The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive Examination of Firm Agility

Abstract

Observing strategic agility as a performance outcome require properly observing the firm over a period of time. This study was conducted to explore and enhance an agility framework for analysing how companies perform as they evolve over time. The theoretical framework developed in this multiple case study emerged based on a combination of an extensive literature review and observed strategic management issues that arise during direct observations. The three-lens approach consists of the Business Model Effectiveness Lens, Productive Information Systems Lens and the Independent – Dynamic Culture Lens. Business Model Effectiveness demonstrates ability in managing the changes in the business model throughout adaptation cycles and is reflected in firm performance. A productive information system is the fundamental support essential for timely, swift and accurate decisions, and, in turn, knowledge cultivation. Culture of an agile company develops in concurrence with firm dynamics throughout adaptation cycles and independent of original founder imprint. Analysis using the three-lens agility framework showed that companies under study did not represent agile companies. All three companies are found to not have business model effectiveness, the information systems were unproductive and the organizations’ culture were not independent of the founders and tend to be outdated. Analysis using the three-lens agility framework allows for observing the birth and development of a firm. While each lens offers a distinct approach to analyse agility, together the lenses make up an integrated framework that provides insights on firm evolution and development.

Full text

Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies
ISSN (print): 2644-0490, ISSN (online): 2644-0504
Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Article DOI: 10.47191/jefms/v6-i9-08, Impact Factor: 7.144
Page No: 4202-4218
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4202
The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic
Views on the Organization for Comprehensive Examination of
Firm Agility
Siti Yasmina Zubaedah1, Avanti Fontana2
1,2 Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
ABSTRACT: Observing strategic agility as a performance outcome require properly observing the firm over a period of time. This
study was conducted to explore and enhance an agility framework for analysing how companies perform as they evolve over
time. The theoretical framework developed in this multiple case study emerged based on a combination of an extensive
literature review and observed strategic management issues that arise during direct observations. The three-lens approach
consists of the Business Model Effectiveness Lens, Productive Information Systems Lens and the Independent – Dynamic Culture
Lens. Business Model Effectiveness demonstrates ability in managing the changes in the business model throughout adaptation
cycles and is reflected in firm performance. A productive information system is the fundamental support essential for timely,
swift and accurate decisions, and, in turn, knowledge cultivation. Culture of an agile company develops in concurrence with firm
dynamics throughout adaptation cycles and independent of original founder imprint. Analysis using the three-lens agility
framework showed that companies under study did not represent agile companies. All three companies are found to not have
business model effectiveness, the information systems were unproductive and the organizations’ culture were not independent
of the founders and tend to be outdated. Analysis using the three-lens agility framework allows for observing the birth and
development of a firm. While each lens offers a distinct approach to analyse agility, together the lenses make up an integrated
framework that provides insights on firm evolution and development.
KEYWORDS: Agility, Adaptation, Business Model, Information Systems, Organization Culture
I. INTRODUCTION
In strategic management research, observing how companies perform over a period of time allows for deeper insights and
profound learning. Just as humans developed differently over time, each company flourish individually and undergoes distinct
experiences from one another. Consequently, a longitudinal study allows for observing how companies develop and assessing
the subsequent performance obtained from the series of decisions undertaken. Conducting longitudinal studies on multiple
organizations would enrich conclusions and provide room for some generalizations.
More importantly, longitudinal studies allow for properly analyzing agility, which previous research have found to be
requiring intent, efforts and focus in order for agility to advance as the firm develops. As the “thoughtful and purposive interplay
between three meta-capabilities,” strategic agility allows companies to successfully transform the business through building
strategic sensitivity, leadership unity and resource fluidity (Doz and Kosonen, 2010). Similarly, Battistela (2017) propositioned
the need for forming capabilities of strategy innovation, resource capitalization and networking, that are directed towards
consistently reconfiguring the business model, so as to attain strategic agility. As the business dynamics grow increasingly
complex, strategic agility becomes more pertinent in order for firms to maintain consistently good performance over the course
of time. Facing more diverse and high-speed competition requires achieving strategic agility, which means to be simultaneously
flexible, adaptive, purposeful and consistent, in redirecting a firm’s strategic position (Doz, 2020). Investigating strategic agility
as the performance outcome of strategic management require properly observing the firm over some period of time.
