Managing Digital

California Management Review

2020, Vol. 62(4) 5­–16
© The Regents of the
University of California 2020

Transformation: Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0008125620942136
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620942136

Scope of Transformation
journals.sagepub.com/home/cmr

and Modalities of Value

Co-Generation and Delivery
Carmelo Cennamo1, Giovanni Battista Dagnino2, Alberto Di Minin3,4,
and Gianvito Lanzolla5

SUMMARY
The diffusion of digital technologies has enabled a notable transformation in the
firms’ boundaries, processes, structures, roles, and interactions. It is now clear that
digital transformation is not just a traditional IT back-end process; rather it affects the
organization as a whole, redefining strategies, entrepreneurial processes, innovation,
and governance mechanisms. This permeation has led to the emergence of new ways
of organizing firms’ value chains and interfirm relationships, which now increasingly
occur in digital ecosystems and marketplaces. The scope of transformation as well
as the modalities of value co-generation and delivery are here used to introduce
the content of this Special Issue of California Management Review on Digital
Transformation.

Keywords: platforms, transformations, IT management, value chains, ecosystems,

governance, strategic innovations

T
he diffusion of digital technologies—for example, Artificial
Intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, digital platforms, virtual
reality (VR), and the like—has enabled a notable transformation
in the firms’ boundaries, processes, structures, roles, and interac-
tions. It is now clear, and widely accepted, that digital transformation is not just
a traditional IT back-end process; rather it affects the organization as a whole,

1Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

2University of Rome LUMSA, Palermo Campus, Palermo, Italy
3Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy
4University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
5City, University of London, London, UK

5
6 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 62(4)

redefining its strategies, entrepreneurial processes, innovation, and governance

mechanisms. This permeation has in turn led to the emergence of new ways of
organizing firms’ value chains and interfirm relationships, which now increas-
ingly occur not in isolation but in so-called digital ecosystems1 and digital mar-
ketplaces.2 Firms and organizations use digital transformation in different ways.
Some use it to improve the internal organizing process of innovation and run
it more efficiently and effectively (e.g., GE, IBM). Others use it to sharpen the
way they connect to and collaborate with consumers, product suppliers, and
other firms, including rivals (e.g., BMW, CFA, and Tesla). Others instead lever-
age digital transformation to build multi-sided platforms and remodel their role
and impact within entire industries by changing the rules of competition (e.g.,
Airbnb, Uber, or Amazon).
The benefits of digital transformation have been widely recognized in
the business press and academic literature alike.3 Among those benefits are the
ability of digital artifacts to foster generativity—the technology system’s “capac-
ity to produce unprompted change driven by large, varied, and uncoordinated
audiences”4—and the enhanced modularization of interfirm collaborative
relationships. However, these benefits do not come without challenges and
may hide important trade-offs,5 along with new management challenges and
risks associated with the “illusion of objectivity” and the “black box” of deci-
sion making. Thus, how should firms think about and manage digital transforma-
tion? What are the critical choices and challenges of the digital transformation process,
and, if any, the new managerial principles? We launched a call for papers in 2018
to address these questions, the selected papers of which form the set of this
Special Issue.

The Articles in This Special Issue

For this Special Issue, we received 25 submissions from which 6 papers
were accepted for publication after a two-stage review process, including a paper
development workshop organized at Cass Business School in March 2020 that
was run online. As it is common for California Management Review, the articles
in this Special Issue span different research methods and empirical contexts. In
terms of research questions, they can broadly be clustered into four categories:

•• The role of data in digital transformation (Bjorkdahl);

•• The process of digital transformation (Correani et al. and Guenzi and Habel);
•• Micro-foundations of organizational design (Kretschmer and Khashabi); and
•• Cognitive and emotional foundations of digital transformation (Solberg et al.
and Kostis and Ritala).

