1 Business Model Innovation in A Family Business
Jahja Hamdani Widjajaa*
aManagement Dept., Maranatha Christian University, Prof drg Soeria Sumantri 65, Bandung 40164, Indonesia
Introduction
It has been more than two decade that strategic management researchers reveal the emergence of big issues that would interfere even change business way of looking at their industry or environment (Lowendahl and Revang, 1998; David, 2006; Prahalad, 1998). The issues such as globalization, e-commerce, convergence of diverse technology, and deterioration of the natural environment would increase the complexity of business environment with greater speed of change (Wheelen and Hunger, 2004). Then, it would rise business environment uncertainty and generate new opportunities and threats as well as new competition. For example, the emergent of ASEAN Economic Community in 2015 would give a chance for Indonesian’ firms to exploit new foreign market opportunity by innovation to get competitive advantage. But, ASEAN Economic Community also promotes new entrances in Indonesian’s market that would generate a new competition era.
In the new competition era, firms need strategy innovation in a changing environment, especially by business model innovation to create new value propositions that old style competition become irrelevant (Hamel, 2001). Business model serves as a reference for firms to build some advantages of business model components such as target market, products or services offering, and industrial value chain that have to be done to get rents. Business model innovation could be shaped like rethinking what do customers really wants and how firms should fulfill it and get rents (Teece, 2010). Business model innovation are needed because of dynamic market condition (McGrath, 2010; Sosna, Trevinyo-Rodriguez, dan Velamuri, 2010), even business model innovation much more needed than a mere technology innovation or human resources investment (Chesbrough, 2007). Business model innovation are needed to ensure appropriation of value creation that are made by firms (Chesbrough, 2010). Business model innovation could also generate firm’s competitive advantage (McGrath, 2010; Sosna et al., 2010; Teece, 2010).
ABSTRACT
Business model innovation is obviously needed especially in a turbulent business environment. Firms usually succeed in their first business model but fail to sustain it. Then firms should innovate their business model. Firms usually have some obstacles to innovate their business model. Family business as a kind of business organization may offer some illumination on it. A qualitative case study research was conducted to reveal how organizational learning and organizational culture could serve as antecedents to business model innovation process in a knowledge intensive industry. This research described how a family business innovate their business model and gave some implications that are relevant to general business practices.
2 Although business model innovation is important, many firms failed to accomplish it (Chesbrough, 2010; Sosna et al., 2010). There were some obstacles such as difficulties to predict fast growing market that cause uncertainty (Sosna et al., 2010); general manager who usually was in charge of business model innovation suffered a shortage of time due to job rotations (Chesbrough, 2010); functional managers had lacked of knowledge to view their business as a whole or to drive the entire business (Chesbrough, 2010). Then, it is important to conduct a research to reveal how a firm conduct business model innovation as a practice example.
Despite of the above conditions, family business may shed a light to uncover the problems. Family business with a strong humanity traditions could develop entrepreneurship values (Leenders and Waarts, 2003; Lumpkin, Martin, and Vaughn, 2008). There were family businesses which develop innovative behaviors and boost their performance (Daily and Dollinger, 1992; Miller, Bretton-Miller, and Scholnick, 2008; Upton, Teal, and Felan, 2001). Then, business model innovation might be done in a family business and also overcome business model innovation obstacles.
The aim of this study is to describe and explain how a family business conducts business model innovation. To fulfill this aim, this paper would explain theoretical framework regarding to the phenomenon above and research method that is used in this study. Then, I would explain my research findings. I also made some conclusions and further research suggestions in the end of this paper.
Theoretical Framework Business, Business Model, and Business Model Innovation
Business is an effort to create value and capture the rents according to those creating value activities (Chesbrough, 2007; Ferrel, Hirt, and Ferrell, 2011). Firms need to consider whether they do their business appropriately through a business model framework. Business model is needed by firm to get a good understanding about their business and to monitor their creating and capturing activities. Business model innovation is needed to sustain these activities (Chesbrough, 2007).