This study was conducted to explore and enhance an agility framework for analysing how companies perform as they evolve
over time. The selected companies under study are members of an Indonesian conglomerate group who have been in business
for over 30 years. As a former executive in one of the companies included in this group, this author held the position as the head

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4203
of corporate services in one of the holding companies for nine years. As a researcher, such experience allows for direct
observations on how companies developed, and then analysed them using an appropriate theoretical framework. Specifically,
the theoretical framework developed in this multiple case study emerged based on a combination of an extensive literature
review and strategic management issues that arise during direct observations. The literature review, as presented in the
following section, focuses on the three main topics that emerged from preliminary exploration of strategic management
literature and practical observations, which are the business model construct, information system management and
organizational culture. In particular, topics identified were on how the business model, information systems and organization
culture, relate with consistently good performance over time. Following the literature review is the formulated theoretical
framework consisting of a three-lens approach to analysing strategic agility and the multiple case study conducted using the
formulated framework. The article concludes with case discussions and conclusions.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, the literature review includes discussions on the business model, information system and organization culture, as
well as their relationships with attaining performance. Discussions begin with exploring the relationship between the business
model construct and performance, followed by discussions on information systems and its role in managing organizations, and
end with understanding how organization culture relates with performance.
A. Business Model and Performance
As a construct, the business model has undergone a substantial amount of scrutiny that resulted in a broad consensus of its
definition. Many research studies have offered a basic definition of a business model as the architecture of firm activities that
are directed towards value delivery to the intended customers (Teece, 2009). Shafer, Smith and Linder (2005) defined a business
model as a depiction of the core logic of the firm as well as the strategy undertaken to capture and create value for the
organization. Business model design requires similar analytical and strategic thinking necessary in strategy formulation
(Zubaedah, 2016). Consequently, a business model is an integral part of strategy where the business model communicates firm
strategy.
Moreover, a business model is not limited to a financial model, but rather constituting a conceptual model of the firm (Teece,
2009). As both a scale model of a business and the role model for business (Baden-Fuller and Morgan, 2010), a business model
encompass of multiple components, which has been defined in various frameworks (Amit and Zott, 2001; Hedman and Kelling,
2003; Davenport, Leibold and Volepel, 2006; Johnson, Christensen and Kagerman, 2008; Demil and Lecocq, 2010; Osterwalder
and Pigneur, 2010). Stemming from past studies, Battistella, et. al. (2017) denoted the business model components as building
blocks, which are merged together to make up a complete definition of a firm’s business model. In particular, the business
model components can be categorized into three common themes (Zubaedah, 2016), or denoted here as superblocks. The first
theme is the superblock that depicts value offered, how value is delivered and the intended target customers. In the second
common theme, the superblock describes the processes in place and the parties involved in delivering value to the targeted
customers. Lastly, the third theme encompasses the superblock defining governance and describing the role of management.
The performance output of the firm’s adopted business model reflects the value captured.
Although the business model is an independent construct and a complementary to business strategy, a unique business
model could lead to a good competitive positioning and create barriers for competitors to replicate (Teece, 2009). As a
consequence, measuring the performance outcome of a firm’s business and the performance outcome of the implemented
strategy becomes one and the same. Since the business model defines how value is created for the company while at the same
time delivering value to the intended customers (Chesbrough, 2009), a good performing business model is one that successfully
and consistently result in good performance for the firm. Nevertheless, as competitive advantage obtained from a good strategy
is increasingly becoming transient (McGrath, 2013) where the performance of an implemented business model may be
temporary. Rethinking, reformulating, followed by redesigning and renewing the firm’s business model becomes a necessity as
the company progresses.