Below, we briefly introduce these articles before elaborating more broadly

on some emerging regularities.
Managing Digital Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation and Delivery 7

The Role of Data

Bjorkdahl adopts a multiple case-study approach of 26 European leading
manufacturing firms to analyze the specific patterns of using data generated by
digital technologies in driving multinational manufacturing firms and their prod-
ucts. He aims to uncover how manufacturing firms generate and capture value
from digital technologies and the increased volumes of data involved. The article
finds that many firms are far from being ready to benefit fully from digitaliza-
tion since they are primarily focused on achieving greater efficiency, rather than
pursuing a real growth and transformation agenda. For instance, only a quarter
of the firms under observation deem that they pay more attention to increasing
revenue rather than to lessening costs. Bjorkdahl shows that the key challenge
toward growth is identifying “profitable” configurations of the competencies,
assets, and data generated from digital technologies, as well as orchestrating and
exploiting them in an agile organization.

The Process of Digital Transformation

Correani et al. elaborate on three cases of successful digital transformation:
ABB, CNH Industrial, and Vodafone. Correani et al. develop a framework to guide
managers in the effective implementation of a digital strategy and in the develop-
ment of a digital business model. They highlight that data, digital platforms, and
Artificial Intelligence play an enabling role in the implementation of any digital
strategy and business model transformation. Then, they show that digital transfor-
mation should lead to new business models where information and knowledge,
people, and (external) partners are wired in novel ways. Correani et al. show that
this business model transformation is crucial for value creation and value cap-
ture in the digital age and stress the role of considering digital-technology-enabled
interdependencies, both within and across organizations.
Guenzi and Habel zoom in a specific process: the digital transformation of
sales. They built their model from qualitative interviews with 19 key informants
and tested the model in a cross-national sample of 540 managers. Guenzi and
Habel identify four processes that should be modified digitally: prospecting, quali-
fying, presenting, and following-up. First, they show that sales transformation
should start with a clear why (transform) and what (to transform). On the latter,
they highlight six “S’s” (Substitute, Supplement, Simplify, Share, Support, and
Service), which underpin consistent digital pathways to the transformation.
Second, at the implementation level, Guenzi and Habel show that successful sales
transformation entails the digitalization of internal and customer-oriented pro-
cesses along with the constant monitoring (and learning) from interactions with
customers.

Cognitive and Emotional Foundations of Digital Transformation

Solberg et al.—on the ground of an examination performed in 2018 on
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform that totalized 282 responses—study
how employees’ beliefs about personal and situational resources in the context
8 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 62(4)

of technological change turn into different digital mind-sets, and how these dig-
ital mind-sets affect the way employees make sense of and respond to digital
transformation initiatives. Wong and Solberg posit that the different combina-
tions of these individual beliefs are reflected in four types of digital mind-sets:
that is, fixed/expandable digital mind-set, growth/expandable digital mind-set,
fixed/zero-sum digital mind-set, and growth/zero-sum digital mind-set. In fact,
employees’ beliefs reflect the extent to which their technological ability is fixed
versus malleable (resulting in fixed or growth-oriented beliefs), as well as the
extent to which they deem situational resources limited or expandable (resulting
in zero-sum or expandable-sum beliefs). These are in turn connected to different
roles individuals take when facing digital transformation.
Kostis and Ritala analyze how the use of VR-enabled digital artifacts affect
the interactions between co-creators and interpretive uncertainty management.
Kostis and Ritala show how the adoption of VR-enabled digital artifacts alters
managerial practice by supporting co-creation participants to redefine their
boundary roles. They find that the successful incorporation of digital artifacts in
co-creation projects allows professionals to engage in a co-creation process in
which there is less space for misinterpretation—hence, incentives can be better
aligned. This condition lessens the call for complex contracting and scheduled
project check-ups. In this way, firm boundaries become more blurred, as experts
from different firms engage in joint teams run via digital interfaces.

Organizational Design
In the only conceptual piece of this special issue, Kretschmer and
Khashabi develop an integrated picture on how digital transformation affects
organization design. They do this by classifying and analyzing the effect this has
on the process of output creation in firms. The starting assumption is that digital
transformation can alter the way firms define, divide, and group the sub-tasks
required to reach an expected output. For defining and dividing tasks, this out-
come come about via the action of two mechanisms. On one hand, digitalization
processes significantly augment the amount of information available to organiza-
tional decision makers. On the other hand, digital transformation creates a wave
of new critical elements for firm outputs, which leads to demanding new tasks
while turning some of the existing ones outdated. Two core features of this orga-
nizational redesign should be considering interdependencies (including those
with the prospective activities that will be added in the longer term) and decid-
ing where to draw the organizational boundaries around those activities.

