Open organizational structures: A new framework for ...

JBR-09065; No of Pages 5 Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Open organizational structures: A new framework for the energy industry☆ Arsalan Nisar a, Miguel Palacios b,⁎, Mercedes Grijalvo c a b c

Chair of Energy and Innovation Management, Enterprise Institute, University of Neuchâtel, A-L Breguet 2, Neuchâtel 2000, Switzerland ESCP Europe Business School, Madrid, Spain ESCP Europe Business School, Madrid Campus, c/ Arroyofresno, 1 28035 - Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 February 2016 Received in revised form 1 March 2016 Accepted 1 April 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Organizational innovation Open structures Energy innovation

a b s t r a c t Innovation and organizational design is central to how organizations manage their structures and boundaries for greater engagement to an increasing number of users as potential partners for increased value creation. Open organizing is prominent in industries where the locus of innovation can be extended to users leading to a burgeoning literature on concepts like co-creation, open innovation, and collaborative efforts. However, the current body of scholarship offers little insight into how organizations establish open organizational structures, specifically in more traditional industries like the energy industry, calling for a renewed focus on organizational structures and boundaries that is not merely related to reducing transactional costs or gaining efficiency. For the energy industry, open organizing remains paradoxical as it is not entirely driven by low communication cost and increased virtual connectivity. The energy industry is localized, performing under a broader industry framework subjective to a list of exogenous and endogenous factors. This study synthesizes the cases of 8 energy companies to produce a theoretical framework building on a checklist of the exogenous and endogenous factors that are central to the innovation process. Most importantly, this study reconciles the work on organizational boundaries and open structures to produce such theoretical framework. This framework can act as an evaluation tool for energy companies to assess the transition between existing structures to an open structure. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the seminal work on organizational structure and innovation, Sapolsky (1967) explains that organizational design and its redesign remains a challenge for most organizations. Similarly, Abernathy and Utterback's work on dominant design examining organizational boundaries and design remain central for future work on how organizations align their structures for innovation (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978). Lakhani and Tushman, building on the work of March and Simon (1958), Chandler (1977) explain that organization theory scholars consider that core to the innovation process is the production of complex goods and services requiring continuous knowledge development and creation and transfer among diverse settings that often lie outside the boundaries of the organization. The literature often associates knowledge creation with high coordination costs. For example, prior literature has posited managerial hierarchy as a way of minimizing costs to the ☆ The authors thank Javier Tafur, ESCP Europe Business School, and Antonio López Rodríguez, from Endesa Energy, for their careful reading and suggestions. We would also like to thank 3 anonymous reviewers, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Business Research and the participants at Global Innovation and Knowledge Management Conference for their constructive feedback. We extend our gratitude to the students of Executive Masters in Energy Management at ESCP Europe for their contribution with case study collection. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Palacios).

detriment of a more open and distributed approach (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Tushman & Nadler, 1978) leading scholars to examine how organizations arrange and structure themselves to minimize costs and to gain efficiency. Accordingly, Tushman, Lakhani, and Lifshitz-Assaf (2012: 24), citing the work of Thompson (1967), Pfeffer and Salancik (1978/2003), Aldrich (1979), and Santos and Eisenhardt (2005), posit that “a considerable body of literature is rooted in setting a firm's boundaries in a way that protects it from dependencies in its task environment and puts boundaries around critical tasks, power, and competence contingencies.” Lakhani, Lifshitz-Assaf, and Tushman (2012) indicate that some scholars have also explored the interactions between an organization's boundaries, its organizational structure, and its ability to innovate (see Thompson, 1967; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Dahlander and Gann (2010) understand that the interactions between organizational boundaries and structure has stimulated questions about the role of openness emphasizing the permeability of firms' boundaries where ideas, resources, and individuals flow in and out of organizations. Dahlander and Gann (2010) explain that various forms of relationship with external actors partly define openness and is thus in close relation to a broader debate on the boundaries of the firm. External actors can leverage a firm's investment in internal R&D through expanding opportunities of combinations of previously disconnected silos of knowledge and capabilities (Nickerson and Zenger, 2004; Fleming, 2001; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Schumpeter, 1942). Users that lie outside the firm can

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.100 0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Nisar, A., et al., Open organizational structures: A new framework for the energy industry, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.100