Innovating the business model can be defined as reconfiguring the one or more of the business model building blocks
(Battistella, et. al., 2017; Moore, 2004). A business model innovation redefines how the firm creates and delivers value, which
may encompass product, technology or process innovations (Teece, 2009; Amit and Zott, 2001). Therefore, innovating the
business model means changing the architecture of the revenue and costs incurred, which may completely alter the core
business and how the company operates. Such complex endeavor poses many challenges to be executed successfully. Costs,
time and risks that result in changes in business management has been identified to be one key barrier to business model

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4204
innovation, particularly if the firm does not have the assets and processes necessary for the change (Battistella, et. al., 2017).
Consequently, understanding business model innovation can be achieved by observing whether business model superblocks
have transformed over time and studying how well the firm manage those changes.
B. Information Systems and Managing Organizations
Based on the strategy process perspective, information system is part of the firm’s management systems that play an important
role in facilitating formulated and executed strategy to lead to performance. The abundance of studies has contributed to
analysing strategy formation, from formulation to implementation, which then extended to the strategic changes that occur in
the process (Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992). In Chackravarthy, et. al. (2003), one of the offered frameworks described strategy
process to consist of strategy formulation, defined as the firm’s organizational context that determines how decisions are made,
and strategy execution, which are the undertaken decisions-actions in strategy implementation. This framework prescribed
organizational context to include management systems (structure, planning, control, human resource management and
incentive systems) and informal organization (values, norms, culture and leadership styles). Therefore, an information system is
embedded in the management systems within an organizational context that serves as a basic premise for strategy formulation
and facilitate execution.
Managers must incorporate internal and external focus when making decisions throughout the strategy process, which means
consideration in formulation and execution should not be separated (Koseoglu, et.al., 2020). Consequently, information systems
support managers’ decision making throughout the strategy process. One of the most popular information technology products
widely implemented is the Enterprise Resource Planning, which serves as the management information systems that have
proven to improve performance when effectively implemented (Zubaedah, Ranti and Luhukay, 2017). Information systems,
particularly those supported by information technology solutions, allow for effectively automating, producing and sharing of
knowledge throughout the enterprise (Rahimi, Moller and Hvam, 2016). In other words, an information system would facilitate
organizational knowledge creation necessary to address changes in the business environment and respond to those changes
appropriately (Nonaka, von Krogh and Voelpel, 2006). Incorporating knowledge creation in a firm’s strategy process would lead
to good performance as a proper information system would be in place to facilitate information acquisition and processing
necessary to make good decisions (Zubaedah, 2022).
Previous studies have shown a direct correlation between information systems and attaining competitive advantage.
Obtaining adequate available information, building expertise, creating knowledge and forming wisdom are made possible with
the appropriate information system that is supported by information technology such as through the use of competitive
intelligence (Pomffyova and Bartkova, 2016). Studies showed that information systems enable firms to better utilize and
develop competencies necessary for competitive advantage (Zhang and Lado, 2001). Wang, et.al. (2022) showed that business
intelligence affects performance appraisal capabilities, which in turn, improve performance due to the ease of making better
decisions when related present and historical business information are readily available. The capability in managing the
information systems would affect the firm’s ability to achieve competitive positioning within its industry (Rahman, et.al., 2021).
Moreover, effectiveness of strategy process requires the use of a systems approach to facilitate strategy implementation
(Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Based on this premise, Srivastava and Sushil (2015) argued that operationalizing strategy executio n
require alignment of systems to automate standardized processes across the organization to build systemic management
mechanisms. Hence, a company’s information system plays an important role to effectively facilitate firm activities and decision-
making processes so as to ensure performance.
C. Organization Culture and Performance
In strategy formulation, firm context includes the informal organization that consists of values, norms, culture and leadership
styles (Chackravarthy, et. al. 2003). Organizational culture, which can be defined as the “shared norms, values and assumptions-
in how organizations function,” is often underestimated in organization studies, where instead, a thorough observation of firm
values and behaviours is necessary to gain a better understanding (Schein, 1996). Studies found that organizational culture, in
fact, plays a critical role in determining how a company operates (Sun, 2008). A firm’s culture reflects the principles, values and
norms that are strongly adopted by the members of the organization (Guiso, e.t.al., 2015) as well as the “natural glue” for the
members to work together (Mujtaba, 2008). Consequently, applying cultural attributes in a firm allows management to instil
values necessary to attain performance (Seidu, et. al., 2022).