Business model innovation is reflected by modifying or complementing existing business model with a new, more unique, and more creating value business model (Chesbrough, 2007). The business model framework (Chesbrough, 2007) (figure 1) depicts sequencing phases in business model innovation. I use this framework because 1) it depicts the movement of a firm’s business model as a value creating process; 2) it involves closed innovation and open innovation as a trending topic in innovation management (Huizingh, 2011); 3) it is in line with a dynamic perspective of business model (Demil and Lecocq, 2010; Sosna et al., 2010).
The business model framework (Chesbrough, 2007), consist of six types which starts from an ordinary business model until the most valueable business model.
3 sellers that serve their customers through competitive price and product availability just like other competitors. These firms are facing fierce competition.
Second type - firms with some differentiations in their business model. These firms start to develop some uniqueness in their business model such as product or service differentiation so that they are not merely offering their product through competitive price. But, because they have not segmented their market, they have to compete in a broad market and in many cases they do not have enough resources to sustain their successful product differentiation strategy.
Third type - firms with a segmented business model. According to the failure above, firms start to segment their market and develop a suitable and profitable business model for each target market. In a market that has a price and product availability orientation, they serve it with cheap and high volume products. While in a market with a product performance orientation, they serve it with unique and higher quality products which give higher margin to the firm.
Till this phase, firms are focus on internal idea generation. They try to fulfill market needs by their own ability to create products. They are more count on a closed innovation approach. But, these firms are vulnerable to a disruptive change in technology and market that are beyond their current activities and innovation. Then, they should adopt an open innovation approach.
Forth type - firms with an externally aware business model. These firms are more opened to external ideas and technologies that are around them. They develop a good relation with their external stakeholders and considering their ideas to be transformed into new products. But, their innovation activities are separated from their business model.
Fifth type - firms that integrating innovation process with business model. Firms, their suppliers, and their customers are closely related formally. Firms could make experiments in their supply chain management to make them alert toward technology shifting and new market opportunities. Firms start to shift from only offering products into also offering services.
Sixth type - firms with business model as an adaptive platform. In this phase, key suppliers are involved in firm’s planning process and related to their customers’ business model. Firms could attract other firm to invest their resources and expanding their value proposition without additional investment.
But, the framework does not explain, what firm should do to shift or combine their business model. Then, I use the business model component (Lindgardt, Reeves, Stalk, and Deimler, 2009) (Figure 2). This framework is used because 1) it reveals that there are two basic elements of a business model, that are value proposition and its implementation through operating model (Chesbrough, 2007; Ferrel et al., 2011); 2) it is developed in a context how to cope high competition and market turbulent with business model innovation by adjusting business model components. According to this study, I exclude revenue model and cost model from the business model component because these two items would be reflected in business’ profit. While organization aspect is merged into value chain and would be explained as an industrial value chain.
4 value is offered by firm to their customers. Value proposition is supported by target segments and product offering. Target segment means a group of customers that are chosen to be served included their needs and wants that would be fulfilled. Product offering means what kind of product that firm would offer to fulfill their customer’s needs and wants. Industrial value chain means how firm manages product or service delivery according to customer’s needs and wants. It includes either they would make the product by themselves (in-house) or are there any parts of the product that would be made outside the firm (outsource). Industrial value chain would be described by supply chain (how it get raw materials), internal process (how it makes product), and distribution channel (how it distributes product).
Family business
Family business is a firm that is dominated by a family which owns and controls the business and also establishes a vision to keep the business in the family across generations (Chua, Chrisman and Sharma, 2009). Family business unites business and family in diverse complex implications (Astrachan, 2010). The influence of family to business incurs some characteristic of family business such as driven by founders or family’s values (Denison, Lief, and Ward, 2004; Olson, Suiker, Danes, Stafford, Heck and Duncan, 2003), not merely to seek financial objective (Astrachan and Jaskiewicz, 2008; Gomez-Mejia, Haynes, Nunez-Nickel, Jacobson, and Moyano-Fuentes, 2007), give priority to long-term relationships to nurture trust and mutual benefits (Anderson, Jack and Dodd, 2005; Carney, 2005; Karra, Tracey and Phillips, 2006), and has a long term perspective (Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2006).
