Introduction
With the emergence of Apple, Samsung, and PayPal in 2015, earning their place in the mobile payment market, they fought for elbow room on a battlefield that is dominated by players with situated dominance. As subscriptions to mobile phones intensified across diverse parts of the world, enabling financial transactions through smartphones touched gold. It is this crucial phase that the case study, A Battle Emerging in Mobile Payments, collects on its protrusions—6. The case describes ranged from NFC-based systems in the U.S. In addition, it clarifies the peculiarities of such challenges and opportunities as regions like India or Africa paradoxically demonstrate in which way all those involved fight. However, competition in the mobile payments industry is impacted by several driving forces and dimensions, as indicated since this act shows how complicated it can be for technology adoption to urban trends. Some factors like convenience and that of a user’s experience, security built on trust, ubiquity, and compatibility to compete with other mobile payment systems would constitute the potential dominance over others.
Convenience and User Experience
The user adoption of mobile payments and the technology acceptance model (TAM) are correlated; this principle is proved to be located in the field of mobile payment where the degree upon which users adopt mobile transactions depends on how easily they perceive using this technology, or just simply, this model coincides with TAM. The theory of the technology acceptability model states that users are ready to employ technology, which is convenient and has some practicality. This theory is further supported by the fact that Apple Pay uses fingerprint authentication, a feature recurring convenience advantage that would drive a higher adoption rate (Venkatesh & Davis, 2022). The seamless integration of mobile payment systems, coupled with users’ convenience, serves as one of the main drivers for the choice of dominance within the commercial environment. Minimizing current effort on the point of purchase is an important factor affecting user choice and wide adoption. Irreversible integration of fingerprint authentication into Apple Pay remains one of the essential examples, highlighting a user-centric approach and how to outperform rivals through practical use and preference consideration (Brown, Cajee & Davies, 2003). However, This emphasis on convenience becomes more significant when scrutinizing the case study subject of emerging war, which is mobile payments, where different players were competing for dominance in diverse user-friendly strategies (Case Study).
Security and Trust
When we turn to mobile payment adoption, the concept of trust is revealed as one of the key determinants aligned with the premises adopted in Rogers’s (2014 Diffusion of Invention theory). As predicted by this theory, innovations are adopted depending on the degree of perceived risks. The risk could be security concerns that act as barriers to wide-scale implementation (Rogers, 2014). Theoretical uses highlight this that the development of trust is very important; extremely crucial in these challenges.
One of the apparent weaknesses observed in mobile payment systems arises from trust issues, which become critical when prominent systems such as Apple Pay and Current-C. The various cases of security attacks highlight the demand for strong systems that help minimize risks and create trust among users and sellers (Williamson, 2018). This means that a payment system that will be able to present relief to the security concerns creates confidence in both parties, including the buyers and sellers, thus achieving a competitive advantage regarding consumers. This type of analysis is most particularly appropriate when discussing the subject for discussion, which has more specifically to do with emergent battles within mobile payment where security and trust may be major influences on dominance by various systems.
Ambiguity and comparability
Within the field of mobile payments, theoretical foundations of Network Effects and Early Adopters (Katz & Shapiro, 2010; Schilling et al., 2019) illustrate that inescapable value for a technology increases with an increasing number of users. This definition coincides with the understanding that the ubiquity and widespread use of an innovation drives success in it. Furthermore, one of the important reservations about technology development is its compatibility with the present structure (Rogers, 2014).
Gaining the maximum number of mobile payment system adoption and providing a seamless user experience across different platforms becomes an important strategy for establishing leadership in this field. There is a perfect opportunity for the acceptance network systems, particularly those of P2P transactions, to gain an inroads into this competitive market. This corresponds with the concept of Network Effects, according to which an increase in the number of network users leads to an improvement in cost and value creation by involving more customers in usage (Economides, 2011). According to the case study, the dominance of the different systems in this case study is being influenced by achieving ubiquity and compatibility, which are important factors, including how the mobile payment war will be fought.
TCE, or Transaction Cost Economics, is a guiding theory in the realm of mobile payments, which states that overall inside usability cost influences adopting a specific system (Williamson, 2018). This includes explicit costs of transactions together with indirect ones such as users’ time and effort invested forming their view on the system value. However, applying TCE as a framework for the analysis of mobile payment application results in discovering that consumers and merchants will work together to adopt systems with large cost savings.
From a strategic perspective, systems that are optimal transaction fee reducers or those offering betterest enticing incentives may come out as best. This is more so in the land of competition. The visible illustration of Current-C’s success among other major retailers remains a clear indication that the business can generate concrete saving opportunities for businesses to use this alternative service institution instead of using credit cards, where every transaction always incurs a fee between 2 and 4 percent (Case Study). This emphasizes the practical implication of TCE, and when reasons such as avoiding or reducing transaction costs become powerful elements that impact on preference for mobile payment systems adoption, It can be seen then to be used. In the case study on the new war in mobile payments, it is possible to note security as one of the strategic levers that need minimization costs intended to appeal not only to consumers but also to merchants, which contributes to dominance by specific systems (Case Study).