Many studies have showed positive relationships between organizational culture and performance. In a study of hotel
operations in Ghana, Seidu, et.al. (2022) found key culture dimensions, namely, mission, involvement and consistency to have
strong positive impact towards performance. Another study of 10 technology companies in India showed positive and significant

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4205
relationships between four types of organizational culture, namely, cooperative, innovative, consistent and effectiveness, with
performance (Shea, et.al., 2023). In Turkey, Acar and Acar (2014) also conducted a study that showed positive affect of
organizational culture on firm performance. However, other studies also have shown the opposite results where organization
culture was found to have a negative effect on performance (De Luca, et.al, 2018) or some cultural items have positive impact
on performance while other items affected negatively (Poku, et.al., 2013).
Previous researchers have also identified culture models to offer deeper analysis of a company’s adopted culture. For
example, the clan, market and bureaucratic culture types advocated by Ouchi (1980). From a different perspective, Hofstede
(1980) proposed that culture makes up of dimensions in a continuum, while Schein (1991) made organizational culture
classification on the basis of the adopted values, assumptions, symbols and processes. Further studies are necessary to
appropriately define culture types, attributes and measures. Nevertheless, there is an accepted consensus on the significance of
culture in firm development where strong beliefs and values adopted in the company culture provide for not only competitive
advantage but also other advantages such as cooperation, control, communication or commitment (Sun, 2008).
III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The agility framework used in this analysis was developed using a three-lens approached in observing firm development over
some period of time. The three-lens approach consists of the Business Model Effectiveness Lens, Productive Information
Systems Lens and the Independent – Dynamic Culture Lens. A graphic depiction of this framework is presented in Figure 1.
Detailed discussions on the lenses included in the framework are discussed in the following sections.
A. Business Model Effectiveness Lens
In line with the changes that occur in the world, the business ecosystem evolves in parallel with the advances in technology,
sciences and overall human lifestyle. The changes in the conditions surrounding businesses to attain and then maintain
Figure 1. The Three-Lens Agility Framework
Good performance characterizes the adaptation cycles that companies need to adjust to. Using the s-curve to display a
company development from infancy to expansion and maturity, at the upper limit of the s-curve is when companies reach the
point where growth are stagnant. To address this, firms need to jump to the next s-curve of development by reinventing
themselves in order to adapt (Nunes and Breene, 2011). As companies progress, businesses go through adaptation cycles where
firms undergo significant alterations in how the business model works (Zubaedah, 2016).

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4206
Previous research has identified certain circumstances that drive firms to adapt by innovating the business model. Johnson,
Christensen and Kagerman (2008) identified strategic conditions requiring business model innovation, which are the emergence
of a disruptive innovation, capitalizing on a new product invention, undertaking industries with clear market segments,
circumstances to deter disrupters, and commoditized markets due to shift in competition. Similarly, Zook (2007) discussed the
depletion of the firm’s core business, where profit pool is decreasing, inferior economics due to increasing costs, and the
business can no longer grow, would compel for a business model innovation. Every organization goes through cycles of
adaptation due to changes in the business ecosystem.
Observation of a firm’s development is by looking at the changes in the business model over time that reflect firm’s strategic
responses towards environmental dynamics (Fontana and Zubaedah, 2012). Therefore, a healthy organization is one with the
agility to manage a series of business model innovations throughout its lifecycle. Firm agility is reflected in the way firms manage
Business Model Innovations effectively as the firm evolves, or denoted as Business Model Effectiveness (Zubaedah, 2016). In
other words, Business Model Effectiveness is reflected in successfully navigating the adaptation cycles through adoption of
Business Model Innovations consistently and effectively. Hence, agility can be observed by evaluating whether a firm is able to
achieve Business Model Effectiveness.