Moreover, family business that has strong humanity traditions, could establish entrepreneurial values (Leenders and Waarts, 2003; Lumpkin, Martin and Vaughn, 2008). Even they had tradition in doing their business they could develop new values and behavior such as autonomy, risk-taking, innovation and proactive (Martin, Vaughn and Lumpkin, 2006). Then, there was family business which develops and equips themselves with innovative behaviors and gets a better performance than family business which performs on the contrary (Daily and Dollinger, 1992; Miller, Breton-Miller and Scholnick, 2008).
According to above information, we could expect that family business that has entrepreneurial orientation would enforce business model innovation. Innovation could be seen as a learning process (Beckman and Barry, 2007). Then, in order to have a clear explanation about business model innovation process we need to describe the process of organizational learning and the type of organizational learning that happened in a family business. Meanwhile, organizational culture influence organization members’ behavior in term of creating, distributing, and using knowledge (De Long and Fahey, 2000). Then, we also need to reveal what kind of organizational culture that are implemented and encourage the business model innovation process.
Organizational Learning
5 collective learning that is done by organization members. Collective learning is more powerful than merely accumulation of individual learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). Even, organizational learning enables an organization to develop, acquire, transform and exploit new knowledge in order to encourage innovation (Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle, 2011).
The aim of organizational learning is to establish suitability between organization and their environment (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). The suitability between organization and their environment is a key to organizational sustainability and growth in the long term (Chandler, 1962; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967) and even generate competitive advantage and foster organizational innovation (Barnard, 1938; Lawrence and Dyer, 1983; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).
Organizational learning process could be describe into four constructs, knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution, knowledge interpretation, and organizational memory (Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle, 2011). Knowledge acquisition is the process by which knowledge is obtained. Knowledge distribution is the process by which knowledge from different sources is shared. Knowledge interpretation is the process by which distributed knowledge is given one or more commonly understood interpretations. Organizational memory is the means by which knowledge is stored for future use (Huber, 1991).
Moreover, Visser (2007) reveals three basic types of organizational learning, (1) meta learning, (2) deutero-learning, and (3) planned learning. Meta learning is the ability either to detect and make correction of errors based on existing rules/values/norms (single-loop learning) or to detect and make correction by changing the existing rules/values/norms (double–loop learning) (Argyris, 2004). Deutero-learning is the ability of adapting behavior toward situation development patterns in multi relation in organizational context. It is the ability to see situational context and make proper decision either by single-loop learning or by double-loop learning (Qureshi, 2000; Visser, 2007). Planned learning is the ability to create and maintain organizational systems, routines, procedures and structures to store organizational knowledge/information.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is a pattern of basic assumptions that are shared and learnt by a group as they address either external adaptation problems or internal integration problems (Schein, 2004). These patterns have been tested and were trusted then it been delivered to new members as a right way in seeing, thinking and feeling as they address external or internal problems. Organizational culture at least have three characteristics such as 1) are transferred to new members by socialization process, 2) affecting individual, groups and organization behavior, 3) operate in all levels in organization. Then, organization culture reflected core values and beliefs in an organization but it also could be seen in their behavior either as a group or as individual.
6 clan culture that more focus to relationship than transaction in interpersonal relation among organizational members (Richard, McMillan-Capehart, Bhuian and Taylor, 2009). But, experts reveal that organizational culture has a plural perspective (Harris, 1998; Pettigrew, 1979). It means that there might be a dominant culture and some other type of culture which serve as subcultures (Siehl and Martin, 1984). Then, Cameron and Quinn (2006) revealed that there were competing values in organization.
According to the competing values framework (Cameron and Quinn, 2006), there are two kind of orientation that each has competing values. The first was orientation either to focus on internal environment and integration or to focus on external environment and differentiation. And the second was orientation either to focus on flexibility and discretion or to focus on stability and control. Then, we could identify four types of organizational culture that are clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture, and hierarchy culture.
Clan culture focuses on internal environment and integration as well as flexibility and discretion (Cameron and Quinn, 2006). It is similar to family business which effectiveness was established by promoting collaboration among organization members. Employees are taken into account in the firm as a family member and cohesiveness is achieved through consensus. Employee involvement is used to get job satisfaction and commitment (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2008). There are strong solidarity and kinship with higher flexibility to accomplish a job (Ouchi, 1980).