Conclusion
Finally, it becomes evident that determining the position in the mobile payments industry is driven by a relatively complex set of factors, including user experience, security issues, ubiquity, and cost considerations. At the same time, theoretical frameworks such as TAM, Diffusion of Innovation, and Transaction Cost Economics allow offering interpretative lenses for exploring the dynamics above. For instance, as is evident in Apple Pay, Current-C, and other players of the case study being discussed here, success is determined by instantly replacing consumer needs and building trust across markets to ensure common acceptance while reducing transaction costs. The changing environment, particularly in the case of Saudi Africa and India, indicates an international character of such kind clashes. The direction in which future mobile payment will go is likely to be shaped by innovative solutions that straddle this firmament of dynamics.
References
Case Study: “A Battle Emerging in Mobile Payments.”
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.
Economides, N. (2011). The economics of networks. International journal of industrial organization, 14(6), 673-699.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (2010). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
Kemal, A. A. (2015). Mobile Banking as Enabling and Constraining Financial Inclusion in Pakistan. The Information Systems Student Journal, 23.
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2014). Diffusion of innovations. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 432-448). Routledge.
Schilling, M. A. (2019). Strategic management of technological innovation. McGraw-Hill.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2022). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425-478.
Williamson, O. E. (2018). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American journal of sociology, 87(3), 548-577.
Innovation teams at Walt Disney case study analysis
Introduction
As illustrated in the Walt Disney case study, team structures contribute to the development of new products. Notable aspects to consider are the optimal team size, work collocation that promotes impromptu communication, and feedback mechanisms through practices like “dailies” – all of which remain guided by the ideals of autonomy and creative culture, boosting individual contributions. Basically, such recommendations within solutions include working with small teams, opening to flexible workspace design, and introducing recurrent feedback sessions. Though the model stimulates inventive activities, its universal outlooks to interpersonal dispersion and team assumptions within several casuistic frames of thought should be discussed as weaknesses.
Team Size and Composition
Regarding the nature and size of the the team, Jonathan Geibel (personal communication), a Director of Systems at Disney, established a key threshold that was noted in the decline in the contribution of individuals to teams when it exceededexceeded seven members. This result coincides with well-known studies that presented the guidance of smaller teams in these processes (Hackman & Vidmar, 2020). Accordingly, the choice that Team Leads position is appointed based on technical merit and vision, as opposed to seniority, highlights a reliance on preferred over procedural justice; in this case, an emergence of leadership talent within one’s organization. This methodology aligns with current literature from the management field, highlighting the importance of competency-based leadership selection for optimal team performance and successful project delivery outcomes (Brown, 2018).
Workspace and collocation
The strategic move that Jonathan Geibel, Disney’s Director of Systems, to reconstruct the division and help team assimilation brings attention to the key idea of physical closeness as a generational factor in formulating group plans and measures. The above method corresponds to Cataldi’s studies, which focus on the positive relationship between close physical proximity and more harmonious teamwork and performance (Cataldi, 2019). The specificity of Geibel’s having in mind ad hoc meetings and informal communication, which allowed immediate proximity to be put into practice, is the intended result part from a favourable environment for collective efforts. This type of environment is the best for rearing ideas because it allows free movement and enables innovation to be enhanced even faster (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007). The concept of ‘collocation’ reflects the research results concerning interpersonal communications between team elements can increase efficiency and trust – important points in creative processes (Furst et al., 2020).
Effective team communication
The prominent aspect of the success of new product development is effective team communication, and Disney demonstrates this importance with its practices. As a result, the strategic approach of using yearly roadmaps and master calendar surfaces as a way to unify several team goals under the Systems group umbrella. Different types of tools, such as “Gantt charts to show schedules against project dates,” these instruments help make communication and cooperation between the groups better, which promotes the common understanding concerning timelines or objectives of projects (Jones & Jones, 2011).
In addition, forms of usage for some conventional practices from the film industry are indicated by the adoption of the term ‘dailies’ from Disney, which is implied as keeping feedback flowing throughout the creative process in a robust manner. This practice involves artists in the process, where they are displaying their work–in–progress to directors and peers through informal meeting sessions, thus making it possible to give feedback on both the creative as well as the technical aspects of a project. This feed-forward loop is key in the detection and subsequent resolution of these problems at the earliest possible opportunity, thereby sustaining compliance with the charted course (Shah & Corley, 2006)
In this connection, the idea of “dailies” practice is supported by the notion of agile methodologies since regular and iterative feedback serves as a tailwind in project development (Highsmith, 2001). A simple approach, though, and simplification is only the beginning. Optimizing communication also cultivates a culture of regular improvements and flexibility within these groups. This allocation of focus between creative attributes and technical aspects during these sessions conforms with the reality that implementable product ideas must have a nuanced mix of artistic vision and the ability to be manufactured (Shenhar et al., 2021).
