Richard Tee

Dr Richard Tee

Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor)
+44 (0)1483 683124
11 MS 01
Wednesdays 17:00-18:00 (email in advance)


My publications


Richard Tee (2018)Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation, In: Research Policy48(1)pp. 51-61 Elsevier Science

Collaboration in large-scale projects introduces challenges involving both coordination (the ability to collaborate) as well as cooperation (the willingness to do so). Existing research has shown how modular designs can improve coordination by locating interdependencies within rather than between different modules. Based on an in-depth case study of collaboration in a large-scale infrastructure project, our study highlights an effect of modularity on collaboration that previously has been overlooked. Specifically, we show that while modular designs may help overcome coordination challenges by reducing interdependencies between modules, they can in turn hamper collaboration by emphasizing specialization within modules. Therefore, though existing work typically perceives modularity and integration as opposites, we clarify how they can also act as complements. In particular, we show how firms need to complement modular designs with integrating practices that stimulate cooperation. Overall, we contribute to the literature on collaboration and modularity by explaining when and how organizations can combine modularity and integration.

Sabine Brunswicker, Ann Majchrzak, Esteve Almirall, Richard Tee (2018)Cocreating Value from Open Data: From Incentivizing Developers to Inducing Cocreation in Open Data Innovation Ecosystems, In: World Scientific Reference on Innovation3pp. 141-162 World Scientific Publishing

Open governmental data available via platforms like have earned a place in the innovation agenda of governments and local authorities alike. To successfully make use of these sources, governments around the world experiment with competitive virtual contests or challenges to ignite the creativity of developers and hackers and motivate them to turn this data into novel digital applications. However, such efforts don’t seem to be sustainable. Applications developed in such contests regularly fail to ignite the continuous use by the end users. We argue that governments need to adopt an ecosystem perspective facilitating cocreation within the diverse open data innovation ecosystems of developers, producers, and users in order to foster the generativity needed for continuous value creation. However, various tensions among actors appear along the way. Taking a paradoxical view towards ecosystem tensions, we propose a socio-technical infrastructure that supports ecosystem generativity by addressing latent tensions in the “breeding zone” of an open data innovation. The infrastructure supports generative responses to these tensions in three ways: creating virtual trading zones, supporting the duality of stable and dynamic roles, and providing technological affordances for fluidity. This framework could set the stage for future research, encouraging system designers and policymakers to foster cocreation in open data innovation ecosystems.

Serghei Floricel, Sorin Piperca, Richard Tee (2018)Strategies for Managing the Structural and Dynamic Consequences of Project Complexity, In: Complexity Hindawi
Hassan Sherwani, Richard Tee (2017)Innovation and Value Creation in Business Ecosystems, In: Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizationspp. 13-32 Springer
Richard Tee (2019)Benefiting from Modularity within and across Firm Boundaries, In: Industrial and Corporate Change28(5)pp. 1011-1028 Oxford University Press

What factors and processes drive value appropriation and value creation in interdependent industry ecosystems? This paper explores this issue through a case study comparing the deployment of the i-mode mobile Internet service in two countries, seeking the reasons behind its contrasting fortunes: spectacular success in Japan vs failure in Europe. The comparison between network operators NTT Docomo in Japan and KPN in the Netherlands suggests that differences in the underlying industry architectures explain why similar platform strategies led to such different outcomes. The paper contributes to the literature on industry architecture by unpacking the interaction between evolutionary processes, industry architecture, and business strategies. It also contributes to the platforms literature, by positing that firms' ability to successfully pursue platform strategies depends on industry architecture.