Adhocracy culture focuses on external environment and differentiation as well as flexibility and discretion (Cameron and Quinn, 2006). Then, organization would be encouraged to establish innovative products and services through adaptability, creativity, and quick response to market change. Power and authority were decentralized to promote organization members dare to take risks, creative thinking and trying new ways to accomplish their objective (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2008).
Market culture focuses on external environment and differentiation as well as stability and control (Cameron and Quinn, 2006). Then, organization would be encouraged to compete and strong motivation to achieve their goals. Customers and rents get more attention than employee’s satisfaction and development. The aims of this culture were to enhance productivity, profitability and customer satisfaction. It emphasizes fast reaction, hard working, centralization authority, tight control and high reward for employees who excel (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2008).
7 Research Method
Because my research question is about why and how, then I should focus on the business model innovation making process. This research was combining between explanation and description study. Explanation study aims to answer research question of why (Babbie, 2008). This type of study would depict about what kind of business model innovation were being done by a firm and why it did so. Description study aims to answer research question of how (Babbie, 2008). Then, I use description study to reveal the process of business model innovation.
I choose a jamu company, PT. Nyonya Meneer, because jamu is a kind of knowledge-intensive industry that needs a specific business model (Sheehan and Stabell, 2007) and there is less attention in cultural heritage business research. Jamu is a kind of Indonesian heritage herbal medicine (Stevensen, 1999) which usually is drunk as a part of Indonesian cultural heritage. PT. Nyonya Meneer is the oldest jamu company that is still going concern in the business of jamu in Indonesia till now (Sumardono and Hanusz, 2007). As a family business, PT. Nyonya Meneer has been entering business jamu since 1919. My unit analysis is PT. Nyonya Meneer as an organization, while my prime source of data are the CEO as the owner of PT. Nyonya Meneer and persons who are involved in a cross-functional team. Both of them are in-charge of business model innovation in PT. Nyonya Meneer. The main data are collected by conducting in-depth interview with the owner (family member) and focus group discussion with persons (non family member) who are involved in a cross-functional team.
Results
After six times of in-depth interviews and six times of focus group discussions, the process of business model innovation in PT. Nyonya Meneer could be described.
Phase 1
In this stage, PT. Nyonya Meneer entered jamu business in Indonesia by offering differentiated products. Mrs. Meneer, the leader owner, offered jamu that is made for family using and purpose (family recipes) which had more focus on efficacy and taste. She did it because she had a strong empirical knowledge to make jamu. By doing this PT. Nyonya Meneer was able to get a good position in jamu industry. This model served the business as a single business model quit a long time at least till second generation of the family (1970s).
At the first time entering the business, as a leader owner, Mrs. Meneer had a central role in business model innovation. She led product development, strengthening and developing her knowledge about jamu and also directed sales as well. Other family members just followed her direction (Sumardono and Hanusz, 2007). Then, there has not been organizational learning yet.
8
”..almost all products come from our family..it was developed as a part of her (Ibu Meneer) cultural heritage, then spreading to her neighbor and finally becomes a national asset..at that moment, we never think about consumer oriented..all are family oriented..family oriented had more focus on efficacy and taste..the efficacy and taste were parts of her privileged to be used by family member..why our jamu are more smooth, tasty, and efficacious..it was the idea of our family, it did not come from market...but accidentally it was suitable with market’s want...there was no market survey at that time..” (CEO, 4th September 2012).
Phase 2
In this phase, PT. Nyonya Meneer combined their existing business model with a segmented business model. After decades of successful single business model, it was hard for PT. Nyonya Meneer to innovate their business model. Started the business with only less than 20 employees it grew into near 1.000 of workforces (Liong, 2010). Then, the third generation started to establish a cross-functional team to assist leader owner in driving business model innovation and promote organizational learning. Even, the organizational learning process was mainly driven by the leader owner, especially in knowledge acquiring, it was quit important thing to start the process. He also started to emphasize on marketing.
After having more than two generations business experiences, PT. Nyonya Meneer got much knowledge about their market. The firm started to segment their market into specific targets. For example: the market for Jamu Habis Bersalin was not only targeting all women who have just given birth but also be segmented into specific targets such as they who used to drink jamu or not, they who had high income level, middle income level, and low income level, for domestic market or foreign market.