What Is Digital Transformation?

Despite the differences in research questions, methods, and contexts,
these articles highlight some common themes. First, the articles in this Special
Issue show that digital technologies may affect organizations at different levels and
that it is over-simplistic to speak of digital transformation tout court. The articles
in this Special Issue confirm some emerging regularities in the managerial and
Managing Digital Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation and Delivery 9

Figure 1.  Digital transformation: An integrative framework.

Modalities of value
co-generation & delivery

Converging Markets Leveraging Platforms

(coopetitive dynamics)

Connecting Leveraging Ecosystems

products/services (value complementarities)

Delivering legacy Leveraging Data-driven

-
products processes
(organizational efficiency &
responsiveness)
Scope of transformation

Firm boundaries and Industry/sector

Firm processes & inter-firm boundaries and
operations collaboration economic relations

practitioner literature that the strategic scope of the transformation can range from
rewiring existing processes to redefining relationships beyond a company’s own
boundaries in a broader web of interconnected relationships within the legacy
sector or across sectors. We represent this first common theme—“the scope of
the transformation”—as the X axis in Figure 1.
Second, the articles published in this Special Issue highlight different
mechanisms through which companies can engage with their stakeholders to cre-
ate and deliver value, which we call “modalities of value co-generation and deliv-
ery.” On one hand, companies can be contributors to value co-delivery in the
broader new connected economic systems, delivering value through their core,
legacy products. On the other hand, companies can become the “architects” of
entire new value systems by designing and orchestrating ecosystems. These eco-
systems allow the co-creation and delivery of superior value propositions to cus-
tomers through interconnected products and services and through platform
marketplaces, which allow for aggregating multiple offerings (across distinct sec-
tors and market segments) around some centered customer needs. We represent
this second common theme as the Y axis in Figure 1.
At the intersections of the different positions that companies can take on
the X and Y axes, the articles published in this Special Issue contribute to our
understanding of some of the key elements of a company’s digital transformation,
which implies changes in the whole business model.6 Digital transformation
results in three different types of business model transformation: Data-Driven
Processes, Ecosystems, and Platforms.

Leveraging Data-Driven Processes

The first approach to digital business model adaptation is for companies
to leverage data-driven processes by focusing on monitoring, optimization, and
organizational responsiveness. While addressing management issues at the level
10 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 62(4)

of a firm’s operations through digital might imply changes in the internal pro-
cesses, these are adaptations typical of any shift of technology. Overall, they hap-
pen within the same management paradigm. Given the inward-focus, this type
of transformation will afford limited options for value co-creation with external
firms (“contributors”). Here, firms might enhance their market competitiveness
since greater efficiency might translate into greater profit margins, and greater
organizational responsiveness might translate in a higher ability to engage with
and retain customers (compared with rivals). However, the firm’s competitive
standing might be quickly eroded to the extent that the industry and the market
evolve rapidly toward new value production and delivery models as a result of a
broader digital transformation at the sector level.
The study by Bjorkdahl shows the limits of focusing on efficiency, running
the business “as is” rather than leveraging digital technologies to redesign the
configuration of value-creation and value-delivery processes in a pursuit of a real
growth and transformation agenda. As the study shows, for some of the leading
European manufacturing firms, the challenge is finding optimal organizational
process configurations to exploit a firm’s competencies and assets with the data
generated from digital technologies.
Correani et al. provide a process for such configurational design, and how
to leverage it to create new business models based on digital-technology-enabled
interdependencies.
Focusing on the specific firm–customer relationship, Guenzi and Habel
show that firms can benefit from digital sales channels to the extent that they
transform the customer-oriented as well as the internal-related processes to create
virtuous feedback loops between engaging and learning from the interactions
with customers.

