A Business Model Innovation Typology

An effective business model is the core enabler of any company's performance. Business model innovation is not only becoming more and more important due to increasing and globalizing competition, but also an enormous challenge, both theoretically and practically. Although many managers are eager to consider more disruptive changes to their business model, they often do not know how to articulate their existing or desired business model and, even less so, understand the possibilities for innovating it. One of the steps toward developing more theoretical insight and practical guidelines is the identification of types and the development of a typology of business model innovations. Ten retrospective case studies of business model innovations undertaken by two industrial companies provide the empirical basis for this article. We analyzed the characteristics of these innovations as well as their success rates. The findings suggest that there are indeed various business model innovation types, each with its own characteristics and challenges.     

Rank-one multi-reference factor analysis

Statistics and Computing - Bayesian variable selection is an important method for discovering variables which are most useful for explaining the variation in a response. The widespread use of this...     

An Experimental Study of Collective Deliberation

We study the effects of deliberation on collective decisions. In a series of experiments, we vary groups' preference distributions (between common and conflicting interests) and the institutions by which decisions are reached (simple majority, two‐thirds majority, and unanimity). Without deliberation, different institutions generate significantly different outcomes, tracking the theoretical comparative statics. Deliberation, however, significantly diminishes institutional differences and uniformly improves efficiency. Furthermore, communication protocols exhibit an array of stable attributes: messages are public, consistently reveal private information, provide a good predictor for ultimate group choices, and follow particular (endogenous) sequencing.     

It Takes Two for a Culture War

This article examines the tense relations between religious and secular in Israel and the prospects for what has been described by different observers as a “culture war.” Specifically, the consequences and implication of the challenges to church‐state arrangements by social, economic, and demographic changes, and growing religious‐secular tensions are studied. The empirical investigation of these issues relies on a survey (n = 508) of a representative, random sample of the adult Jewish population in Israel. Research findings indicate that the culture war scenario exaggerates the actual state of affairs because secularism in Israel is lacking coherence and commitment and alternatives that circumvent conflict are available. Rather than a culture war between the religious and secular camps in Israel, different battles are taking place, waged in different realms with different constituencies, tactics, strategies, and levels of commitment whose combined outcome is yet to be determined.     

GET OUT THE (COSTLY) VOTE: INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN FOR GREATER PARTICIPATION

We examine two commonly discussed institutions inducing turnout: abstention penalties (used in 32 countries) and lotteries rewarding one randomly chosen participant (as proposed on the 2006 Arizona ballot). We analyze a benchmark model in which voters vary in their information quality and participation is costly. We illustrate that both institutions can improve collective outcomes, though lotteries are a more effective instrument asymptotically. Experimentally, we provide strong evidence for selective participation: lab voters participate more when better informed or when institutionally induced. Lotteries fare better than fines, suggesting that they may be a useful alternative to commonly used compulsory voting schemes. (JEL C92, D72, D02)     

Tools to Cope with Clients’ Misbehavior: A Comparative Study

In a comparative study, 56 professionals who work in public organizations: schools, welfare and health agencies, were presented with three vignettes about conflicts with clients. They were then asked how they would respond to each case and which of their actions they would define as tools. It was found that nurses appear to hold the most mature practical and theoretical knowledge of tools; teachers present a rather practical stance, while social workers and school psychologists tend to rely on intuitive and ad hoc solutions. The discussion suggests how to educate professionals to use skills and tools more effectively in response to frequent chaotic situations.