) (unintentional) trial and error or “business model innovation happens”, (v) (intentional) experimental approach, (vi) trigger-oriented approach, and (vii) planned (sequential) approach By depicting business model innovation processes as involving (a) cognitive operations, (b) eld activities, and (c) creation of artefacts, the seven identi ed types of business model innovation processes are characterized and related Type (i) and (ii) have rarely been dealt with in the literature, despite their commonality Type (iii) has recently become much used, sometimes being a managerial toy, sometimes as a crucial mechanisms or stage gate for business creation and is often a critical part of the other approaches The paper concludes by suggesting a typology of business model innovation processes, based on the identi cation of three dimensions: intentional vs unintentional, ad hoc vs systematic and event- vs process- oriented

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between HRM practices and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in large established firms. More specifically, the purpose is to add to the understanding of the influence of HRM practices on EO.

Design/methodology/approach

An e-mail survey was distributed to a sample of Swedish and German manufacturing firms in high-tech and medium high-tech manufacturing industries, and firms in knowledge-intensive services sectors, with more than 250 employees. In total, 810 surveys were distributed, with a response rate of 12.7 per cent. Findings - The results show that an emphasis on entrepreneurial aspects leads to an increased EO only in the case of training and development. A conclusion therefore is that it seems difficult to recruit personnel or to use appraisal and rewards as to create EO on a firm level.

Practical implications

The study indicates that firms aiming to increase their EO should make sure to emphasize entrepreneurial aspects during staff training and development activities. Originality/value - This empirical study paves the way towards a better understanding of the link between HRM practices and EO. The results should be of interest for both HR professionals and researchers interested in understanding this important relationship.

Business model innovation has received substantial attention by both practitioners and researchers during the last fifteen years. While many companies have good processes and a shared sense of how to innovate technology, they are less capable when it comes to how they should innovate business models. This lack of practical skills is mirrored by the shortage of scholarly understanding, in which business model innovation as a phenomenon is poorly explained in comparison to e.g. product or process innovations.

Although previous research has contributed greatly to the advancements of business model innovation, our conceptual understanding of business model innovation is still rather confused. Behind this study, lies two related assumptions; (i) not all business model innovations are the same, and, (ii) different types of business model innovation will challenge firms in different ways. To this background, the purpose of this study is to develop a framework that will allow for a conceptual differentiation between different types of business model innovation.

The paper draws on previous studies in the field of technology and innovation management and develops a framework – “The Business Model Innovation Map” – that distinguishes between different types of business model innovation according to their degree of novelty. The framework is illustrated by several real-life examples of business model innovation.

The paper adds to our understanding of innovation management as it allows for a better understanding of business model innovation as a distinct type of innovation. More specifically, it helps differentiating transformative business model innovations from mere incremental ones, and, as such, it presents a novel approach to categorize different types of business model innovation. The framework can serve as a basis for future in-depth empirical investigations of different types of business model innovation that can help firms to better understand how to manage such innovations. Copyright © 2015 by Halmstad University and Einsights Pte. Ltd.

During 2013, an evaluation of all the research conducted at Halmstad University was carried out. The purpose was to assess the quality of the research, coproduction, and collaboration in research, as well as the impact of the research. The evaluation was dubbed the Assessment of Research and Coproduction 2013, or ARC13. (Extract from Executive Summary)

The purposes of this special issue were to connect Human Resource Management (HRM) research and innovation research and to contribute towards a better understanding of how HRM can be deployed to support organisations in their innovation efforts. In this commentary, we review the results from the five articles in this special issue in general and offer suggestions for future research from these five contributions. We do this by pinpointing a number of themes, contingencies, measurement challenges and ideas on working with other research areas that might be useful in future research on the relationship between HRM and innovation.