Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

On the cognitive effectiveness of routing symbols in process modeling languages

Process models provide visual support for analyzing and improving complex organizational processes. In this paper, we discuss differences of process modeling languages using cognitive effectiveness considerations, to make statements about the ease of use and quality of user experience. Aspects of cognitive effectiveness are of importance for learning a modeling language, creating models, and understanding models. We identify the criteria representational clarity, perceptual discriminability, perceptual immediacy, visual expressiveness, and graphic parsimony to compare and assess the cognitive effectiveness of different modeling languages. We apply these criteria in an analysis of the routing elements of UML Activity Diagrams, YAWL, BPMN, and EPCs, to uncover their relative strengths and weaknesses from a quality of user experience perspective. We draw conclusions that are relevant to the usability of these languages in business process modeling projects.

Analysis and detection of cognitive load and frustration in drivers' speech

Non-driving related cognitive load and variations of emotional state may impact a driver’s capability to control a vehicle and introduces driving errors. Availability of reliable cognitive load and emotion detection in drivers would benefit the design of active safety systems and other intelligent in-vehicle interfaces. In this study, speech produced by 68 subjects while driving in urban areas is analyzed. A particular focus is on speech production differences in two secondary cognitive tasks, interactions with a co-driver and calls to automated spoken dialog systems (SDS), and two emotional states during the SDS interactions - neutral/negative. A number of speech parameters are found to vary across the cognitive/emotion classes. Suitability of selected cepstral- and production-based features for automatic cognitive task/emotion classification is investigated. A fusion of GMM/SVM classifiers yields an accuracy of 94.3% in cognitive task and 81.3% in emotion classification.

Deconstructing neurobiological coordination

Inherent indeterminacy of neurobiological systems has been revealed by research on coordination of multiarticular actions. We consider three important issues that these investigations raise for biomechanical measurement and performance modeling. These issues highlight the role of dynamic systems theory as a platform for integration of motor control and biomechanics in exercise and sports science.