Case Study Method and Conceptual Framework

2.2.1 Case Study Method

A case study is defined as a research strategy that focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings by scholars who have (1) developed a typology of case study designs; (2) described the replication logic, which is essential to multiple case analysis; and (3) used case studies to develop theories (Yin, 1994, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989, 1991; Eisenhardt and Granbner, 2007). The

16

different forms of the research questions need different research strategies. There are two kinds of research questions that could be better addressed by a case study method. The first situation is where no existing theory offers a feasible answer to the research questions. As Eisenhardt and Granbner (2007: 26) argued,

‗...when using theory building from cases as a research strategy, researchers also must take the added step of justifying why the research question is better addressed by theory-building rather than theory-testing research. ..., A key response to this challenge is to clarify why the research question is significant, and why there is no existing theory that offers a feasible answer’.

Secondly, how and why questions can be answered by using case study research, whereas quantitative questions such as how many and how much are better answered using quantitative methods such as surveys and archival analysis (Yin, 2009; Muhdi, Daiber, 2008). The reason is that

‘how’ and ‘why’ questions usually aim to explain complex processes and events that can hardly be examined by hypothesising simple causal relations (Yin, 2009).

According to the number of cases, case studies can be respectively classified into single and multiple case studies. Multiple cases are viewed as a powerful means to create theory because ‗they permit replication and extension among individual cases. Replication simply means that individual cases can be used for independent corroboration of specific proposition. This corroboration helps researchers to perceive patterns more easily and to eliminate chance associations. Extension refers to the use of multiple cases to develop more elaborate theory‘ (Eisenhardt, 1991: 620). In a multiple case study, each case serves as a distinct experiment that stands alone as an analytic unit: ‗Like a series of related laboratory experiments, multiple cases are discrete experiments that serve as replications, contrasts, and extensions to the emerging theory‘ (Eisenhardt, Granbner 2007: 25).

Therefore, compared to a single case study, multiple cases are a powerful means of creating theory

17

because they permit replication and extension among individual cases and involve multiple sources of evidence from more than one case.

From the research questions of this dissertation, my goal is to explore the mechanism of BMI, which describes how Danish MMNEs can penetrate the mid-end market in China. Because of the limited research and theories on the BMI process in the literature, it is more productive to undertake a multiple case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt, Granbner, 2007) to discover an innovation process theory from data systematically obtained from longitudinal research than to test existing theories logically deduced from a priori assumptions that often do not fit or are not based on

concrete particulars of the phenomena to be explained (Van de Ven and Angle, 2000). With the aim of theory expanding and building in this dissertation, I will use an inductive theory-building

approach with multiple embedded cases for longitudinal and comparative studies to develop theoretical constructs and formulate frameworks and propositions.

2.2.2 The Core Conceptual Framework

This research study examines the BMI process using a longitudinal case study. In order to collect data over time and compare and integrate findings across all six BMI projects in the six Danish firms, following up the Minnesota Innovation Research Program (MIRP)¹, I developed a consistent conceptual framework (Figure 2.1) that would ‗enable rigorous comparisons to be made across settings and types of innovations and could therefore provide the means to work toward

development of a general process theory of innovation‘ (Van de Ven and Angle, 2000: 8) .Without such a common guiding framework, findings from individual BMI studies are difficult to compare.

18

Figure 2.1 The core conceptual framework to study BMI over time

The conceptual framework centres on four basic concepts: recourse configuration, task coordination, value creation and value capture. I selected these four elements because they are central factors of the business model and its innovation. The business model is defined as a firm-specific, yet open, holistic system of well-coordinated functional activities on the dual dimensions of resource configuration (activity content) and task coordination (activity process) for the dual purposes of value creation and value capture (cf. Amit & Zott, 2012; Li, 2010; Zott et al., 2011).

Based on this definition of a business model, I refer to business model innovation as a higher-order innovation compared to lower-order product, service and process innovations (cf. Amit & Zott, 2012; Collis, 1994; Mitchell & Coles, 2003; Zott et al., 2011). Further, as a higher-order innovation, BMI must always occur at the system level in terms of coordinated innovations in at least two functional areas, which result in the change in one or both of the dual dimensions (i.e. resource configuration and task coordination) for the dual purposes (i.e. value creation and value capture).

The process of BMI consists of resource configuration and task coordination to achieve value

Task Coordination Value Creation Resource Configuration

Value Capture

Historical

Baseline T1 T2 T3……….TN Longitudinal Tracking

FAB PUM EAR BEE VET LIG

Source: The figure was revised from Van De Ven et al. (2000)

19

creation (novel value proposition and product innovation) and value capture (novel cost

architecture and novel revenue architecture). A significant change in these concepts represents an event. I recorded the key events throughout the BMI process in six different firms.

During fall and winter 2011, baseline data were obtained on each firm. The baseline information included each firm‘s history, willingness to design a new business model for the Chinese mid-end market, the strategic goal of the business model project and each firm‘s commitment to its new innovation projects. The baseline information was useful for researchers to understand the firm‘s situation and context in which the new business model would be developed.

After many discussions with others researchers involved in the SfG project, I developed specific data collection instruments during winter 2011, which consisted of interviews documents and questionnaires to enable tracking of the BMIs as they developed over time in different firms.

Longitudinal tracking of the innovations began in December 2014. Data collection intervals ranged from two to three months. A more detailed description is presented in the section of data collection.