Business Model Effectiveness would be reflected in consistently improving performance measures, namely economic returns
and effective transformation of one or more of the business model components (Zubaedah, 2016). Observations on changes in
the business model superblocks over time throughout adaptation cycles allows for determining the ability for managing those
changes. In terms of economic measures, Business Model Effectiveness is reflected, among others, in the positive and increasing
profitability or Earnings Before Tax and Depreciation. Measuring effective transformation of business model superblocks may b e
more difficult to quantify and would require a longitudinal study as transformation of the components must have occurred.
Through direct observations and discussions with management, we can determine whether transformation of business model
components have occurred and were effective. Business Model Effectiveness demonstrates the ability in managing the changes
in the business model throughout adaptation cycles and is reflected in firm performance.
B. Productive Information Systems Lens
A firm’s information system is an integral part of the management system required to execute strategy and run the organization
properly. Previous studies that showed direct relationships between information systems and firm performance provided
evidence of the significance in implementing the appropriate information system to attain good performance. Consequently,
there are key features that an information system has to have in order to be deemed effective given the particular firm design.
As information is inherent in the structure and processes of business operations, design and implementation of the suitable
system to manage information flow across the organization is critical to facilitate decisions, actions and, ultimately, ensure firm
performance. Moreover, in the face of constant environmental changes, rapid capture and use of information allows for agility
to adapt and swiftly respond by adjusting firm systems and implement necessary actions (Ahammad, Glaister and Gomes, 2020)
There are two main ingredients that make up a firm’s information system. First ingredient is the proper management of
external information and its interactions with the internal information, which constitute the firm’s environmental scanning.
During strategy process, environmental scanning involves processing industry factors while at the same time assessing internal
resource requirements (Wheelen and Hunger, 1998). While the flow of internal information coincides with the flow of processes
across the organization structure, flow of information from external sources needs to be managed carefully. External
information is vast and rapidly changing in line with the dynamics of the business ecosystem. Signs and signals relevant to the
business need to be quickly discerned from the noise and unrelated information, particularly in today’s fast-paced information
economy. It is pertinent for a firm’s information system to incorporate the mechanisms for acquiring information necessary for
knowledge creation, including discerning signs that may threaten performance (Zubaedah, 2022).
The second information system ingredient is managing the flow of data, information and decisions throughout the
organization structure. A company is commonly organized using multiple levels of structure, beginning with the executives at
the top, management and supervisors at the middle, and workers at the bottom. Data flows from the bottom, which are
converted into information at each level of the structure. A firm’s information system should include appropriately managed
flow of data so as to initiate proper conversion into information that require such considerations as accuracy, completeness and
security. Furthermore, data and information are the basic material for creating knowledge in the organization (Nonaka, 1994)
necessary for attaining performance. This further reinforces the significance of a firm’s information system to have the ability for
managing flow of data and information productively so as to support timely decision making and organizational knowledge
creation. A productive information system is the fundamental support essential for timely, swift and accurate decisions, and, in

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4207
turn, knowledge cultivation. Here the focus of the Productive Information Systems lens is to look at how well the system
facilitates the conversion of data to information, and then information to knowledge.
C. Independent-Dynamic Culture Lens
Considering the ever-changing environment, firms must acquire the ability to navigate and adjust as necessary in order to
maintain performance. Schein (1996) observed the centrality of coping and adapting mechanisms as defining the conditions of
an organization’s health, which should entail how the firm learns, collaborates, build trust and open communications, all of
which needs to be built-in the organization design. Therefore, studies on the organization culture are relevant to provide a
distinct point of view in observing the firm’s agility throughout adaptation cycles. Agility requires a healthy organization that
embeds a culture that cultivates productivity and promotes innovation necessary to adjust the firm accordingly.