Leveraging Ecosystems
The second approach to transforming business models is to leverage eco-
systems. Digital technologies can offer new means to collaborate with other
firms, to establish new interfirm routines for sharing information and resources,
and to create collective output that can offer new or enhanced value proposi-
tions to customers. The impact of transformation goes beyond the firm boundar-
ies, affecting the level of complementarities across firms’ activities and products.
Besides changing the logic of value creation, this can lead to increased inter-
connection and interdependence across the set of firms forming the ecosystem.
While firms in the ecosystem are tied by greater interdependence, digital also
affords the member firms greater flexibility, autonomy, and latitude of action. It
allows firms to coordinate their activities without the need to form ad hoc hier-
archical organizational structures (such as joint ventures or alliances). Firms in
the ecosystem act as a collective enterprise with open, permeable boundaries;
digital technologies and digitally enabled interfirm routines offer the new gover-
nance mechanism to regulate interfirm collaborative relationships and incentives
for value production. Kostis and Ritala document how firms can change their
Managing Digital Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation and Delivery 11

interfirm managerial practices and collaborative arrangements through the use

of VR digital artifacts, which reduce the need for complex contracting and moni-
toring of joint project collaborations.
In this case, companies rewire their business model for value co-generation
and delivery and reshape their organizational boundaries. As advanced by
Kretschmer and Khashabi, firms can leverage digital technologies to redesign the
way firms divide and group the sub-tasks required to create some joint output or
connect their products into an integrated solution. This allows firms to separate
out the level of products, tasks, and activities integration from firm organizational
integration. While interdependencies can expand as a result of digital-enabled
information, firms can benefit from the enhanced modularity that digitalization
affords to decouple the different integration processes (e.g., knowledge integra-
tion vs. manufacturing integration vs. system supply integration). As a result,
some processes can be moved outside the organizational boundaries and others
can be expanded by connecting to other organizations in the ecosystem.7
What we observe today is a continuous transformation of entire sectors of
the economy, which become increasingly interdependent to the point that some
morph into new, converged ones.8 New structures of economic relationships
among firms emerge as a result of such transformation, which redefines the eco-
nomic principles and success factors themselves. Nokia, and the evolution of the
mobile phone industry, is a case in point of how digital can redefine value, pro-
duction processes, competitive dynamics, and the relational power of the market.
Nokia was the undisputed market leader in the mobile phone market. However,
by focusing on its traditional product strategy and failing to open up its value cre-
ation processes to external firms, it failed to keep pace with competition from new
entrants like Apple and Google. Fundamentally, Nokia continued to apply a prod-
uct-based competitive logic, focusing on the individual product attributes and
related market segments for delivering value, while Apple first, and later Google
(with its Android OS), redefined the competitive arena by focusing on a digital
platform product system, which grows in functionalities and value with the provi-
sion of additional connected products and services via the apps.

Leveraging Platform Marketplaces

The third approach to business model transformation is leveraging plat-
form marketplaces. Platform-based digital markets are critically altering the
way companies generate and deliver value to final customers, and thus the
way companies compete in the market. With value shifting increasingly from a
stand-alone product to platform systems, product market boundaries are no lon-
ger relevant for defining the type and intensity of competition. Some platforms
(e.g., Amazon Marketplace) leverage the data traffic generated by its users and
providers to facilitate transactions through an efficient matched market; other
platforms (e.g., Apple’s iOS) connect and integrate the workings of a core prod-
uct with complementary innovations to offer an integrated product solution to
customers; while others (e.g., Google’s Search or Maps) leverage their scale and
scope to enable the searching and sharing of relevant information.
12 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 62(4)

This completely changes the competitive dynamics. Because of its gen-

erative and connectivity nature, digital can change the nature of competition
itself, “dismantling the contours of sectors and industries as we knew them,
and creating new opportunities while destroying long-successful business
models.”9 Traditional markets are conceived as given, with their fixed struc-
ture and size; competition is thus just a zero-sum game between firms compet-
ing for capturing a larger share of the total fixed value available in the market.
Instead, digital technologies, particularly digital platforms, can transform the
shape of a market and expand the overall value by enabling complementarity
between different products, which then expands the consumption options for
customers.
Firms need to reconsider their traditional sources of value capture (such as
control of or exclusive access to downstream sale channels) and find new ways to
build an effective positioning in evolving digital markets (themselves subject to
competition from other rival digital markets). Therefore, besides the typical
within-market competition from competing products/services, firms need to
assess cross-markets competition or platform competition and decide on which
platforms to be present and how to compete. Traditional value capture strategies
won’t work. As maintained elsewhere,

platform market boundaries span across multiple (traditionally defined) product

markets and even sectors. Treating each of these product-market segments as sep-
arate markets would miss the key point of digital markets: increased inter-con-
nectedness and interdependence across multiple products across various markets
and sectors that can form an integrated product system for the final customer.10

