The Electric Mobility Business Ecosystem - IEEE Xplore

Download PDF
2 downloads 0 Views 269KB Size Report
Comment
Abstract—The electric mobility business ecosystem (EMBE) is a typical innovation ecosystem. Participating companies can succeed only through (disruptive) ...
2014 Ninth International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER)

The Electric Mobility Business Ecosystem An Initial Agenda for Future Research Needs, Based on Organisation Theory Raphael Giesecke Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Aalto University, School of Science Espoo, Finland Raphael.Giesecke[at]aalto.fi

Abstract—The electric mobility business ecosystem (EMBE) is a typical innovation ecosystem. Participating companies can succeed only through (disruptive) innovation, and only through entering industrial fields which are either new as such or new to the participants. Consequently, on supply level, car manufacturers have teamed up with battery-, electric motor- and power electronics manufacturers, as well as with electricity utilities and charging infrastructure suppliers. On operational level, ICT services providers, charging providers and parking services providers have started collaboration. However, the integration of electric vehicles into smart grids and smart cities is slow, even if most desirable from an environmental point of view. Meanwhile, high procurement costs and a lack of range continue to cripple the growth of electric car sales. Thus, from a business point of view, the most urgent research questions are (1) what actually is the EMBE, which actors are involved already and which will be involved in the future; (2) what challenges keep the EMBE from growing; and (3) which scientific theories are at researchers’ disposal for studying the various challenges? In this paper I sketch an initial EMBE and – based on a review of various organisation theories and frameworks – propose an initial agenda addressing research needs that may have been missed in the ongoing scientific discourse on electric mobility. In conclusion, organisation theory can be used to model the EMBE and also to study why disruptive innovations are needed and which mechanisms prevent them. Keywords—electric mobility, business ecosystem, organisation theory, electric vehicle, organisational behaviour

I.

INTRODUCTION

Electric cars compete against internal combustion engine (ICE) cars – once again, after roughly a century of ICE car boom. This competition is yet biased, due to high procurement costs of electric vehicles (EVs) and a lack of range of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). However, technology development, especially regarding batteries, but also in power electronics and electric motors, slowly shifts the bias towards EVs. Also, it is undisputed that BEVs powered by sustainably produced electricity outperform any ICE car in terms of environmental impact. Of course one could argue that once the EV technology has progressed enough, ICE cars will be driven out of the markets. However, various issues need to be taken into This work was supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation Tekes as part of the Electric Vehicle Systems programme’s eSINI project.

978-1-4799-3787-5/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

account. First of all, ICE technology develops as well, as does gearbox technology. Second, BEV based innovations may enter ICE cars as well – this is especially valid for any kind of telematics and auto-piloting. The most problematic issue, however, is that most ICE cars (i.e. all automobiles) compete in a very well defined ecosystem, which has evolved for 127 years – the business ecosystem of individual (auto-) mobility. In this ecosystem all actors, from car manufacturers and component suppliers to fuel stations and maintenance & repair shops, have undisputed and well described roles. In the electric mobility business ecosystem (EMBE) however, not only are many roles unclear, there are even roles which might be unknown yet. In parallel, some actors (e.g. car manufacturers) may need to redefine their roles to a high degree if they want to act in both ecosystems. Moreover, the EMBE extends well beyond individual mobility. Many enthusiasts and politicians argue that electric mobility needs to include a shift from individual- to collective-, or at least shared mobility. And even if many car manufacturers have taken steps to car sharing concepts, this field of mobility is new to them. Consequently, I propose viewing the EMBE as a typical innovation ecosystem. Participating companies can succeed only through (disruptive) innovation, and only through entering industrial fields which are either new as such or new to them. A. Research Questions Once we accept that the ‘traditional’ business ecosystem of individual (ICE) auto-mobility differs from the electric mobility business ecosystem (EMBE), various questions emerge. The first question is equally important for academics and practitioners alike. It is the question of what the EMBE comprises, what is in its scope, what is outside, and who are the actors involved already or in the future, and in which role? The second question, on the surface, is more important for business practitioners: what challenges keep the EMBE from growing? However, this question can be re-formulated for academics: which scientific theories are at scientists’ disposal in order to study the various challenges? B. Scope Whereas research in technology is considered as crucially important for advancing the EMBE, and such research is cited

throughout this paper, the paper’s scope is the business ecosystem, including its actors, their roles and their challenges. In order to start a more comprehensive scientific discussion on the EMBE this paper includes an initial sketch of the EMBE aiming to attract comments and improvement propositions. Furthermore, I propose an initial research agenda addressing research needs that may have not yet been identified in the extant scientific discourse on electric mobility. The scope of the theories and frameworks reviewed is limited by purpose to organisation theory, in order to be theoretically focussed while studying a very broad phenomenon (the ecosystem). II.

PRIOR RESEARCH

In strong contrast to public perception, research on consumer demands and marketing of (B)EVs is neither new nor limited to the 21st century. Already in 1981 demand for ecars was studied [1], followed by forecast studies in the 1990s [2] and, more recently, market competition studies [3, 4]. The problem with these studies is their common conclusion that a mass market for BEVs is yet absent, forcing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to conclude “One must think radically new demand, preferences and usages to imagine innovative offers and the potentially credible associated market” [5]. Whereas this conclusion is certainly valid, and has been responded to already [6], it is also limited to progress in technology and creation of user demands. The question is who has addressed e-mobility from theoretical viewpoints beyond technology and marketing? Again, already in the 1980s sociologists commenced their studies, e.g. by applying actor-network theory in 1986 [7]. A related theoretical stream, assuming e-mobility as being a sociotechnical system, followed, with [8] representing a typical, recent study example. In principle socio-technical systems reduce a phenomenon (e.g. e-mobility) to an s-curve of demand over time. Two problems exist with this s-curve: the first is, whether one believes that the phenomenon can indeed be represented by such curve; and the second is, where on the scurve is ‘today’ located and what are the possible (demand) magnitudes and timely phase lengths? The socio-technical transition perspective allows more complexity than a curve, however its emphasis is the same – to generate a future ‘trajectory’ based on recent developments in selected areas [9]. For both streams, refutation of the presented forecasts is possible only in retrospective – exemplified by Kirsch’s often cited book about the evolution of the BEV [10]. A different research perspective is to consider the emobility ecosystem as such, especially the business ecosystem – the EMBE. A first study outlined possible roles of initial actors in the EMBE, as well as their development due to the uncertain environment [11]. Later, further roles were suggested [6]. The method for describing a business ecosystem was refined, too [12], although in a different industrial sector. Chapter IV builds on that research. Finally, most researchers assume BEVs to compete only in the ‘traditional’ business ecosystem of individual (ICE) automobility. However, this limit does not take into account the effects of BEVs beyond transportation. For instance, positive BEV impacts on local smart housing up to regional grids, have been identified by various studies, already, starting as early as

2005 [13] and continuing from 2008 [14] to 2009 [15, 16] and into the 2010s [17, 18, 19, 20, 6]. Remarkable in this context is that V2G does not lead to significant battery degradation [21]. This research in technology is considered as crucially important for advancing the EMBE. In conclusion, research has advanced on marketing and consumer studies, however e-mobility opportunities for business beyond transport, e.g. through vehicle to grid (V2G) technologies, have been largely ignored in such type of research. Only one recent study examined the economics of V2G [22], and another one possible business models [23]. Studies based on sociology, including the socio-technical system view, face the same issues of conservatism; opportunities beyond transport are often ignored or consciously excluded. Consequently, it makes sense to investigate an EMBE which includes aspects beyond transportation, and based on this, investigate whether the various challenges of electric mobility can be studied more comprehensively by applying organisation theory. III.