2

A. Nisar et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

be a source of novel innovations (von Hippel and Katz, 2002; Von Hippel, 1988, 2005; Franke and Piller, 2003). Through open organizational structure as a source of knowledge and distribution tools, many more actors outside traditional firm boundaries have access to rare solutions or answers that managerial hierarchy in the more traditional model may overlook, and this knowledge may be applicable to innovation tasks within firms (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010). “The rise – and occasional dominance – of community/user innovation, with its distinct loci of innovation and nonhierarchical bases of organizing, poses a challenge to the received theory of innovation, and organizational boundaries” (Tushman et al., 2012, p. 24). Further, firms simultaneously practice a range of boundary options that involve “closed” vertical integration, strategic alliances with major partners, and “open” boundaries characteristic of various open innovation methods. The practice of boundary options in turn has stimulated research on the role of openness in innovation, emphasizing the permeability of firms' boundaries where ideas, resources, and individuals flow in and out of organizations (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Chesbrough, 2003). Various forms of relationship with external actors partly define openness; thus, openness closely relates to the study of firm boundaries. Even though the current literature offers a greater insight into what open innovation means, there is little understanding on what organizational structures can support open innovation. Organizations cannot implement open innovation without the right organizational structure in place, which means that open innovation can be temporary at best or take a form of experimentation. This study identifies and develops what an open organizational structure constitutes and how that structure is the foundation from which various organizations can develop open innovation initiatives. This study particularly focuses on organizational structures that can provide the basis for open innovation where organizations engage with external partners. This study also examines the little research that exists on which organizational structures are likely to favor or support open innovation. From these perspectives on organizational structure and openness, the study tries to incorporate them into a framework and aims to develop a typology of open organizational structure that builds on various external and internal factors that contribute to degree of openness. 2. Background The rise and strength of external innovation coming from communities or users with distinct loci of innovation and nonhierarchical bases of organizing poses a challenge to the traditional theory and practice of innovation and displaces the focus to organizational boundaries (Tushman et al., 2012). External actors, for example, can leverage a firm's investment in its internal R&D by expanding opportunities to combine previously disconnected silos of knowledge and capabilities (Fleming, 2001; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2002; Schumpeter, 1942); similarly, users of products and services can be a source of innovations (Von Hippel, 1988, 2005). The large number of actors outside traditional firm boundaries can have access to rare solutions and knowledge that organizations with tight and more traditional hierarchies may overlook, but which may be applicable to innovation tasks within firms (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010). Firms have begun to simultaneously practice a range of boundary options, including closed innovation inside vertically integrated firms, strategic alliances with major partners, or even fully opening their boundaries through open innovation. However, which structures are more malleable and receptive to such external solutions and content requires more consideration. Gassmann, Enkel, and Chesbrough (2010) suggest that the attention of management scholars to open innovation has increased, thus developing open innovation as an established research field. Further, Gassmann et al. (2010) allocate the research on open innovation in nine perspectives: spatial perspective, tool perspective, institutional perspective, structural perspective, user perspective, supplier perspective, leveraging perspective, process perspective, and cultural perspective. This study focuses

on structural perspective and user perspective as the basis for arguing open organizational structures. Gassmann et al. (2010), building on the work of von Hippel (1986), indicate that, within the user perspective research, “users are included into the innovation process to utilize the freedom available in its early phases in order to understand potential customers' latent requirements and to integrate users' hidden application knowledge.” Structural perspective indicates that work division increases in innovation. Gassmann et al. (2010) posit that more and more organizations are outsourcing R&D activities through alliances where value chains are becoming disaggregated driven by cost reduction and specialization brought upon by complex technologies. 3. Research design This study makes use of the multiple case study design by constant comparison of the cases to the checklist of exogenous and endogenous factors. Case studies remain rich, empirical descriptions of particular instances of a phenomenon that typically draw on a variety of data sources (Yin, 1994) and as a method excels at bringing an understanding of a complex issue by detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships (Dooley, 2002). Dooley (2002) describes “theory building requires the on-going comparison of data and theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and the continuous refinement between theory and practice (Lynham, 2000).” To support this claim, Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) understand that scholars have used case studies to progress theory about subjects as diverse as group process (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001), internal organization (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001; Gilbert, 2005), and strategy (Mintzberg & Waters, 1982). Classic scholars (Chandler, 1962; Whyte, 1941) and other authors in business and management research (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988) have used the method. Further, studies that build theory from cases are often the most interesting research (Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006). Additionally, Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) describe that central to building theory from case studies is replication logic, where each case can function as a distinct experiment that stands on its own as an analytic unit. “A major reason for the popularity and relevance of theory building from case studies is that it is one of the best (if not the best) of the bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research” (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 25). Table 1 shows the pluralistic approach that the study uses by bridging positivism and interpretivism for the eight case studies. (See Table 2.) 3.1. Case selection This study identified a set of typical cases and from a total population of 15 cases, 8 cases are selected that fit the typology based on the use of literal replication (Yin, 1998), where the cases are designed to corroborate with each and detail a similar pattern. Our study does not account Table 1 Pluralistic approach using a multiple case study method (adapted from Ron, 2004). Meta-theoretical Positivism assumptions Ontology Method Research object

Know-how Conclusions

Researcher and reality are separate Case studies, statistics, content analysis. Research object has inherent qualities that exist independently of the researcher Laboratory experiments, field experiments Forecasting

