Minna Pikkarainen, Laura Kemppainen, Yueqiang Xu, Miia Jansson, Petri Ahokangas, Timo Koivumäki, He Hong Gu and Julius Francis Gomes
Covid has increased the usage of multisided digital platforms. For companies, this has become a business opportunity. Data usage on platforms requires that platform companies…
Abstract
Purpose
Covid has increased the usage of multisided digital platforms. For companies, this has become a business opportunity. Data usage on platforms requires that platform companies co-create services for common customers. In this case, the target is not to make the same value proposition but rather to use the resources such as data, knowledge, technology, or institutions in a complementary manner. Platforms are characterized as a combination of hardware and software including standards, interfaces, and rules making it possible for different ecosystem players to complement and interact in the ecosystem. Current ecosystems include several platforms that do not work without resource integration. The purpose of this study is to increase understanding what do we mean by resource complementarity in service ecosystems.
Design/methodology/approach
This study was done via an in-depth qualitative case study in which a health service ecosystem co-creating technological surgery innovation was used as a unit of analysis.
Findings
The authors’ findings suggest that key resource capabilities, to enable complementarity in service ecosystems, are motivation, knowledge, skills, data and complementary designed technology components.
Research limitations/implications
The authors’ study increases theoretical understanding of what does one mean by construct of resource complementarity.
Practical implications
From a managerial perspective, it is shown that organizations need to develop adaptive capabilities to utilize internal and external competencies and resources and enable co-creative processes within the service ecosystem.
Originality/value
Very few empirical studies in the marketing literature have focused on multi-sided digital platforms and their resource complementarity in the data-driven healthcare ecosystem settings.
Details
Keywords
Gillian Vesty, Olga Kokshagina, Miia Jansson, France Cheong and Kerryn Butler-Henderson
Despite major progress made in improving the health and well-being of millions of people, more efforts are needed for investment in 21st century health care. However, public…
Abstract
Purpose
Despite major progress made in improving the health and well-being of millions of people, more efforts are needed for investment in 21st century health care. However, public hospital waiting lists continue to grow. At the same time, there has been increased investment in e-health and digital interventions to enhance population health and reduce hospital admissions. The purpose of this study is to highlight the accounting challenges associated with measuring, investing and accounting for value in this setting. The authors argue that this requires more nuanced performance metrics that effect a shift from a technical practice to one that embraces social and moral values.
Design/methodology/approach
This research is based on field interviews held with clinicians, accountants and administrators in public hospitals throughout Australia and Europe. The field research and multidisciplinary narratives offer insights and issues relating to value and valuing and managing digital health investment decisions for the post-COVID-19 “value-based health-care” future of accounting in the hospital setting.
Findings
The authors find that the complex activity-based hospital funding models operate as a black box, with limited clinician understanding and hybridised accounting expertise for informed social, moral and ethical decision-making. While there is malleability of the health economics-derived activity-based hospital funding models, value contestation and conflict are evident in the operationalisation of these models in practice. Activity-based funding (ABF) mechanisms reward patient throughput volumes in hospitals but at the same time stymie investment in digital health. Although classified as strategic investments, there is a limit to strategic planning.
Research limitations/implications
Accounting in public hospitals has become increasingly visible and contested during the pandemic-driven health-care crisis. Further research is required to examine the hybridising accounting expertise as it is increasingly implicated in the incremental changes to ABF in the emergence of value-based health care and associated digital health investment strategies. Despite operationalising these health economic models in practice, accountants are currently being blamed for dysfunctional health-care decisions. Further education for practicing accountants is required to effect operational change. This includes education on the significant moral and ethical dilemmas that result from accounting for patient mix choices in public hospital service provision.
Originality/value
This research involved a multidisciplinary team from accounting, digital health, information systems, value-based health care and clinical expertise. Unique insights on the move to digital health care are provided. This study contributes to policy development and the limited value-based health-care literature in accounting.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this study is to understand how executives in technology companies relate to targets for gender equality, especially pertaining to top management.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to understand how executives in technology companies relate to targets for gender equality, especially pertaining to top management.
Design/methodology/approach
The study draws on 19 interviews of CEOs, senior line managers and HR directors in ten technology companies operating in Finland. The method is (reflexive) thematic analysis.
Findings
Previous studies on the role of executives in promoting gender equality provide somewhat mixed results: while their role is vital, senior leaders may not be inclined to support gender equality targets and measures. Drawing on critical feminist theorizing, this study identifies three ways in which the executives in technology companies related to gender equality targets: endorsing, negotiating and resisting. However, all these responses were constrained by the executives’ assumption that their companies are meritocratic. The study illustrates how executives’ narrow understanding of gender equality and reliance on the presumably well-working systems, combined with underlying doubts about the competence of women, hinder the advancement of women to top management.
Originality/value
While previous studies have evaluated targets to increase the number/percentage of women, both in certain “ideal case” companies and in terms of their effectiveness more broadly, this study discusses how technology company executives navigate these targets in relation to women's assumed “competence”.