MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Purpose-Driven Strategic Renewal, Open Innovation & Generative Change: Models, Governance, Practice

2024· article· en· W4400444529 on OpenAlexaff
Michael L. Tushman, Henk Volberda, Alberto Di Minin, Gervase R. Bushe, Albena Björck, Johanna E. Pregmark, Gianluca Gionfriddo, Tobias Fredberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarCorporate governanceBusinessProcess managementIndustrial organizationKnowledge managementComputer scienceFinanceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unprecedented challenges of disruptive technologies, climate change and social crises, as well as stakeholder disorientation, call for a re-evaluation of organizational capabilities, growth priorities, and the way organizations change and innovate for the future. Established companies face a sharp increase of exploration and exploitation tensions and the need for renewal of business practice, models, and governance is existential. In these conditions, examples of high-growth companies place the corporate purpose central to their strategy and innovation, leveraging it to restructure playing fields and value propositions (Knowles & Hunsacker, 2022; Malnight et al., 2019), to catalyze systematic change (Henderson, 2021), to serve multiple stakeholders’ interests (Battilana et al., 2022), and to radically reinvent themselves (Binns, O’Reilly & Tushman, 2022). In continuation of the AOM2023 symposium “Purpose-driven Innovation and Transformation” and building on existing and emerging empirical research, the aim of this symposium is to deepen the discussion and explore the under-researched role of corporate purpose in the specific fields of strategic renewal, generative change as well as groundbreaking and collaborative innovation. For a insightful and lively debate on these topics, we invited leading experts in organizational transformation and evolution, strategic renewal, disruptive and open innovation, visionary leadership, and ambidexterity. The members of the panel have academic as well as practitioner backgrounds and experiences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.062
Scholarly communication0.0290.020
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.249
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207