METHODOLOGY

This paper is based on two literature reviews – the first including studies on the e-mobility (business) ecosystem and the second on organisation theory. Consequently, two syntheses are performed: the first outlines the initial EMBE (Chapter IV) and the second outlines an initial research agenda addressing future research needs concerning e-mobility. The second synthesis builds on the first, and also supports the first. The EMBE model as such was scrutinised and validated by an expert panel consisting of representatives of various Finnish EMBE actors on municipal, industrial and academic level. IV.

THE ELECTRIC MOBILITY BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM EMBE

In order to describe the EMBE, it is important to know which actors have been active in e-mobility and which might be active in the future. On supply level, we know that car manufacturers team up with battery-, electric motor- and power electronics manufacturers, as well as with electricity utilities and charging infrastructure suppliers. On operational level, ICT service providers, charging providers and parking services providers start to collaborate. There are also first – rare – ventures in which the integration of BEVs into smart buildings, smart grids and smart cities is tested. But how can these actors be described in order to fit into a scientific model of a business ecosystem? First of all, it does not make sense to model actual actors (e.g. BMW or VW). It is more meaningful to model generic roles. These roles can be taken on by actors – for instance both BMW and VW may take on the role EV Manufacturer. Second, actors can take on more than one role (e.g. electricity utilities often function both as Electricity Retailer and Distribution System Operator). Also, several actors can take on the same role – which leads to competition. Some roles however, can be described without any actors available to take on the role yet. For instance in Finland, the role E-Mobility Operator has been described already in 2012 [11], however the first actor became fully operational only in 2014. Before introducing the actual EMBE model, I will introduce the modelling conventions.

A. Role Types in a Business Ecosystem In order to enhance comprehension of the EMBE model, it makes sense to classify the possible roles. Some roles typically enable, some exercise some kind of control, and other simply consume, or use. If we assume that each role has a distinct function in the ecosystem, typically providing a distinct value to others in the ecosystem, a processed based view of modelling makes sense. Following the IDEF0 standard [24 p. 11], I propose the following role types:  Governor: governs by providing standards, laws, policies, norms or (ethical) values. Analogue to “control” in IDEF0.  Input Provider: provides inputs, which change in the subsequent process. Typically components, energy, information but also ideas, concepts, investments or funding. Analogue to “input” in IDEF0.  Enabler: provides assets in tangible or intangible form that do not change subsequently. IDEF0 “mechanism”.  Aggregator and Provider: aggregates inputs into comprehensive products or services, often directly aimed at end users. “Function” in IDEF0.  End User: consumes energy, products and services and may provide cash flow and/or feedback to other roles. Receiver of “output” in IDEF0. In principle these role types can be used in modelling any kind of business ecosystem, not only the EMBE. The role type shapes are illustrated in Fig. 1. B. Flow Types in a Business Ecosystem Even if my emphasis is on business ecosystem, cash is not the only – and often not even the most important – flow between roles in the ecosystem. Thus, in order to cover all possible flows in all possible ecosystems (not only the EMBE); I propose the following types of flow, following the logics of systems engineering:  Energy (in the EMBE typically electricity),  information (including digital services),  physical material (hardware, components, products) and  cash transactions (i.e. funds, money). Through this flow type logic, all ecosystem levels can be covered in one model – physical, energy, ICT and business. C. Supply vs. Operations One core distinction in a business ecosystem is whether the actors enjoy one-time or multiple revenues. A supply system is typically based on the idea of one revenue per product. During operations, multiple or even ongoing revenues are possible. For instance selling a car means one revenue on supply level (the product car for its price), whereas car maintenance or charging services are on operational level (cash-flow during each occurrence). Consequently, roles in the EMBE are colour coded, with a distinction between supply and operations.

Governor

Input Provider

Aggregator and Provider

End User

Enabler

Fig. 1. The different roles types in a business ecosystem, and their shapes

D. Introduction to the EMBE Model In order to model the roles in the EMBE I first started with [11] and added roles as suggested by [6]. Subsequently, I used the initial draft as a baseline when exploring organisation theory. During this second step I added nine additional roles, suggested by various studies (see Chapter V), and rearranged the role positions in the model accordingly. The resulting model was validated by an expert panel. It is presented in Fig. 2. In the following I add some complementary remarks, per role type. The roles as such should be self-explaining through their respective titles. 1) Governors See Sections V.C.1)-3). Except for the Electric Market Regulator, governors typically govern rather many than few other roles. 2) Input Providers The eight input providers are most likely the most ‘straight’ roles in the EMBE, in that respect that their inputs will be aggregated before delivery to end users. Note that the role Renewable Electric Power Producer can be taken on by individuals or institutions, and especially by BEV owners practicing V2G. The Researcher role includes R&D institutes. 3) Enablers The ten enablers provide (software) tools, analyses, news, mechanisms and support to various roles. When enabling multiple roles, an enabler can be in a powerful knowledge brokering position [12]. 4) Aggregators and Providers Many of the eighteen aggregator and provider roles have been described in [6]. The new roles EV- and Battery Provider (Lease/Rent) also cover battery swapping services. I especially emphasise the Parking Services Provider role as a source for a wide range of innovative new business models. 5) End users Professional end users may comprise businesses or institutions, especially those who run EV fleets. Any end user is a potential co-creator of e-mobility services.

Governing authority

Standards Provider

User Group, Association, NGO, Lobbyist

Electric Market Regulator Industrial Electric Power Producer

Renewable Electric Power Producer

Electric Power Aggregator/ Wholesales

End User Application Provider

Electricity Retailer

Transmission System Operator

E-Mobility Operator (Nomadic Charging)

Distribution System Operator

E-Mobility Operator (Home Based Charging)

Charging System Operator

Real Estate Property Management

Funding Provider ICT Services Provider

Charging Services Provider

Nomadic Charging Provider

Parking Services Provider

Charging Information Provider

EV Provider (Lease/Rent)

Individual End User

Investor Battery Provider (Lease/Rent) Financial Analyst

Repair and Maintenance Provider

EV Parts Supplier EV Manufacturer

Charging Management Software Provider Legend Operations (ongoing revenue) Supply (typically onetime revenue)

Professional End User

Charging Components Supplier

Insurer

Battery Supplier Charging System Supplier Charging System Integrator

Researcher

Fig. 2. Roles in the proposed electric mobility business ecosystem (EMBE)

News Media

Social Media

E-Mobility Infrastructure Supplier

V.