The dominant culture was still clan culture, but it was supported by market culture as an enhancing subculture (Siehl and Martin, 1984). The company was pushed to recognize their market well in order to create specific segments. But, since all of the products were generated by internal ideas, then the dominant culture was clan culture.
”..we might differ from other companies..they might be made few products to overcome many kind of diseases (Liong, 2010)..we were different...we made one thousand products
to overcome one thousand kind of diseases..” (CEO, 14th March 2012).
Phase 3
9 In this phase, three types of organizational learning have already been implemented. Planned learning could be seen as the company could recognize their market better. They could recognize either there were opportunities to maintain existing products or markets, or there were opportunities to modifying it or even there were opportunities to explore new market. Single-loop learning could be traced by their decisions to serve existing target segment with current products, such as, Jamu Habis Bersalin, Jamu Amurat (served in powder). Double-loop learning could be traced by their decision to exploit existing market and serve it with modifying products, such as Pil Habis Bersalin, Pil Amurat (serve in pill). Deutero learning could be traced by their decision to anticipate new market needs and served it with new products, such as Rheumaneer (usually people drink jamu as a part of their habit/life style. Rheumaneer was a product that proposed to remedy rheumatic. People drink Rheumaneer not as their habit but as their need to remedy their illness with a natural medicine).
In term of organizational culture, the dominant culture was still clan culture, but market culture was playing more important role as enhancing subculture. The dominance of clan culture could be traced by the dominant portion of sales which came from products that originated from the family. The important role of market culture could be traced by those products which originated from external parties. The existence of enhancing subculture was widening company’s sales portfolio.
”..at the early time may be the idea of products were generated by Ibu Meneer as the owner..but now, the owner is market...we also benchmark competitor’s product and sell it
in different market...” (CEO, 14th March 2012)..so all products are made based on
market’s demand..” (CEO, 8th October 2012).
Phase 4
In this phase, PT. Nyonya Meneer continued to combine their existing business models with integrating industrial value chain into business model. The co-existence of organizational learning and market culture as enhancing subculture encouraged them to explore their market, especially foreign market. They found that there were markets for antioxidant products which served in capsule. But at the moment, they have not already served their jamu products in capsule. They were also aware of the licensing barriers to sell products directly using their own brand in foreign market. Then, PT.Nyonya Meneer started to outsource some of their jamu products and sold it to foreign market using their buyer’s brand.
Moreover, market culture as an enhancing subculture played a new role. It encouraged the company not only to recognize their market well but also other important stakeholders such as raw materials suppliers, semi–finished goods suppliers, outsourcing companies, and also alternatives distribution channels.
”...so, further we could commercialize Nyonya Meneer brand..we does not need to sell products by ourselves..we just make jamu and other parties will sell it for us....we make
10 As the result of business model innovation that has been done in PT. Nyonya Meneer, they could sustain in jamu industry till now. Their sales were increasing at an average level of 15%/year for the last 3 years. (2010-2012).
Despite of the success in doing business model innovation, this study also revealed some obstacles that hampered the business model innovation process. Clan culture which served as a dominant culture seemed to prioritize internal consideration than external conditions. This would at least generated two problems that could be mentioned. First, PT. Nyonya Meneer have around 200 kind of jamu products and they urged to sell them all. Meanwhile, from distributors view, they only wanted to sell selected items of jamu because of some unfavorable situation were emerge such as the negative trend of people who used to drink jamu, cheap pharmaceutical drugs, negative perception of jamu. Then, there were distribution problems. Second, because of clan culture used to maintain ceremonies, rituals and relationships (Hirschman, 1970) it was not easy for them to change product attributes such as packaging. They tended to retain the old style packaging that led to complaints by their distributor. The company argued that whenever consumers did not ask why they should change their packaging. But the distributors wanted to give the best for their customers. They did not want to wait for consumers’ complaints that they made improvements.
Conclusions And Research Implications
Based on the result of this case study research some conclusions could be made. Firms are able to innovate their business model by shifting their business model into a more valueable business model or by combining existing business model with other type of business model. According to Chesbrough (2007; 2010), CEO, who was in charge of business model innovation, had a lack of time in experimenting their business model. In this case study, family business could encourage business model innovation because their CEO has enough time to do business-model experiments. But, there were some conditions that were needed to encourage them to do it. CEO would innovate their business model if their existing business model did not work well. Whenever their existing business model was worked well, they had to change their existing paradigm. This later condition was happened in PT. Nyonya Meneer so that they maintained their first business model till their third generation entering the business.