Interpretivism Researcher and reality are inseparable Case studies, hermeneutics, phenomenology Research object is interpreted in light of meaning structure of person's (researcher's) experience. Subjective/argumentative, reviews Future research

Please cite this article as: Nisar, A., et al., Open organizational structures: A new framework for the energy industry, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.100

A. Nisar et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Table 2 Open structure typology. Open structure typology

Organizational approach

Organizational structure

Non-existent Embryonic Burgeoning Embedded

Closed, isolated, and strategic rigidness Awareness, non-strategic Experimentation, adhoc based Strategic, organizational routine

Functional Divisional Matrix Flat, network-based

for theoretical replication as the objective of this study is to generalize the outcome based on the set of 8 cases. The eight case studies from the energy industry are used to develop a framework that can substantiate the process of theory building within open organizational structures using a pluralistic approach building on positivism and interpretivisim.

3

R&D spending towards new technologies, subsidies for increasing the adoption of newer technologies), and economic factors (country level economic indicators) that establish the external framework for energy companies to function and operate. Endogenous factors: The endogenous group is a set of organizational factors that remain internal to the organization. The study derives 5 factors to establish the open structure typology for the energy industry. Organizational factors represent organizational learning (routines and rigidness to new business models), leadership, culture, processes, and instruments (corporate venture capital, cooperation, engagement activities). Drawing from this list of endogenous and exogenous factors, the study allocated the 8 case studies in Table 3 to establish the open structure typology by highlighting the external environment as rigid or aware. 4. Findings and outcome

3.2. Case analysis 4.1. Proposing a framework Gibbert, Ruicgrok & Wicki (2008), indicate that case studies are considered appropriate tools in the early phases of new management theory and case studies represent a methodology ideally suited to create managerially relevant knowledge. Within the positivist tradition, Gibbert et al. (2008) identifies four criteria that are commonly used to assess the rigor of a certain case study: internal validity, construct validity, external validity, and reliability. This study ensures internal and construct validity by using triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Yin, 1994) of multiple data sources involving participatory or direct observation. Case study research does not allow for statistical generalization providing the space for analytical generalization. Using literal replication, this study ensures external validity as the number of cases are corroborated to provide a generalized framework on open organizational structures. The study determines a typology of open organizational structures that corresponds to existing organizational approaches. The exogenous factors are contextual within a geographical area and correspond to some of the common factors like political framework, social and environmental factors that constitute the fundamental operating framework for the energy industry. The endogenous factors like leadership, technology investment, culture, processes, and tools remain internal to the organization. Exogenous factors: The exogenous group is a set of political (stability, governmental support/awareness for climate change), regulatory (subsidies and tax policy for different modes of energy generation), social (consumer awareness to environmental concerns, technology adoption behavior among consumers), technological (governmental

Drawing from the different cases, the study shows that the choice of selecting open organizational structures in the energy sector cannot does not depend on organizational factors only. Relevant variables can be exogenous to the organization, part of the institutional and social context. Accordingly, the study proposes a comprehensive framework in Fig. 1. In the vertical axis, the institutional and social context reconciles the structure with the exogenous factors. On one extreme is a very traditional, regulated energy industry context where mostly large companies or even governments generate, commercialize, distribute energy, and offer services. The other extreme (still in its infancy or not present) is an institutional and social context where regulations are flexible to new entrants, newer technologies, and business models. The horizontal axis describes the endogenous factors, that is, those inherent to the organization, and describes to what degree the structure is open or closed. One of the two extremes is a closed organization with in-house R&D, limited collaboration with suppliers and clients in the definition of products and services, and without an open innovation strategy or a corporate venture capital arm centered in acquiring new technologies and exploring new business models. The other is the opposite. Building on the two axes the study proposes ideal positions for the four types of organizational structure openness, that is, non-existent, embryonic, burgeoning, and embedded. The study also names the four quadrants in case an organization falls within one of them. The bottom left is traditional, where most energy organizations are present today, adequate to a rigid institutional and social context. The top left, or lagging, is for organizations in an aware/

Table 3 Case studies to establish external environment and open structure typology. Company

Industry

Country

Exog.