ORGANISATION THEORY AS AN EMBE RESEARCH TOOL

The context for applying organisation theory in this paper is a very broad phenomenon – the electric mobility business ecosystem (EMBE). This phenomenon extends beyond the transport paradigm, even if the general context is mobility. This is due to the technical core of the BEV – its battery. Organisation theory as such is not a single, coherent theory, but rather a field of theories and theoretical frameworks [25]. In the following sections, I will investigate major streams of organisation theory and evaluate their possible use in order to study the EMBE and its challenges. A. Organisational Ecology As of Chapter IV, the EMBE is modelled in form of roles, which are taken on by actors in the ecosystem (i.e. organisations, such as firms, NGOs, institutes or authorities). Organisational ecology uses the term ecosystem as well, however with a slightly different meaning. The initial focus [26] was on selection – an evolutionary mechanism, expressed through (birth and) death rates of organisations in their environments. There is a caveat however – evolutionary mechanisms assume that (1) organisation are of the same class, however the roles (and thus organisations) in the EMBE are distinctly different; and (2) in selection theory, death rates make sense as “ecologists assume that structural inertia limits the capacity of organizations to make radical changes in strategy and structure” [26 p. 1116]. For the EMBE however, we may assume that organisations will need to radically and quickly change in order to engage in a disruptive or emerging ecosystem. In conclusion, selection theory cannot be used as a research framework for the EMBE, as its core assumptions and its concept of ecosystem are completely different from those used to model the EMBE. A research stream within organisational ecology which may fit to the EMBE is niche structure, usually applied as nichewidth (small niche meaning specialised, wide meaning generalist organisation) [27, 26]. One extension of niche-width research is towards social identity, with a focus on the fit of actors to their roles, as expected from a (professional) audience [28, 29]. The specific claim interesting for the EMBE is that generalists may produce multi-identity/genre products which neither appeal to professional, specialised analysts [29, 28 p. 1405] nor audiences at large [29]. Two underlying assumptions of cognitive nature were applied in both studies: (1) if an actor cannot communicate his role (what he or his product is and what value he provides), the ecosystem (including the ‘audience’, i.e. the customers) will ignore him (inflict a “social penalty” [28 p. 1399]); and (2) humans are more comfortable with role conformity (expressed through specific, genre conform actors/products) than ‘out-of-the-box’ nonconformity. One possible application of organisational ecology to the EMBE is to study how professional financial analysts as well as end users (car buyers) penalise ‘traditional’ car manufacturers (e.g. GM, Ford or VW) if these manufacturers diversify their product range towards EVs. Wrongly expressed or understood diversification can bring stock prices down [28], and can create brand ‘contamination’. For instance Porsche’s SUV Cayenne ‘contaminated’ Porsche’s masculine brand with

“feminine gender” [30], leading to considerable brand confusion of many male Porsche drivers. The analogy in the EMBE would be the ‘contamination’ of a typically combustion oriented brand based on strong macho/male related values with electric motors promoting soft, feminine values, such as silence, cleanliness, the environment or even obligingness. Indeed it is hard to imagine how such values fit into the ongoing trend of making cars look as brutal and beastly as possible. B. Contingency Theory The key idea in contingency theory is to explain the structure of successful organisations, and its change. However, not as one universally best way but with a structure adapted to (ever changing) environmental conditions [31]. In other words (the structure of) an organisation needs to (be made to) best fit its respective environmental requirements. Commencing from organisational internal and external environmental complexity, scholars have studied contingencies such as organisational size (also termed scale), strategy, technology, uncertainty, geography, scope (diversification), task interdependence and life cycle [32, 33 p. 18, 25 p. 104]. Technology related contingencies have been detailed into three dimensions, namely complexity (or diversity), uncertainty (or unpredictability) and interdependence [25 p. 126]. There are three ‘functional’ levels – technical, managerial and institutional – in an organisation [34]. Each of these is exposed to a different ‘environment’. Both the environment as well as prior ideologies affect the strategy of managers, which affects the organisational structure, and both (strategy and structure) in return have repercussions on the environment [35]. Another approach is to involve a systems model view [36 p. 515]. On a final note, a more recent model [33] explicates the change (and thus time) aspect in contingency theory. Not only is the organisational structure contingent to the environment and fit affects performance, but also contingency change causes organisational change [33 p. 8]. The repercussion here is that structural adaptation is often to regain fit [33 p. 11]. The most interesting aspect of contingency theory is that organisations and their managers are considered rather as adaptive (i.e. contingent) to the environment than as a source of change and innovation. Thus, this theory allows to study why large organisations in the EMBE, such as energy utilities or car manufacturers, do neither feel pressured for disruptive innovation nor for strong engagement in BEVs and charging. They may simply behave contingent to their environment, which – regarding e-mobility – is supposingly changing in small, slow increments rather than in disruption. C. Organisational Institutionalism This theory “offers guides to thinking about corporate responsibility, and brings into question the goal of maximizing profits or returns on capital” [37 p. 272]. One of its streams adopted institutionalising processes as social practices [37 p. 277] – studied in a context of state institution democratisation – to a broader organisational context [38]. This stream draws from a long history of politics studies that focus on state government institutions. The initial goal in this stream was to

understand social interactions, and their mechanisms, between human individuals and organisations. Researchers have studied for instance the interaction of citizens and the California Air Resources Board regarding its EV program in 1996 [39]. Even if that particular study emphasised technology, institutionalism is clearly present. More recently, governing options for emobility stimulation were suggested – they range from allowing EV drivers the use of bus lanes to lobbying for charging hardware standards [40]. These two studies embedded in the first stream of institutionalism suggest a need to include governing authorities, standardisation bodies and lobbyists in the EMBE. The following three roles are necessary: 1) Governing Authority This role provides governing laws and rules to the EMBE actors. Typically, the authority role is taken by public authorities, form local level (municipalities) to state, national and global level (UN bodies). For instance, in Finland three institutions act as EMBE governors on ministry level: the ministries of (1) Finance; (2) Transport and Communications, and (3) Employment and the Economy. In Germany, the EMBE is governed on national level by the Joint Agency for Electric Mobility. This agency represents the National Electric Mobility Platform, founded by the German automobile industry and the Federal Ministries for Economic Affairs and Energy and Transport and Digital Infrastructure in 20101 [Ministry names as of 2014]. Note that the German agency operates with industry participation. 2) Standards Provider The current hotchpotch of both plugs and charging modes (including AC vs. DC fast charging) creates unnecessary costs for various EMBE actors. But charging represents only the top of the iceberg of standardisation needs. Much more standards, related to, e.g. battery manufacturing, maintenance, re-use and disposal are needed. Thus the institutionalisation of e-mobility standards is in its infant phase, still. 3) User Group, Association, NGO, Lobbyist This role comprises businesses, professionals and lay persons who lobby on behalf of or against the EMBE. Such actors influence governing actors, standards providers, as well as other EMBE participants and the general public. The role may also host political parties. The research question here is how do these groups actually create successful impact, how do they institutionalise their goals? Another question could be, how inclusive or exclusive should a group be? For instance the Electro Mobility business group of The Federation of Finnish Technology Industries2 has a top-down membership selection criterion – how does this promote innovation? All three roles govern the EMBE, and through this governing they guide, constrain and control the EMBE. When studying the EMBE through institutionalising processes as social practices, these three roles should be in focus, along with end users and citizens in general. Such studies may reveal key 1

www.bmwi.de/DE/Presse/pressemitteilungen, did=329290.html 2 http://teknologiateollisuus.fi/fi/ryhmat-jayhdistykset/sahkoinen-liikenne.html (accessed 24 Jan. 2014)

relations between roles (and actors) and key influencing processes on politics, governments and policy making. Additionally, the resulting policies could be studied in relation to their institutional impact on the EMBE, for instance with a focus on environmental legislation. The second research stream in organisational institutionalism, institutional isomorphism, is more complex. On the outset, its claim was that organisations’ structures are contingent to their institutional environment [41 p. 340]. This stream thus links the structural level of analysis to the ecological level of analysis. The central claim is that in organisational fields, isomorphic processes are in place, which lead to similar organisations in the field [42 p. 1983]. The isomorphic process was described as containing regulative, cognitive and normative institutional mechanisms [43 p. 213]. Compared with the first stream, the research focus has thus changed from ‘processes between individuals and institution’ to ‘organisation shaped by and (less) shaping its surrounding field’. In the EMBE context, this approach can be used to study how actors in the same role become similar, even if they try to create distinct profiles, products and services, and in general aim for innovation. Obviously, institutional isomorphism may keep actors away from being disruptively innovative – a serious problem in the EMBE. The third stream takes an anthropologist approach. Consequently, three different levels of analysis were proposed: individuals, organisations and society/institutions [44 p. 240f]. Moreover, these levels are interrelated: “Individual action can only be explained in a societal context, but that context can only be understood through individual consciousness and behaviour” [44 p. 242]. Following interpretivist epistemology, “institutions are constituted by symbols and material practices” [44 p. 253], both of which can be manipulated and reinterpreted by individuals [44 p. 254]. Moreover, at any time, various institutional logics compete in society [44 p. 253] – thus society can be understood as an inter-institutional system. This stream is unique as it rejects determinism and allows individual agenda. It is thus well suited to understand phenomena in specific contexts, such as how groups of BEV users may expand the use of their vehicles beyond transport and thus initiate disruptive innovation. D. Discourse Analysis In its most sober definition, discourse analysis is a methodology for analysis [45], not a theory on its own. Consequently, depending on the theory that scholars use in combination with discourse analysis, their view on organisations changes, accordingly. Still, there seem to be some ‘typical’ discursive views. In long range discourse [46 p. 1133] the organisational context is typically (fields of) institutions [47], states, nations or science. In short range discourse the organisational context is local – such as team, group or unit [48 p. 409]. But how does discourse analysis function in practice? Based on institutional theory, Maguire & Hardy [47] described how “problematizations” and “translation” by outsiders can deinstitutionalise [47 p. 148] regulative, cognitive and normative institutional mechanisms [43 p. 213]. Such