11 Meanwhile, in order to change their values, family business should take a stakeholder perspective. By taking this perspective, family business was encouraged to have a market orientation (Cabrera-Suarez, Deniz-Deniz, and Martin-Santana, 2011). This perspective is also needed to guide current clan culture to get a wider perspective (external orientation) without deterring their advantages in building trust and relationship.
Further Research
[image:15.612.193.421.237.443.2]Because this is a case study, it satisfies as an example to describe a process of business model innovation in a family business. But we need to explore how it be done in other type of business and make comparison between them. Then we could describe how business model innovation is really done.
Figure 1 The Business Model Framework (Chesbrough, 2007)
Figure 2
[image:15.612.215.400.494.662.2]12 REFERENCES
Anderson, A. R., Jack, S. L., and Dodd, S. D. (2005). The role of family members in entrepreneurial networks: Beyond the boundaries of the family firm. Family Business
Review, 18, 135-154.
Argyris, Chris. (2004). Reasons and Rationalizations: The limits to organizational
knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Argyris, C. dan Schon D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Astrachan, Joseph H. (2010). Strategy in family business: Toward a multidimensional research agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1: 6-14.
Astrachan, J. H., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). Emotional returns and emotional cost in privately held family businesses: Advancing traditional business valuation. Family
Business Review, 21, 139-149.
Babbie, Earl. (2008). The Basics of Social Research. 4th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Barnard, C. I. (1938) Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Beckman, Sara L., dan Michael Barry. (2007). Innovation as a learning process:
embedding design thinking. California Management Review. Vol.50, No.1. 25 – 56. Cabrera-Suarez, M. Katiuska., M de la Cruz Deniz-Deniz. dan Josefa D. Martin-Santana.
(2011). Familiness and market orientation: A stakeholder approach. Journal of
Family Business Strategy. Vol.2, pp.34-42.
Cameron, Kim S. and Robert E. Quinn. (2006). Diagnosing and Chaning
Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco.
Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29, 249-265.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Chesbrough, Henry. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers.
Long Range Planning. Vol.43, 354-363.
Chesbrough, Henry. (2007). Business Model Innovation: It’s Not Just About Technology Anymore. Strategy & Leadership. Vol.35. No.6. pp.:12 – 17.
Chua J., Chrisman, J. and Sharma, P. (2009). Defining the family business by behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-37.
Daily, C. M., and Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally managed firms. Family Business Review, 5(2), 117-136.
David, Fred R. (2006). Manajemen Strategis: Konsep, Edisi 10. Jakarta: Penerbit Salemba Empat.
De Long, David W., dan Liam Fahey. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, Vol.14, No.4, 113 – 127. Demil, Benoit., and Xavier Lecocq. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of
dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43, pp. 227-246.
13 Ferrell, O. C., Geoffrey A. Hirt, & Linda Ferrell. (2011). Business: a changing world.
8th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiol, C.M. dan Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management
Review 10, 803-813.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106-137.
Hamel, Gary. (2001). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. In Cusumano, Michael A., dan Constantinos C. Markides. (2001). Strategic Thinking for the Next
Economy. MIT Sloan Management Review. Chapter 8. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, Lloyd C. (1998). Cultural domination: the key to market-oriented culture?
European Journal of Marketing, Vol.32, No.3/4. 354-373.
Hirschman, Albert. (1970). Exit, Voice, Loyalty. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Huber, George P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science, Vol.2, No.1, 88-115.
Huizingh, Eelko K.R.E. (2011). Open Innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31, pp.2 – 9.
Jimenez-Jimenez, Daniel dan Raquel Sanz-Valle. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408 – 417.
Karra, N., Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2006). Altruism and agency in the family firms: Exploring the role of family, kinship, and ethnicity. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice. 30, 861-87.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966) Social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Kreitner, Robert., Angelo Kinicki. (2008). Organizational Behavior. 8th edition.