Firms should thus consider the scope of the digital transformation along
with the opportunities for value co-creation that the digital-enabled products
and processes provide. The way that these products and services are linked to co-
generate greater consumption experiences and benefits for customers can per-
meate to adjacent industries, leading to industry convergence. As a result, digital
transformation at the market/industry level can unsettle the dominant structural
positions that some firms may have gained in the past, redefining the economic
relationships—and relative power—of firms in the industry.11

Managing Digital Transformation: Do We Need New

Managerial Principles?
The articles in this Special Issue highlight some management challenges
(along with the benefits) when delivering on a company’s digital transformation.
We summarize these challenges in Table 1. At a close look, these challenges are
both old and new. They are old, to the extent that they point to managing the
typical managerial trade-offs, including balancing the short term and the long
term, prioritizing decisions, integrating knowledge, engaging stakeholders, struc-
turing organizations and incentives, managing interdependencies, and building
Managing Digital Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation and Delivery 13

Table 1.  Management Challenges and Benefits of Digital Transformation.

Identified management
Paper challenges Identified benefits

Bjorkdahl • Balancing trade-off between Increasing cost advantages

firms’ near-term strategies through:
for supporting the current • improved production
business and long-term throughput, fewer
strategies fully embracing breakdowns
digital transformation • more efficient maintenance
• Recognizing the right path • more effective integration
to realize a successful across activities in the
digital transformation, they internal value chain
are expected to tackle the • new product development
questions of why, where, what, methods
and how to ignite digital change

Correani, De • When implementing a digital • Improving customer care

Massis, Frattini, transformation strategy, a services using
Messeni firm is required to rethink • conversational autonomous
Petruzzelli, and its business model and to interfaces
Natalicchio reduce risk and uncertainty • based on AI
• Digital transformation may • Developing smart products
fail because of disconnection that allow providing
between strategy formulation value added services to
and implementation customers

Guenzi and Habel • When too many things are • Automated, harmonized,
transformed simultaneously in and prioritized internal
digital transformation, the key processes
challenges are represented • Enhanced services through
by a lack of prioritization digital channels (e.g.,
and unclear organizational chatbot integrated with
responsibility/ownership of the company’s service portal)
digital transformation • Personalized marketing
• A second key challenge is mix
represented by the (re)design
and implementation of a
multi-channel, integrated,
and consistent customer
experience management
strategy

Kretschmer and Digital transformation requires • Charting organization’s

Khashabi • considering (new) information flows along the
interdependencies in production processes
designing the digital • Evolving the firm’s strategy
organization and structure on the basis
• considering organizational of core benefits of digital
structure and strategy as transformation
twins • Decoupling of activities and
• redesigning the organization, processes that will shape
considering the competitive the (long-term) competitive
advantage ten years ahead edge of the firm, and those
leading to (short-term)
efficiency gains

(continued)
14 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 62(4)

Table 1.  (continued)

Identified management
Paper challenges Identified benefits

Solberg, Traavik, • Employees’ digital mind- • Four specific roles are

and Wong set shapes the extent to identified for digital mind-
which they see digital set combinations (i.e.,
transformation initiatives leaver/mover/skeptic,
as opportunities for partner/collaborator, star/
professional growth master, and transformer/
• The mind-set critically change agent)
influences the extent to
which employees are
willing to participate in
(or relinquish) digital
transformation initiatives

Kostis and Ritala • Continuous experimentation • Forming nimble joint teams

with new digital tools and with experts from different
methods enable enhanced firms via digital interfaces
co-creation opportunities • Better coordination and
• They present challenges and governance of joint projects
require large investment thorough enhanced
and the introduction of orchestration of existing
novel engaging role types roles and introduction of
for customers, providers, new ones, such as that of
and other co-creation VR specialist
participants

Note: AI = Artificial Intelligence; VR = virtual reality.

culture. They are new, because they have to be addressed in a new, different, and
evolving context that keeps on getting transformed by the affordances of digital
technologies—including, for instance, pervasive connectivity, automated decision
making, virtualization, speed of change, and unanticipated product functional-
ities and applications that expand the value options (and thus the opportuni-
ties to explore new revenue and business models). The transformations brought
forward by digital technologies are non-linear, ambiguous, and interact with the
legacy managerial challenges.12 In this context, are our received managerial prin-
ciples still relevant?
At the intersection of the old challenges and the new context, we believe
that the articles in this Special Issue highlight the need to develop new principles
and new tools to grapple with the idiosyncrasies of the digital age, such as

•• Managing and organizing the integration of people’s intelligence and Artifi-

cial Intelligence;
•• Managing and organizing pervasively connected systems;
Managing Digital Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation and Delivery 15

•• Managing and organizing experimentation at speed; and

•• Managing and organizing for sudden shocks.