EDF

Electricity generator and distributor

France

Closed Rigid

Embryonic

Repsol

Oil and gas

Spain

Closed Rigid

Embryonic

Scheider

Energy engineering and buildings management Oil and gas Oil and gas

France

Closed Rigid

Embryonic/burgeoning

France Closed Rigid Anglo-Dutch Closed Rigid

Embryonic Embryonic

Oil gas Municipal utility. This includes electricity, natural gas, district heating, water, local public transport, and telecommunication Gas and electricity generator

Norway Germany

Closed Rigid Closed Rigid

Embryonic Non-existent

Spain

Closed Rigid

Non-existent/embryonic Innova

TOTAL Shell Statoil SWM Group

Gas Natural Fenosa

Endog. Open structure

Open innovation initiatives Electronova Vc, SECLAB, Robolution (FR), Tsing capital (China), DBL (US), Chrysalix (Can) Inspire, inculator at Repsol technology center, energy ventures Scheider solutions lab, IdeXlab Creativ'IT, total energy venture Shell game changer, Shell technology ventures Loop program, venture capital —

Please cite this article as: Nisar, A., et al., Open organizational structures: A new framework for the energy industry, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.100

4

A. Nisar et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Open-organization structure framework (exogenous or contextual/endogenous or structure related).

sensitive context that have not adapted the structure and keep being closed. The bottom right, or visionary, is for organizations that are open in a rigid institutional context. Should the context change, the organization would move to the innovation quadrant and be in an adequate competitive position. Changes in the institutional and social context in which organizations develop may move organizations from one quadrant to another. Although theoretically, movements among all quadrants are possible, the study observes that, like technology, society and regulations are evolving in many countries towards a more aware and sensitive context, some of the energy companies studied are starting to become more open in their structure, moving from non-existent to embryonic open structure and thus, following the optimal ideal positions that this study proposes.

5. Discussion and conclusions The study, through several cases of energy companies, proposes a new framework to evaluate energy organizations on openness of their structure. All the organizations place themselves in one quadrant of the framework, because institutional and social contexts are, in most cases, very rigid. This organizational rigidness arises from the fact that historically, energy (including electricity, heating, and transportation) is a public good, in many cases, a critical activity, and requires big investments. Therefore, energy is an economic area with significant involvement of large corporations and government and is a highly regulated industry. This makes the energy industry unique and highly dependent on the external environment (i.e., exogenous factors), and its linkages to the internal factors make the framework novel in its approach. This framework may apply to other industries (such as insurance). The other quadrants in proposed framework, evidence seems to exist of certain visionary organizations, but the study has not covered them. Examples would be prosumer/developer structures for producing solar energy such as Mosaic in the US or Som Energia in Spain (with 30,000 prosumers as of December 2015), or the hundreds of cooperatives in Germany. Other examples of companies that are establishing open structures and fit the visionary definition are Tesla electric cars

and Tesla Powerwall, where the external environment supporting open organizational structure is not feasible at present. Anecdotal evidence exist of regulatory changes proposed in December 2015 Paris Declaration of the United Nations Climate Change Conference. In addition, initiatives such as the America's Clean Power Plan in the E.E.U.U, the EU Renewable Energy Directive with 2020 targets in countries such as Germany and Denmark, or the Energy Strategy 2050 in Switzerland are moving upwards in the vertical axis. This study has relevant implications for industry as it provides organizations to place their structure in the framework in any given market indicating that each market may have different optimal structure to openness. In addition, if the managers see the framework as a photograph in a film, the fact that they forecast future snapshots may help them to decide on how to evolve the structure. Finally, through the numerous interviews and the secondary data, this study finds that the open structures that energy companies are testing come more from an awareness that things may be changing and that they have to explore new structures.

References Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 64 (254–228). Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the american enterprise. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Inc: Sage Publications. Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 335–354. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R., & Pisano, G. (2001). Speeding up team learning. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 125–134.

Please cite this article as: Nisar, A., et al., Open organizational structures: A new framework for the energy industry, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.100

A. Nisar et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132. Franke, N., & Piller, F. T. (2003). Key research issues in user interaction with user toolkits in a mass customization system. International Journal of Technology Management, 26(5–6), 578–599. Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1229–1250. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221. Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic management journal, 29(13), 1465–1474. Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741–763. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter. Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: the preferences for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 167–188. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805. von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 4(7), 821–883. Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, Kr (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. Lakhani, K., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Tushman, M. (2012). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: the impact of task decomposition and knowledge distribution on the locus of innovation. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper, (12–57) (pp. 12–057).

5

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1–47. Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2) p.159. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1982). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academy of Management Journal, 465–499. Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). A knowledge-based theory of the firm—the problem-solving perspective. Organization Science, 15(6), 617–632. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978/2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Classics. Ron, W. (2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism. MIS Quarterly, 28(1). Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2005).Oorganizational boundaries and theories of Organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508. Sapolsky, H. M. (1967). Organizational structure and innovation. Journal of Business, 497–510. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Unwin University Books. Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationships between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 461–487. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information-processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613–624. Tushman, M., Lakhani, K., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2012). Open innovation and organizational design. Journal of Organization Design, 1(1). Whyte, W. F. (1941). Corner boys: A study of clique behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 647–664. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method.

Please cite this article as: Nisar, A., et al., Open organizational structures: A new framework for the energy industry, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.100