problematisation occurs as, for instance the questioning the safety, efficacy and necessity of institutionally accepted practices [47 p. 154]. In the EMBE context this could be the questioning of vehicle based air pollution in cities (e.g. Beijing, Shanghai), the efficacy of individual transport, and the necessity of owning an ICE car with a range which is not used in urban traffic. Contrary to the isomorphic approach in institutionalism, “translation” replaces “diffusion” within discourse [47 p. 149]. In strong contrast, in his study on decision making in a strongly local context, Gibson [48] focussed on the “localized dynamics of conversation” [48 p. 361] – i.e. organising on team level. Such study may explain why even on team level disruptive innovations (as needed in the EMBE) are suppressed by a majority of team members. In conclusion, discourse analysis is a methodology which can be combined with a wide range of theories, which define the view on organisation and organising, with an institutional view being most popular [49, 50 p. 36]. And whereas other lenses are possible, power struggle and suppression dominate, in both short- and long-range contexts. Consequently, discourse analysis is a perfect tool to study the struggle of disruptive innovators and innovations (especially related to electric mobility beyond transport) on team-, unit-, organisation- and cluster levels. The motto could be ‘electric against combustion’. As initial example one could start with the idea of repugnance as a market constraint – originally a concept of economics [51]. Repugnance can mean, e.g. “distasteful, inappropriate, unfair, undignified, or unprofessional” [51 p. 40] and it is hard to predict what the general public will consider as repugnant. Previously repugnant markets concerned, e.g. adoption, birth control, life insurance, specific predictions, interests on loans, or tradable emission entitlements [51]. Thus, following the Porsche Cayenne brand ‘contamination’ logic in Section V.A., could it be possible to ‘contaminate’ the image of combustion vehicles in a way that they become repugnant? Whereas environmentalists will argue that ICE cars are repugnant already, and have always been, the general public seems to be far from this notion. Meanwhile the auto manufacturers, besides promoting safety, promote joy and fun. While BMW’s “The joy of driving” was introduced long ago, Peugeot countered with “Enjoy the drive”. The latest additions are SEAT with “Enjoyneering” and Toyota with “Fun to drive, again”. Thus, the questions could be, has the ICE car repugnance discourse started already, and are the car manufacturers ‘striking back’ already? Whereas such discourse is of great importance for the progress of the EV, some actors in the role of EV manufacturer – those who produce ICE cars – are obviously interested in suppressing the discourse as much and as long as possible. They will not risk brand contamination. In any case discourse analysis can support the exposure of all the efforts to belittle the environmental impacts of ICE cars and their fossil fuel based business ecosystem. E. Decision Theory – The Carnegie School The Carnegie school assumes that human rationality is bounded [52 p. 96, 53 p. 214, 54 p. 526]. The boundaries (i.e. limits) are set by individual knowledge, selective attention and conflicting preferences [54 p. 526]. On conceptual level, bounded rationality leads to satisficing [54 p. 526] replacing

the search for an optimal solution. Further assumptions are that preferences are ambiguous, risk-taking ability is not a fixed trait, and decision makers have limited attention and conflicting organisational goals [52 p. 97-104, 53 p. 226-230]. With conflicts assumed as reality, one of the purposes of organisations is to achieve cooperation [54 p. 527] through, e.g. coalition formation [54 p. 528]. This research emphasises the need of EMBE actors to enter coalitions, even if optimal solutions may yet be unknown. On conceptual level, Greve’s open system model predicts a firm’s R&D intensity as dependent on managerial performance evaluation, aspiration level and firm resources (i.e. level of slack), through connected mechanisms of search, risk tolerance and decision making [55 p. 686]. The model explains indirectly the necessity for innovation buffers (a stock of ‘risky’ solutions) and the paradox of innovations being rolled out ‘exactly’ when needed [55 p. 697]. In the EMBE context this may mean that the most ‘optimised, ‘streamlined’ and ‘sleek’ organisations (especially car manufacturers) may suffer ‘empty’ innovation buffers regarding e-mobility and may thus face serious competition from companies which are specialised only on BEVs, such as Tesla. A more recent stream of the Carnegie school replaces rational choice by a “logic of appropriateness” [53 p. 230]. The decision maker follows rules, obligations and norms [53 p. 230]. One of the concepts introduced in this stream (originally as “Attention mosaics” [53 p. 234f]) is the attention based view of the firm [56]. This view regards “organizations as systems of distributed attention”, with attention being devoted to “issues” and “answers” [56 p. 189]. The core assumption is that “firm behaviour […] is both a cognitive and structural process” [56 p. 187f]. Consequently, three levels are proposed for attention distribution and regulation: (1) individual cognition and focus; (2) social cognition depending on situational context; and (3) organisational structures [56 p. 189, cf. 54 p. 527]. One of the key implication is that a firm’s “procedural and communication channels” [56 p. 202], due to their impact on all three levels, and especially on level (2) and (3) are core drivers of organisational behaviour and adaptation. In the EMBE context this means that research is needed to study how large organisations (e.g. electricity utilities) communicate emobility internally and externally, and how much the communication impacts on decision making on disruptive innovations. Furthermore, research needs to identify and analyse the cognitive frameworks and managerial ideologies in dominating EMBE organisations – typically these favour variation (i.e. incremental change) over reorientation (i.e. disruptive innovation) [57 p. 99]. Put more bluntly, “Executives belive [sic] organizations should grow incrementally at their margins” [57 p. 99]. Such belief may not always be appropriate in an innovation ecosystem. In a third research stream, decisions are considered as artefacts [52 p. 107-111, 53 p. 235-237]. Whereas in the first streams the assumption “the point of life is choice” [53 p. 236] still holds, in this stream it is being replaced by the interpretivist key assumption that “meaning is the core of life” [53 p. 237] and consequently decision making processes give meaning [52 p. 110]. This view is the most challenging to economic theory, in that processes are assumed to be more