While much more research is needed, we have provided an integrative

framework of digital transformation to help managers identify the trade-offs ex
ante and help guide their managerial actions in the future.

Author Biographies
Carmelo Cennamo is professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at Copenhagen
Business School, where he is Co-Director of the Entrepreneurship Concentration
studies of the MBA Program (email: cce.si@cbs.dk).
Giovanni Battista Dagnino is chair of management and professor of digital strat-
egy at the University of Rome LUMSA—Palermo Campus (email: g.dagnino@
lumsa.it, dagnino@unict.it).
Alberto Di Minin is associate professor of Strategy at the Institute of Management,
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, and Research Fellow with the Berkeley
Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE) at the University of California,
Berkeley (email: alberto.diminin@santannapisa.it).
Gianvito Lanzolla is professor of Strategy at Cass Business School, City, University
of London (email: gianvito.lanzolla.1@city.ac.uk)

Notes
 1. See Michael Jacobides, Carmelo Cennamo, and Annabelle Gawer, “Towards a Theory of
Ecosystems,” Strategic Management Journal, 39/8 (August 2018): 2255-2276.
 2. See Carmelo Cennamo, “Competing in Digital Markets: A Platform-Based Perspective,”
Academy of Management Perspectives (in press), online July 29, 2019, https://journals.aom.org/
doi/pdf/10.5465/amp.2016.0048.
  3. See work by Marco Iansiti and Karim R. Lakhani, “Managing Our Hub Economy,” Harvard
Business Review, 95/5 (September/October 2017): 84-92; Gianvito Lanzolla, Danilo Pesce,
and Christopher Tucci, “The Digital Transformation of Search and Recombination in the
Innovation Function: Tensions and an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, forthcoming; Gianvito Lanzolla and Hans T. W. Frankort, “The Online Shadow
of Offline Signals: Which Sellers Get Contacted in Online B2B Marketplaces?” Academy of
Management Journal, 59/1 (February 2016): 207-231.
 4. Jonathan L. Zittrain, “The Generative Internet,” Harvard Law Review, 119/7 (May 2006):
1975-2040.
 5. For three specific trade-offs in the context of platforms, see Cennamo (2019), op. cit.;
Carmelo Cennamo and Juan Santalo, “How to Avoid Platform Traps,” MIT Sloan Management
Review, 57/1 (Fall 2015): 12-15.
 6. Lanzolla and Markides provide an integrative framework of the types of business model
innovation. Gianvito Lanzolla and Constantinos Markides “A Business Model View of
Strategy,” Journal of Management Studies (forthcoming), online April 10, 2020, https://doi.
org/10.1111/joms.12580.
 7. For an analysis of how Dallara, a specialized component manufacturer in the sports car
sector, leveraging digital technologies, built an ecosystem for information and knowledge
integration on top of the existing manufacturing value chain structure, see Paolo Aversa,
Carmelo Cennamo, and G. Lorenzoni, “Digital Transformation in Manufacturing Ecosystems:
A Case of Integration Decoupling,” Working Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=3646020
16 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 62(4)

  8. For a complete discussion and theoretical framework, see Cennamo (2019), op. cit.
  9. Cennamo (2019), op. cit., p. 7.
10. Cennamo (2019), op. cit., p. 4.
11. For a case of how digital platforms changed the competitive logics in the hospitality industry,
see Carmelo Cennamo, Tim Meyer, and Erdem Dogukan, “Market Architectural Shift: The
Impact of Digital Platforms on Incumbent Firms and The Role of Asset Ownership,” working
paper.
12. See, for example, work by Cennamo et al., op. cit., Lanzolla et al., op. cit.