This conceptual paper traces the history of production from simple offerings, with the logic of a product structure to a virtual structure, then how components are outsourced in a supply chain. In Wintelism, individual functions, within a product architecture and specified interfaces, are outsourced. Focal firms view the value chain as an ecosystem to optimize value. Destructive innovation restruct and destruct ecosystems that are outperformed by ecosystems providing new offerings. Fundamental destructive innovations disrupt the very way production is made, the mode of production, replacing it by another. This paper raises the question if we are close to such a fundamental disruption.

This conceptual paper discusses the phenomenon of differentiation made possible through branding or innovation or a combination of the two. Differentiation is eventually the driving force for the development of its own negation, commoditization. When customers have endured a commoditized market long enough the opportunities open up for creative destruction, this concept of Schumpeter (1942), means that an entrepreneur invents a completely new way of satisfying the customers’ unsatisfied needs, making the industry that no longer bothered about their customers. Many researchers have tried to re/brand destructive innovation as their own, with concepts, such as of ”transilience”, and “blue ocean strategy’, as opposed to ‘red ocean strategy’.

The paper focuses on innovation as a differentiation strategy and on temporary monopoly rent as a driver of innovation. Increased competition and shortening and life cycles makes capitalism more volatile and the strategies to reduce the risks involved are discussed. These strategies lead to the real-world implementation of the concentration of capital forecasted by Marx and feared by Schumpeter.

The paper identifies the need to continuously monitor the concentration of capital and to understand individual markets by studying the firm’s profit.

In his groundbreaking work Sources of Innovation, Eric von Hippel discussed from where in (and out of) the value-chain innovations came in different industries: the customer, the manufacturer, the supplier, or third-party innovator (universities, research laboratories, etc.). The world has changed, and new phenomena have become apparent. This article is a conceptual paper that discusses these new phenomena and presents a tentative updated pheno-typology of the sources of innovation, adding six to von Hippel's original four. To build these phenotypes it draws heavily on Kaulio (1998), Borrus and Zysman (1997) and Hart a Kim (2002). As principal take-away, the consequences for knowledge production and transfer are discussed for each of the 10 phenotypes, in comparison to the in-house, non-open innovation, default phenotype. (C) 2019 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

This is a conceptual paper about the most fundamental concept in the science of business administration, value. It traces its history, discusses the demarcation approach of the service dominant logic, arguing against it. We hold that customer co-creation is already presumed in the concept of use-value; the customer can realize the value-potential of a product or a service by satisfying experiences from the offering. Under certain circumstances relationships influence the value, often motivating temporal suspension of market relations. In other cases, relationships do not give the potential for additional value and the exchange between seller and buyer continues to be a transaction. The micro-foundations of value are searched in the social psychology oof these experiences and how they build the value. The paper suggests the need for radical re-focusing of business practices.

The objective of this paper is to build a model of how tacit knowing is externalised and becomes reflected external knowledge. Knowledge Management (Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000) is an important field in Business Administration. Based on the model provided by Nonaka and his colleagues (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000) researchers and practitioners have fallen into the pipe dream that employees’ tacit knowing can be coded and canned in computers (structural capital), eventually leading to the enterprise without humans. Earlier critics (Gourlay, 2002, 2006; Gourlay & Nurse, 2005, Grant, 2007; Philipson, 2016, 2019) of the knowledge management paradigm have shown that it does not understand Polanyi’s concept tacit knowing and that it is much more complicated to “externalize” such knowing than presumed by KM. The understanding in extant management literature of this process has been very problematic. Building on concepts in philosophy, psychology, pedagogics, organizational science, and engineering, a model is built and exemplified. This paper develops a theoretical framework for how tacit knowing can be externalized, what is required for such an externalization, and discusses the problems in such externalization, limiting it.

This conceptual paper discusses the phenomenon of differentiation made possible through branding or innovation or a combination of the two. Differentiation is eventually the driving force for the development of its own negation, commoditization. When customers have endured a commoditized market long enough the opportunities open up for creative destruction, this concept of Schumpeter (1942), means that an entrepreneur invents a completely new way of satisfying the customers' unsatisfied needs, making the industry that no longer bothered about their customers. Many researchers have tried to re/brand destructive innovation as their own, with concepts, such as of "transilience", and "blue ocean strategy', as opposed to 'red ocean strategy'. The paper focuses on innovation as a differentiation strategy and on temporary monopoly rent as a driver of innovation. Increased competition and shortening and life cycles makes capitalism more volatile and the strategies to reduce the risks involved are discussed. These strategies lead to the real-world implementation of the concentration of capital forecasted by Marx and feared by Schumpeter. The paper identifies the need to continuously monitor the concentration of capital and to understand individual markets by studying the firm's profit.

This conceptual paper explores the phenomena of changing cost-structures and the implications for the volatility of capitalism and the possibility to manage firms in such a hostile environment and proposes future research. It also provides an explanation of why the relevance of accounting is lost, the so-called "relevance lost" debate (see among others Francis & Schipper, 1999). The changing cost-structures raises fundamental questions concerning the resulting the volatility of capitalism and the management of firms in such an increasingly more volatile environment. In Philipson, Johansson & Scheley (2016), we raised the question if it was possible to "...to ride the dragon." Considering the importance of these phenomena, it is astonishing that we have not found any empirical research concerning them. They rest research questions, based on the author's almost 25 years of experience, as a senior executive in Scandinavian industry.

This paper discusses the similarities and differences between peer-reviewed scientific articles and students' theses (bachelor, one-year master, and two-year master). A sample of theses and scientific articles is analyzed as a basis for a discussion of what is a good thesis. It holds that the Goals are different and that those goals should affect the principal process to be documented, the Research Process or the Presentation of the research results. It also proposes that the Structure of a thesis should to some degree be different from the scientific article. Finally, it proposes a Framework for a good thesis.

Le projet vise à développer une formation de type DUT (Diplôme Universitaire de Technologie) en ingénierie des Energies Renouvelables et à soutenir l'émergence de technopoles spécialisées dans les Energies Renouvelables. L'objectif est de développer des compétences permettant d'acquérir des connaissances de base sur la production d'électricité à partir d'énergies renouvelables (éolienne, solaire, photovoltaïque, etc.). El proyecto pretende desarrollar un programa de formación como el DUT (Diplôme Universitaire de Technologie) en ingeniería de Energías Renovables y apoyar la aparición de tecnopolos especializados en Energías Renovables. Para ello se pretende desarrollar competencias que permitan adquirir conocimientos básicos sobre la producción de energía eléctrica a partir de energías renovables (eólica, solar, fotovoltaica, etc.)

The project aims to develop a DUT (University Diploma of Technology) type training in Renewable Energies engineering and to support the emergence of technology parks specializing in Renewable Energies. The objective is to develop skills allowing to acquire basic knowledge on the production of electricity from renewable energies (wind, solar, photovoltaic, etc.). The project intends to launch a training program such as the DUT (University Diploma of Technology) in Renewable Energy Engineering and to support the appearance of engineers specializing in Renewable Energy. Para ello claims to desarrollar competences that allow to acquire basic knowledge sober the production of electrical energy from renewable energies (electrical, solar, photovoltaic, etc.)

This a conceptual paper concerning the relation between innovativeness and monopoly rent/abnormal earnings. It discusses how these concepts can be measured and proposes that abnormal earnings are the result differentiation, by innovativeness (monopoly rent) or branding, by under-or overvalued assets, or by imperfect market information (value irrelevance). Specifically, innovativeness as a driver of monopoly rent/abnormal earnings is discussed.