important than outcomes [52 p. 111] – a direct attack on utility maximisation. One concept is the Garbage Can Model of organisational choice [58]. Whereas its initial context was “organized anarchy”, exemplified by universities [58], its assumptions may hold in organisations with uncertain boundaries, inconsistent goals, hazy technology and fluid participation [58 p. 1f] – in the EMBE context these could be NGOs, universities and even research institutions. The model regards four loosely coupled flows (choices, problems, solutions and participant attention) as “exogenous of the system” (i.e. the actual decision “can”) [58 p. 3]. Variation of the four parameters ‘energy’ load (i.e. degree of organisational slack), ‘energy’ distribution (between important and other persons), and access and decision structure (unsegmented, hierarchical or specialised, respectively) [58 p. 16] allows predictions of organisational decision behaviour. The level of analysis is thus an open organisational system. The concepts of individual cognition and organisational intelligence [54 p. 533], with their (fleeting) assumptions on emotional ‘energy’, “emotional intelligence, intuition” [54 p. 532] and “collective intelligence beyond that of any one individual” [54 p. 533] are farthest from the assumptions of classic economic theory. Thus, especially those streams of the Carnegie School could result in the most innovative research outcomes in future EMBE studies. F. Organisational Behaviour As a research field, organisational behaviour includes (1) the organisational context (environment, technology, culture); (2) individuals in an organisation; (3) groups and teams in an organisation; (4) organisational structure; and (5) management processes [59]. Regarding context, organisational behaviour has theoretical overlaps with contingency theory (achieving the best fit) and, lesser, with organisational institutionalism (Sections V.B. and C.). Management processes include decision making (see Section V.E.). Unique for organisational behaviour is the multiple stakeholders view [59 p. 7], which is reflected in Fig. 2 – each role is a stakeholder in the EMBE. My own research focus is on interactions between innovating organisations, especially through knowledge processes [60]. I thus focus on organisational behaviour driven by a change of context (i.e. innovation ecosystem), both on technology- and environmental level. The following two cases are to illustrate how actions of real-world actors can be interpreted through organisational behaviour based analysis. The first case investigates the impacts of user groups and associations on emobility infrastructure and the second case the organisational behaviour of two auto manufacturers regarding BEVs. 1) Technology Enthusiasts vs. Environmentalists For many BEV enthusiasts it is obvious that BEVs are attractive to environmentalists, at least more appealing than ICE cars. Consequently, some BEV enthusiasts assume that BEVs and their infrastructure are supported by environmental activist groups and political green parties. However – rather counter intuitively – this is not always the case. At first, without involving organisational behaviour, one could argue that environmentalists dislike electric automobiles because they are targeted towards individual instead of collective (i.e. public) transport. Also, electric automobiles consume resources

while being produced. But still – is not a BEV objectively more ecological than an ICE car? The questions could be (1) who are the actors brokering and translating information between various roles (government, user groups, associations, manufacturers) and (2) which kinds of analogies are in use in the discourse between actors? Or, expressed related to knowledge processes, (1) who shares knowledge successfully and (2) which are the most successful knowledge sharing processes? ‘Success’ in this context means that knowledge is shared in such way that the strategic goals stay intact throughout the sharing. If environmentalists believe that BEVs are just ICE cars with a different motor, then obviously the sharing process was not successful. A recent, yet unpublished, study documented how BEV charging infrastructure in California became “institutionalized through the evangelical efforts of technology enthusiasts” [61 p. 43]. The authors’ sober conclusion is “we found no significant effects of environmental organizations on the setup of EV charging stations or favorable voting in EV related propositions, respectively. Nor did we find evidence of a positive interaction” [61 p. 44]. Such research shows that – at least in California – the knowledge processes between BEV enthusiasts and environmental organizations are deeply dysfunctional. This can be a problem for every local EMBE, and thus needs much more and deeper research, urgently. 2) Daimler vs. BMW Daimler produced both BEVs and hybrids as early as 1906, marketed as “Mercédès Electrique” and “Mercédès Mixte” respectively3. Following prototype tests of converted ICE cars in 1972, 1982 and 19923 the first automobile to be massproduced and offered as BEV was the Mercedes A-class in 1998. Being conceptually designed as BEV, the car had a sandwich floor which contained the battery4. Unfortunately for Daimler, battery technology and e-mobility infrastructure was not mature enough for an electric A-class and consequently only a small test fleet was build as BEV3 – the consumer models had ICEs. Subsequently, many Daimler managers regarded the A-class as a failure. From an organisational behaviour point of view, Daimler made the decision to develop a car optimised for electric drive (short front and sandwich floor) surprisingly early. In the mid 1990s all other large scale auto manufacturers just converted standard ICE models to electric models, if at all. Even Toyota with its Prius did not offer a BEV, just an ICE car with an additional electric motor. With BEVs being a disruptive innovation for which there was no viable market, Daimler made a clear-cut strategic move: instead of launching electric drive as innovation in the S-class, according to Daimler’s typical top model based approach, emobility was completely removed from the Mercedes brand and shifted to the Smart brand. Indeed the sandwich floor concept of the Smart electric drive (on sale in selected markets since 2011) is a re-use of the A-class concept. The second Daimler BEV model is branded as SLS AMG Electric Drive (note the absence of Mercedes). Moreover, the development of 3

www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1391922-1-1401035-1-0-01402053-0-0-135-7165-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html 4 www.umweltbrief.de/pdf/Mercedes_Aclass_electric_zebra.pdf (accessed 28 Jan. 2014)

the SLS AMG Electric Drive was entirely outsourced to AMG, a Daimler subsidiary. Thus the actual Mercedes brand is kept ‘uncontaminated’ of e-mobility (see Section 5.A.). More strikingly, BEV development and manufacturing is located in geographically different places than ICE car development and manufacturing. Whereas the former A-class was already produced in Rastatt instead of Sindelfingen (about 90km apart), the Smart is produced in Hambach (France) – at a distance of more than 200km from Sindelfingen. This separation of ICE and electric car development and manufacturing reflects a leadership approach in which disruptive innovations, products and business models get separated from the mainstream business – thus removing friction from innovators when they promote their disruptive ideas. This approach is most likely also well synchronised with Daimler investors (especially those from Kuwait), financial analysts and customers at large. For them, Daimler is still mostly an ICE car manufacturer, who just experiments with e-mobility in non-core brands. Like Daimler, BMW tested converted ICE cars, the earliest in 19725. In 1991 the first concept car was presented, and in 2008 BMW launched the (then secret) “Project I”5. However, fleet testing started only in 2009, under the Mini brand. The converted Minis were not available for sale to end customers. Thus, until 2013, BMW’s BEV strategy was much less pronounced than Daimler’s. Both companies did not offer any BEV for sale under their respective core brands. By 2013 however, BMW launched a full-scale marketing campaign for its BMW i3. Like the initial Mercedes A-class, the BMW i3 is a vehicle designed as BEV. Both cars share the short front feature and the battery stored below the passenger cell floor. However, the i3 features a passenger cell separated from the “drive module”, which includes battery and drive train6. The approach to manufacturing is again similar between Daimler and BMW – the i3 manufacturing is in Leipzig, about 430km from BMW’s development and main-stream manufacturing location Munich. However, BMW seems to be ready to ‘contaminate’ their core brand BMW with BEVs and emobility. One particular reason could be that BMW is family owned (46.7% of the shares belong to the Quandt/Klatten family)7. Typically owner families follow long term visions, which are based on values associated with sustainability. Once such owner family agrees that disruptive innovation is necessary, a top-down implementation approach can be realised. From an organisational behaviour point of view, the most distinct difference between Daimler and BMW is thus top management leadership. Whereas Daimler rather favours the ‘skunk works’ concept (i.e. keeps e-mobility units and manufacturing separate from core business), BMW seems to renew the core of the company through the process of institutionalisation of e-mobility. 5

www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/corporation/bmwi/ highlights/heritage.htm 6 www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/corporation/bmwi/ concept.html#lifedrive 7 www.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup_prod/e/0_0_www_bmw group_com/investor_relations/aktien/aktien/aktionaersstruktur. html (accessed 28 Jan. 2014)

G. Organisational Networks Network theory has been applied to organisations for decades; however three distinct studies each initialised research streams which are influential and ongoing until to date. The first introduces strategic organisational networks [62]. The second introduces organisations as networks [63], and the third elaborates on network relations and their arm’s-length vs. embedded nature [64]. These three streams were combined for the first time in order to describe a business ecosystem in [12]. A similar approach can be used to describe the EMBE and its various clusters in greater detail. Analyses are possible for ties and relationship qualities between roles, as well as various types of proximities between roles [12]. Furthermore, network power can be investigated per role, cluster and on EMBE level. VI.

A FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA, BASED ON ORGANISATION THEORY

There is no doubt that research in and development of technology will be needed in order to advance e-mobility. Also, consumer and marketing studies will reveal how actual BEV owners – today’s early adopters – appreciate their cars, and what measures could be taken to market e-mobility into mainstream consumerism. However, there is an urgent need to complement such studies from a business point of view. It is tempting to lunge straight to e-mobility business models, and one recent study [23] was exemplarily comprehensive on this issue. Still, creating business requires more than mature technology, persuasive marketing and feasible business models. Creating business requires also consistent governing, novel inputs, competitive enablers and excellent organisations. The EMBE, illustrated in Fig. 2, sets the scene in which EMBE actors will operate in the future. The complexity of the EMBE model supports the core assumption that many participating companies will need to enter industrial fields which are either new as such or new to them. Consequently, a future research agenda needs to include research targeted on the EMBE organisations, their roles, their networks, their change and their interactions. For such research, organisation theory provides a range of appropriate tools. A. Incomplete Challenges and a Need for Exploration Whereas Chapter IV outlines the EMBE and Chapter V presents a range of research frameworks as tools, a research agenda might be best structured according to challenges – i.e. research needs. But even if this paper points out some challenges in the EMBE, there exists nothing such as a ‘complete list of e-mobility challenges’. It is crucially important to understand that one aim of research is just to identify possible problems – not necessarily accompanied by possible solutions. Many challenges might be still unknown – in the worst case as “unknown unknowns” [65]. Still, research can help uncovering those challenges. Consequently, the EMBE research agenda starts with the task of exploring for challenges, clustering challenges, and prioritising challenges. Fortunately, any organisation theory can contribute to this task, as exemplified in Chapter V. In order to present and structure further EMBE challenges and research needs, I borrow the structure from organisational behaviour [59, cf. Section V.F.].

B. Context based Challenges and Research Needs Context refers to the environment in which an organisation operates. This paper is focussed on the EMBE – the business ecosystem – but cultural aspects, network power and especially radically changing technologies should be taken into account as well. One research need is to update the EMBE model until it becomes an internationally implemented standard. Organisational network theory, as applied in [12] might be supportive. In parallel, research is needed to investigate the change in context per EMBE role. Which actors, in which roles, are subject to the most radical contextual change? How can those actors prepare for and cope with the necessary change? How can they cope with new, disruptive business models? Both decision theory as well as organisational behaviour offer researchers supportive frameworks. C. Individual Based Challenges and Research Needs In this topic, I deviate from organisational behaviour, which focuses on individuals in an organisation, towards individuals in their role as end users, feedback providers, lobbyists and cocreators. The first challenge is to understand what kind of innovations ‘mainstream’ car drivers expect and accept from their favourite brands. As illustrated through the Porsche Cayenne example, even an (ICE powered) SUV might be unwelcomed [30] and consequently the brand was subject to penalising [29]. Moreover, specialised professional analysts (including stock analysts and journalists) may misunderstand diversification and subsequently create a negative impact on stock prices through their reports [28]. Thus research is needed on how niche structures can be changed successfully, and organisational ecology provides the tool. Another challenge is to understand the relations and influences of end users and citizens in general on politics, governments and policy making. Also the resulting policies should be studied concerning their impact on the EMBE. Organisational institutionalism could act as a research framework. Finally, changes in user behaviour and acceptance are not only experience based (how many mainstream car drivers have ever experienced a BEV?) but much more discourse based. These discourses, often cacophonies of views, interests and lobbying, need investigation. Discourse analysis offers the most appropriate method. D. Collaboration Based Challenges and Research Needs The most crucial issue in the EMBE is the need for collaboration of organisations which never collaborated before. Tesla, the BEV manufacturer, collaborates with charging system suppliers, solar panel suppliers and electric utilities. Which car manufacturer had such collaboration in the last century? Which utility has a long collaboration history with organisations promoting individual transport? There is no scientific evidence that such new collaborations between strongly diverse organisations would proceed smoothly. Not only terminologies and ontologies are different, there may not

even be a common, shared epistemology (on how to accumulate knowledge). More obvious, ‘green’ companies, oriented towards sustainability and low environmental impacts, have few shared interests with car manufacturers – and still, in the EMBE they need to collaborate and trust each other. Consequently, research is needed to investigate the stakeholders in the EMBE. Who are the most influential, dominant stakeholders; who sets the terms of collaboration? Is collaboration more successful through arm’s-length or embedded relations [64]? Which organisational networks are of strategic importance [62]? Organisational networks theory provides fitting research tools. Once collaboration is under way, knowledge processes emerge. Knowledge sharing is common in vertically integrated supply chains; however horizontal knowledge sharing, as in the EMBE, is more complex and more complicated. The investigation of necessary knowledge processes in the EMBE is difficult but important – implementing a generic framework of knowledge processes is much easier for a new consortium than starting from scratch and discussing different ontologies. Consequently we need to investigate who (which role) typically shares knowledge successfully and which related knowledge sharing processes work best. In more detail, research questions could address brokering and information translation processes between various roles, and common analogies in use between roles. Organisational behaviour, especially knowledge management frameworks, and organisational networks theory will guide such research. Within organisations, individuals, groups and teams need to collaborate. Often, disruptive innovations are suppressed by a majority of team members. Similarly, disruptive innovators struggle on various levels of organisations. An important research question is why disruptive innovators and e-mobility innovations beyond transportation (e.g. all battery based services) are so strongly opposed. The root causes might be discovered by discourse analysis. E. Institutional Challenges and Research Needs Whereas in organisational behaviour the focus is on organisational structure, here I propose to broaden the phenomenon towards institutionalism, which – in return – includes organisational structure. Both contingency theory and organisational institutionalism assume that organisations and their managers are in some form adaptive to their environment, including shared norms, values and work processes. Such behaviour does not support quick, radical change and thus does not support disruptive innovation. The research need is to study large organisations in the EMBE and their adaptation processes towards a changing environment (e.g. the mobility shift from ICE car to BEVs). How do such organisations manage innovation, what level of disruption is ‘allowed’? The case of Daimler vs. BMW (cf. Section V.F.2)) illustrates that top management behaviour and approaches to innovation depend on investor structures – institutional investors have different values and shorter time horizons than owner families. Regarding public authorities, municipalities, and also utilities, how is e-mobility becoming institutionalised in such organisations? What are the barriers,