Boston:McGraw-Hill.
Landa, J. T.: (1983). The Political Economy of the Ethnically Homogeneous Chinese Middleman Group in Southeast Asia: Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship in a Plural Society_, in L. Y. C. Lim and L. A. P. Gosling. (eds.) The Chinese in Southeast Asia, vol 1: Ethnicity and Economic Activity (Maruzen Asia, Singapore), 89–104. Lawrence, P. R., & Dyer, D. (1983). Renewing American industry. New York: Free
Press.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University.
Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice. 30, 731-746.
Leenders, M., dan Waarts, E. (2003). Competitiveness and evolution of family businesses: the role of family and business orientation. European Management
Journal, 21 (6), 686 – 697.
Lindgardt, Zhenya., Martin Reeves, George Stalk, dan Michael S.Deimler. (2009). Business Model Innovation: when the game gets tough, change the game. The Boston
Consulting Group. December.
14 Lowendahl, Bente and Oivind Revang. (1998). Challenges to Existing Strategy Theory in
a Postindustrial Society. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.19, No.8, 755-773. Lumpkin, G. T., Martin, W., and Vaughn, M. (2008). Family orientation: Individual-level influences
on family firm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21 (2), 127 – 138.
Martin, W. L., Vaughn, M., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Towards a clarification of ‘‘family orientation’’: An integration of entrepreneurship and family business theories. In S. Zahra et al. (Eds.) Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2005. Proceedings of the 25th annual entrepreneurship research conference. Babson College: Wellesley, MA. McGrath, Rita Gunther. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range
Planning. Vol.43, 247 – 261.
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholnick, B. (2008). Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(1), 51–78.
Olson, P. D., Suiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K. Z., & Duncan, K. A. (2003). The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 639-666.
Ouchi, William G. (1980). Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 25: 129-141.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational culture. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol.24, 570-581.
Prahalad, C.K. (1998). Managing Discontinuities: The Emerging Challenges. Research
Technology Management, May-June, pp.14-22. In French, Wendell., Cecil H. Bell Jr,
and Robert A.Zawacki. (2005). Organizational Development and Transformation:
Managing Effective Change. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Qureshi, Sajda. (2000). Organisational change through collaborative learning in a network form. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 2, pp.129-147.
Richard, Orlando C., Amy McMillan-Capehart, Shahid N.Bhuian, dan Edward C. Taylor. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of psychological contracts: Does organizational culture really matter? Journal of Business Research, 62, 818-825. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd edition. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scherer, Ross P. (1988). A new typology for organizations: market, bureaucracy, clan and mission, with application to American denominations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 27, No. 4, 475 - 498.
Sheehan, Norman T., dan Charles B. Stabell. (2007). Discovering new business models for knowledge intensive organizations. Strategy & Leadership. Vol.35. No.2. pp.22-29.
Siehl, Caren., and Martin, Joanne. (1984). The role of symbolic management: How can managers effectively transmit organizational culture? In J.D. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. Schriesheim and R. Steward (eds.), Leaders and managers: International
perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership. New York: Pergamon,
227-239.
15 Stevensen, Caroline. (1999). JAMU: an Indonesian herbal tradition with a long past, a little known present and an uncertain future. Complementary Therapies in Nursing &
Midwifery, 5, pp.1-3.
Sumardono, Asih., dan Mark Hanusz. (2007). Family Business: A Case Study of Nyonya
Meneer, One of Indonesia’s Most Successful Traditional Medicine Companies.
Singapore: Equinox Publishing.
Teece, David J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long
Range Planning. 43. 172 – 194.
Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Upton, N., Teal, E. J., & Felan, J. T. (2001). Strategic and business planning practices of fast growth family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(1), 60–72. Visser, Max. (2007). Deutero-learning in organizations: A review and a reformulation.
Academy of Management Review. Vo. 22, No.2, 659 – 667.
Wheelen, T.L. & Hunger, J.D. (2004). Strategic Management and Business Policy. 9th. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wijaya, Yahya. (2008). The Prospect of Familism in the Global Era: A Study on the Recent Development of the Ethnic-Chinese Business, with Particular Attention to the Indonesian Context. Journal of Business Ethics vol. 79, 311–317.