Autonomy and Creative Culture
The granting of almost total autonomy to its teams by Disney, in terms of being able to choose the hours they work on and what attire they wear, as well as decide whether or not their office will have a view, is an indication that it believes in cultivating a creative culture at the very least, which understands that individual expression no matter how minor plays tremendously huge role in defining both its This organizational philosophy is consistent with the idea that a free and spontaneous environment encourages novel thoughts among people and promotes an environment for creativity (Amabile, 2016). Through the practice of autonomy in many areas, such as working with one team member and peers, the company Disney encourages among them a feeling of being a part of what they are doing and demands.
The argument that creative and innovative ideas are crucial in the new product development process provides a reason for Ed Catmull, the current President of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios(Catmull, 2019). The philosophy that he supports favors vision to be produced by the individuals in the teams instead of being directed from above, which is usually done by people who are executives or corporate. This is because this approach depends on the acceptance that creative insight and breakthroughs mostly come form those who are deeply engaged in the (emotional) process; allowing a more real (daring for “imagination”) result. It caters to the fact that it goes against the poised management structure of top-down, making a case for credibility in unlocking creative forces that are internalized within the teams themselves.
Recommendations
Optimal Team Size: It is recommended to follow small team sizes, preferably between one and two and six people. This agrees with findings at Disney, where teams were made up of five participants or more, and found that the resultant fall in individual contribution was significant. With smaller teams, decision-making is reinforced securely while individuals are more intensively involved in a process that became more effective as new product development (Hackman & Vidmar 2020)
Collocation and Workspace Design: It is recommended that if space will be created between different team roles or collaborations, its configuration should look like Disney’s strategy. Being in close proximity can make real-time collaboration and spontaneous communication easier. By creating such flexible, casual meeting spaces, the informal process can be developed further, which leads not only to a stimulating collaborative work environment (Cataldi, Hrm380 V1.4 S7 Assignment)
Regular Feedback Mechanisms: The source of operational effectiveness is in extremely regular feedback sessions modeled off Disney’s “dailies.” Such as these meetings that are a vital element participative characteristics; this helps cater for creative and technical aspects to be consistent. Development of culture routine feedback belongs to agile methodologies and makes continuous improvement and adaptations on inside teams’ members possible. (Shah & Corley, 2006; Highsmith, 2001).
Autonomy and Flexibility: Grant team members as much permissible autonomy in their office hours, clothing, and workspace. This philosophy harmonizes with the Disney culture, creating a conducive environment for individuals to exercise their freedom of expression and positively be part and parcel involved in the process. Indeed, autonomy is not only contributing to job satisfaction but also encouraging teams’ development of innovativeness and ownership.
Limitations
Scalability Concerns: This can be a barrier for management techniques by Disney when used in bigger organizations or other sectors, as it might lose track as well. Scalability and scalable practices, especially those depending on tight collaboration, may differ and require concerted application in diverse organizational settings.
Diversity Oversight: Regarding team diversity, there is no discussion of this topic in the case study. Many of the examined issues are changing; therefore, encouragement of autonomy to steer different perspectives and skill sets is vital. A more deliberate way of incorporating diverse considerations in the teams would facilitate a greater creative potential of these structures.
Adaptability Challenges: The significant success of Disney’s own strategy can depend on some specific industry characteristics. There is also some uncertainty over the extent to which practices can be potentially changed or adapted into their respective unique organizational contexts. A definite understanding of the fixed requirements of this industry is crucial for successful execution.
Conclusion
Breaking into new markets or products requires navigating the complexity of product development, which Disney’s case on Innovation Teams reveals as a clear value that organizations can learn from in generating creativity and shared cultures. The focus on the optimized size of the team, close physical proximity among colleagues members, mutual feedback, and self-revealing autonomies build the central role of organizational culture in conceptualizing innovation. The success of Disney in contextualizing effective communication and fostering a group-oriented orientation speaks volumes to the necessity for dealing with teams through a flexible and adaptive approach.
Nevertheless, it is essential to highlight the limitations of such approaches, like scalability issues. These diversity mistakes might be made,e along with the failure to blend certain practices into different industries. Given the context specificity of the organizational setting and its crucial industry demands, these recommendations should be seen as approaches by organizations.
At the core, Disney’s strategy furnishes profound insights; however, the efficient route for managing a new product development team necessitates critical deliberation to strike a balance of these strategies based on an organization’s unique attributes. The approach allows the organization to develop a setting that fosters creativity and innovation and deals with potential problems in an analytical, one-time-specific manner.
Reference
Hackman, J. R., & Vidmar, N. (2020). Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry, 37-54.
Amabile, T. M. (2016). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Brown, S. L. (2018). Competency-Based Leadership for Project Managers. Project Management Journal, 49(5), 3-14. doi:10.1177/8756972818770228.
Cataldi, C. (2019). The Role of Physical Proximity in Project Team Communication and Performance. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 160-172
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2019). Creativity INC.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces that Stand in the Way of True Inspiration. Adarsh Journal of Management Research, 70-72.
Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). 4 the physical environment in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 181-224.
Furst, S., Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (2020). Virtual team effectiveness: A proposed research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 9(4), 249-269.
Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Jones, G. R., & Jones, R. (2011). Contemporary Management. McGraw-Hill Education
Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821-1835.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2021). Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long range planning, 34(6), 699-725.
write