what are the challenges, which former knowledge needs to be ‘unlearned’? Regarding universities and research institutes, which mechanisms exist in order to change the current, conservative research focus within e-mobility? Another research need is to better understand how enthusiasts, innovators and early adopters start to institutionalise e-mobility. Such actors influence governing authorities, standards providers, other EMBE participants and the general public. How do these groups actually create successful impact, how do they institutionalise their goals? Which mechanisms work, which do not? What are the key relations between roles and key influencing processes on politics, governments and policy making? As e-mobility becomes (slowly) institutionalised, how can alliances be formed between environmentalists, NGOs and local Green parties? The challenge is to align various discourses (e.g. e-mobility, global warming, renewables and sustainability) into either one overall view or at least a coherent set of views. As we know from the dysfunctional knowledge processes between BEV enthusiasts and environmentalists in California [61], such endeavour can be difficult – but in order to accelerate the institutionalism of e-mobility and the EMBE it needs to be brought to the agenda’s centre. Back to the user groups and e-mobility associations, how inclusive or exclusive should a group be? How much do top-down or grass-roots selection criteria promote innovation, respectively? Both organisational institutionalism theory as well as discourse analysis should be involved for such studies. In parallel, research is needed about whether an ICE cars targeted repugnance discourse [51] would be useful for the EMBE, and if so, in what stage of e-mobility adoption it should start. Such discourse can raise viewpoints problematic for ICE cars, such as vehicle based air pollution. Complementarily, all the efforts to belittle the negative environmental impacts of the fossil fuel based business ecosystem should be researched. Finally, research is needed into two types of isomorphism. The first, negative type prevents disruptive innovation of actors in the same role – isomorphic mechanisms drive these actors into becoming more and more similar. The second, positive type drives actors in the same role towards stronger innovativeness – a “red queen” effect of organisational evolution [66]. Both types together typically lead to a long phase of slow, incremental innovation, followed by a shorter phase of ambiguity, and then a longer phase of fast paced disruptive innovation. The result is an s-curve of innovativeness, similar in shape to the demand s-curves of socio-technical systems. Institutional isomorphism provides the fitting research framework. Through adding individual agenda, one can also study how groups of BEV users expand their BEV use beyond transport. F. Management Based Challenges and Research Needs Organisations in the EMBE need leadership and management, as well as management processes. Whereas processes are covered by organisational behaviour frameworks, decision theory is strongly influenced by the Carnegie school [54, cf. Section V.E]. A range of research needs are related to managerial decisions. First of all, the EMBE, as every

amalgamation of diverse fields of technology, has a need for coalitions. These can be formed in various ways and the question is which form of coalition works best in which case? How can managers form coalitions, if optimal solutions are yet unknown? Innovation, yet again, needs to be addressed in management research. Which of the EMBE organisations are the most efficient, sleek and optimised – and, due to managerial behaviour, do they indeed suffer from empty innovation buffers, as theory predicts [55]? How can such behaviour be overcome? Back to decision making, what are the cognitive frameworks and managerial ideologies in dominating EMBE organisations? Do those favour incremental change over disruptive innovation, like theory suggests [57], and if so, what change mechanisms towards disruption tolerance can be identified and engaged? Leadership and management is also strongly communication based. Thus research is needed into how EMBE organisations communicate e-mobility internally and externally, and how much the communication patterns impact decision making on disruptive innovations. Carnegie school based frameworks will support such research. Not all organisations resemble ‘well oiled machineries’ – many organisations in the EMBE have uncertain boundaries, inconsistent goals, hazy technology and fluid participation. Such organisations are typically NGOs or user groups, but also universities and even research institutions could be included. The garbage can model [58] allows studying the behaviour of such organisations in the EMBE context. Finally, there is a hunch that more innovative research is needed, even if the concrete EMBE challenge might be unclear as yet. Such research could embrace the concepts of individual cognition and organisational intelligence. Its outcomes might be among the most surprising in future EMBE studies. VII. DISCUSSION The main implication of this study is its provision of an initial framework – an agenda – for future research on the electric mobility business ecosystem EMBE. As the phenomenon is a business ecosystem of organisations, the agenda is based on organisation theory. Research aligned to this agenda ideally complements research streams on emobility focussed on technology, strategy and marketing. The research agenda is divided into six clusters of challenges and research needs. The first cluster addresses the situation of incomplete challenges and the further five clusters are divided along the five main scopes of organisational behaviour, from context to management processes. Remarkably, in most of the research clusters, several theories can be used to study the challenges presented. In some cases, only the combination of two theories – or at least two frameworks – allows a comprehensive study. The implication on future research is that multidisciplinarity may have an advantage. Another, more specific, implication is that organisational network theory is supportive in various contexts and for studying a variety of phenomena. However, such network theory based research needs to proceed beyond

quantitative analysis and include qualitative analysis of dyadic relations [64] and actors’ proximities [12]. Furthermore, research on knowledge processes in business networks seems to be promising, even if difficult. All other frameworks of organisation theory should be applied as well. The EMBE model as such is not yet theory – however it enables both EMBE practitioners and researchers to map their future activities and alliances. It also creates an overview of the EMBE which is more inclusive and more complete than former approaches. The contribution to theory is the actual modelling conventions. They are most likely flexible enough to model any business ecosystem, not only the EMBE. The main limitations of this study are twofold: firstly, the study is focussed on the EMBE, i.e. on only one business ecosystem. However, I have commenced research in two other ecosystems, and the resulting studies may support my overall approach, indicating its fit to any ecosystem. The second limitation is that due to the broadness of organisational theory, the proposed research agenda is shallow in some areas. However, Chapter V. provides ample evidence and examples which support the agenda. Still, the agenda should be detailed further in all six clusters in the mid term. All kinds of refutations, comments and additions are welcome.

the EMBE and also to study why disruptive innovations are needed and which mechanisms prevent them. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thanks to the funding agency Tekes for its support and continued trust in my work, to the eSINI project participants for their valuable feedback, to Prof. Matti Lehtonen for the smooth multidisciplinary collaboration and to Aalto University in general for providing me with an inspiring environment and excellent sparring partners for scientific discourse. Finally warmest thanks to my fiancée for her outstanding support. REFERENCES [1] [2]

[3]

[4]

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

[5]

This paper describes the electric mobility business ecosystem EMBE, its scope, and the roles which can be taken on by EMBE actors (Fig. 2). These actors are not ‘agents’ like in game theory but real individuals and real organisations – firms, NGOs, institutes and authorities. The roles are divided in five types, Governor, Input Provider, Enabler, Aggregator and Provider, and End user. The EMBE modelling conventions are being applied to other business ecosystems, too.

[6]

Through a literature review of organisation theory, and subsequent analysis, I present a range of challenges inherent to the EMBE. These challenges are not necessarily obvious – some of them might be even counter-intuitive. To be aware of these challenges is important for both practitioners and researchers in the EMBE. Many of the challenges address the lack of innovation, and especially the lack of disruptive innovation, as needed when imagining e-mobility beyond the transport paradigm [6]. These challenges keep the EMBE from growing and consequently need to be subject of research. The question is how can these challenges be studied, which scientific theories could be used? My synthesis led to an agenda for future research, based on organisation theory. This agenda addresses the need to explore for further challenges. It also addresses context based challenges and research needs, as well as individual based and societal research needs. Further research needs are clustered along collaboration based and institutional challenges. Finally, management and decision based challenges are matched to related research needs. From an overall point of view, organisation theory comprises a field of theories and theoretical frameworks. Each of these frameworks can be used to study particular challenges of the EMBE. In summary, organisation theory can be used to model

[7]

[8]

[9] [10] [11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

S. Beggs, S. Cardell and J. Hausman, "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," J. Econ., vol. 17, pp. 1-19, 9, 1981. R. Cowan and S. Hultén, "Escaping lock-in: The case of the electric vehicle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 53, pp. 6179, 9, 1996. A. Gärling and J. Thøgersen, "Marketing of electric vehicles," Business Strategy & the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), vol. 10, pp. 5365, 01, 2001. W. Sierzchula, S. Bakker, K. Maat and B. van Wee, "The competitive environment of electric vehicles: An analysis of prototype and production models," Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol. 2, pp. 49-65, 3, 2012. OECD, Better Policies to Support Eco-innovation. OECD Publishing, 2011 R. Giesecke, "The Electric Vehicle beyond Transport: Contexts for Meanings and Services Related to Batteries on Wheels," Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 393-403, 2013. M. Callon, "The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle," in Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip, Eds. London: Macmillan, 1986, pp. 19-34. B. van Bree, G. P. J. Verbong and G. J. Kramer, "A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 77, pp. 529-540, 5, 2010. M. Dijk, R. J. Orsato and R. Kemp, "The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory," Energy Policy, vol. 52, pp. 135-145, 1, 2013. D. A. Kirsch, The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000. R. Giesecke. Organisational development in the E-mobility ecosystem. Tekes SIMBe project. Helsinki. 2012. [Online], http://simbe.tkk.fi/Results/Results?action=download&upname=SIMBe_ D15_Organisational_Development.pdf, 2012 R. Giesecke, "The live event ecosystem – local media against global ticket sellers?" in Convergent Divergence? – A Cross-Disciplinary View on Media Convergence, A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto, Eds. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014, in print. W. Kempton and J. Tomić, "Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy," J. Power Sources, vol. 144, pp. 280-294, 6/1, 2005. H. Lund and W. Kempton, "Integration of renewable energy into the transport and electricity sectors through V2G," Energy Policy, vol. 36, pp. 3578-3587, 9, 2008. K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen and J. Driesen, "The impact of vehicle-togrid on the distribution grid," Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 81, pp. 185192, 1, 2011. B. K. Sovacool and R. F. Hirsh, "Beyond batteries: An examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition," Energy Policy, vol. 37, pp. 10951103, 3, 2009. S.-L. Andersson, A. K. Elofsson, M. D. Galus, L. Göransson, S. Karlsson, F. Johnsson and G. Andersson, "Plug-in hybrid electric

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31] [32] [33] [34]

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

[40]

vehicles as regulating power providers: Case studies of Sweden and Germany," Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 2751-2762, 6, 2010. R. Giesecke, V. Pirhonen, P. Malinen, L. Romana and J. Lehtinen, "Electric mobility needs smart infrastructures," in SB10 Finland Sustainable Community Conference Proceedings, 2010, pp. 759-766. R. C. Green II, L. Wang and M. Alam, "The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on distribution networks: A review and outlook," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, pp. 544-553, 1, 2011. C. D. White and K. M. Zhang, "Using vehicle-to-grid technology for frequency regulation and peak-load reduction," J. Power Sources, vol. 196, pp. 3972-3980, 4/15, 2011. S. B. Peterson, J. Apt and J. F. Whitacre, "Lithium-ion battery cell degradation resulting from realistic vehicle and vehicle-to-grid utilization," J. Power Sources, vol. 195, pp. 2385-2392, 4/15, 2010. S. B. Peterson, J. F. Whitacre and J. Apt, "The economics of using plugin hybrid electric vehicle battery packs for grid storage," J. Power Sources, vol. 195, pp. 2377-2384, 4/15, 2010. F. Kley, C. Lerch and D. Dallinger, "New business models for electric cars—A holistic approach," Energy Policy, vol. 39, pp. 3392-3403, 6, 2011. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), "Integration definition for function modeling (IDEF0). draft federal information processing standards publication 183," National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1993. W. R. Scott and G. F. Davis, Organisations and Organizing : Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education, Inc, 2007. J. Freeman and M. T. Hannan, "Niche Width and the Dynamics of Organisational Populations," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 88, pp. 1116-1145, May, 1983. M. T. Hannan and J. Freeman, "The Population Ecology of Organisations," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, pp. 929-964, Mar., 1977. E. W. Zuckerman, "The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 104, pp. 1398-1438, March, 1999. G. Hsu, "Jacks of All Trades and Masters of None: Audiences' Reactions to Spanning Genres in Feature Film Production," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 51, pp. 420-450, Sep., 2006. J. Avery, "Defending the markers of masculinity: Consumer resistance to brand gender-bending," International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 29, pp. 322-336, 12, 2012. T. Burns and G. M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961. P. R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, "Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organisations," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 12, pp. 1-47, Jun., 1967. L. Donaldson, The Contingency Theory of Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001. J. D. Thompson, W. R. Scott and M. N. Zald, Organisations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 2009. J. Child, "Organisational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice," Sociology, vol. 6, pp. 1-22, January 01, 1972. R. Drazin and A. H. Van de Ven, "Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 30, pp. 514-539, Dec., 1985. P. Selznick, "Institutionalism "Old" and "New"," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 41, pp. 270-277, Jun., 1996. P. Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949 M. B. Brown, "The Civic Shaping of Technology: California’s Electric Vehicle Program," Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 26, pp. 56-81, January 01, 2001. S. Bakker and J. Jacob Trip, "Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment," Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 25, pp. 18-23, 12, 2013.

[41] J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan, "Institutionalized Organisations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, pp. 340-363, Sep., 1977. [42] P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organisational Fields," Am. Sociol. Rev., vol. 48, pp. 147-160, Apr., 1983. [43] M. Schneiberg and E. S. Clemens, "The Typical Tools for the Job: Research Strategies in Institutional Analysis," Sociological Theory, vol. 24, pp. 195-227, 2006. [44] R. Friedland and R. R. Alford, "Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions," in The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis, W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio, Eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 232-266. [45] N. Fairclough, Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York, NY.: Routledge, 2003. [46] M. Alvesson and D. Karreman, "Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of Organisations through Discourse Analysis," Human Relations, vol. 53, pp. 1125-1149, September 01, 2000. [47] S. Maguire and C. Hardy, "Discourse and Deinstitutionalization: the Decline of DDT," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 52, pp. 148178, February 01, 2009. [48] D. R. Gibson, "Avoiding Catastrophe: The Interactional Production of Possibility during the Cuban Missile Crisis," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 117, pp. 361-419, September, 2011. [49] M. Foucault, "Politics and the study of discourse," in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller, Eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 53-72. [50] S. Deetz, "Describing Differences in Approaches to Organisation Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy," Organisation Science, vol. 7, pp. 191-207, Mar. - Apr., 1996. [51] A. E. Roth, "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 21, pp. 37-58, Summer, 2007. [52] J. G. March, "How Decisions Happen in Organisations," Human– Computer Interaction, vol. 6, pp. 95-117, 06/01; 2013/11, 1991. [53] R. M. Cyert and J. G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1992. [54] G. Gavetti, D. Levinthal and W. Ocasio, "Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School's Past, Present, and Reconstructing for the Future," Organisation Science, vol. 18, pp. 523-536, May - Jun., 2007. [55] H. R. Greve, "A Behavioral Theory of R&D Expenditures and Innovations: Evidence from Shipbuilding," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 46, pp. 685-702, December 01, 2003. [56] W. Ocasio, "Towards an Attention-Based View of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, pp. 187-206, Summer 1997, 1997. [57] W. H. Starbuck, "Organizations as Action Generators," Am. Sociol. Rev., vol. 48, pp. 91-102, Feb., 1983. [58] M. D. Cohen, J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, "A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 17, pp. 1-25, Mar., 1972. [59] D. A. Buchanan and A. Huczynski, Organizational Behaviour. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2010. [60] I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. [61] S. Dutta, H. Rao and I. B. Vasi, "Do Technology Enthusiasts Matter? Electric Auto Association Members and EV Charging Stations in California, 1995-2012," unpublished. [62] C. Jarillo, "On strategic networks," Strategic Manage. J., vol. 9, pp. 3141, 1988. [63] W. W. Powell, "Neither Market nor Hierarchy - Network Forms of Organisation," Research in Organisational Behavior, vol. 12, pp. 295336, 1990 [64] B. Uzzi, "Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness," Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 42, pp. 35-67, 03, 1997. [65] N. N. Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 2007. [66] W. P. Barnett and M. T. Hansen, "The red queen in organizational evolution," Strategic Manage. J., vol. 17, pp. 139-157, 1996.