The culture lens stems from Johnson and Scholes (1999) Culture Web, which is a tool to identify a firm’s culture. Centre of the
web is the paradigm (beliefs and values) that interlinks with the other elements (routines, symbols, power structure,
organizational structures, control systems and stories), which creates a chain around the centre (see Figure 1). As the seven
inter-linked elements connect the different aspects of the organization, the Culture Web can be used to observe how a firm’s
culture is formed and, in turn, how the strategy develops (Sun, 2008). Common practices showed that the organization’s
founder would set the initial paradigm, such that of a DNA imprint of the organization. Other elements may develop in different
time periods in concurrence with the company business operations. Consequently, organization culture develops and adjusts
over time as the Company progresses. Therefore, identifying the culture of a particular firm requires longitudinal observation of
the culture web elements as they form over time.
Subsequent to observing the formation of the culture web elements, observing agility from the culture lens is based on
identified key traits of a high performing culture. Denison and Mishra (1995) conducted a study on the relationship between
organizational culture and effectiveness through case studies and empirical research, which resulted in the identified four
cultural traits positively related to performance. Such culture traits as involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission are
found to have positive relationship with objective performance measures. More specifically, the two traits found to predict
growth are involvement and adaptability, while consistency and mission are better at predicting profitability. Based on these
findings, observation of firm culture would need to include whether such traits exist as predictors of high performance.
Furthermore, since agility is to be observed in a longitudinal manner, it is important to assess whether those culture traits
emerge over time despite the initial founder imprinting of the paradigm. Agility should be reflected in the culture formation and
adjustments that are concurrent with firm dynamics. Hence, an organization culture that dynamically evolves as the firm
progresses and independent of the founder’s embedded characteristics demonstrate agility.
Multiple Case Study
The following sections discuss the analyses on the three companies under study, namely, Co-AST, Co-BAP and Co-CKI. Analysis
on each case study is organized into three-part discussions representing each lens of the agility framework.
A. Research Design
This research aims to apply strategic views in observing agility on multiple entities, which was designed in three phases. First
phase consists of observing the entities in conjunction with preliminary literature review to determine relevant theories on
agility. Key financial data (when available) and company information were collected in the first phase, which was used as the
basic consideration on contexts under study. Moreover, preliminary literature review conducted in the first stage identified
three strategic views on agility. Just as different camera lenses would able to capture one image in distinct ways, three strategic
lenses were defined after a thorough analysis of the combined literature review and company information during the second
phase. In the third phase, more detailed analysis of the cases using each of the three-lens were conducted through direct
observations and various discussions with key management personnel.
The study combines both deductive and inductive approaches in order to capture strong conclusions. In the first phase, a top-
down approach was employed to determine information on the company to be further inquired and determine applicable agility
theories to be explored. Succeeding the deductive approach, the second and third phases of analyses adopt the inductive
reasoning where the three-point-of-view analyses conducted on each case study were generalized to formulate strategic
conclusions. Summarized key information and data collected on the entities under study is presented in Table 1.

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4208
Table 1. Summarized Information Collected from Various Internal Company Sources
Co-AST
Co-BAP
Co-CKI
Core Business
Manufacturing drilling parts and
equipment for oil & gas
exploration.
Manufacturing and construction
of steel structures.
Manufacturing of steel roofing
and wall cladding.
Current
Conditions
Limited growth, stretched cash
flow, fragile margins
A shell Company for 5,5HA land
in East Jakarta (no activities)
Declining margins tend to be
negative
Assets in IDR
Bio
2017: IDR329B
2018: IDR346B
2019: IDR345B
2017: IDR43B
2018: IDR24B
2019: IDR19B
2017: IDR36B
2018: IDR44B
2019: IDR35B
Profit (Loss) in
IDR Bio
2017: IDR11B
2018: (IDR6B)
2019: IDR34B
2020: IDR19B
2017: (IDR109B)
2018: (IDR47B)
2019: (IDR20B)
2017: (IDR8B)
2018: IDR0.8B
2019: IDR0.7B
2020: IDR36Bio
Estimated
Position on the
S-Curve
There are three companies included in this multiple case study who are subsidiary members of the same Corporate Group of
and supervised under one Holding Company. The Holding Company was established to represent the shareholders and facilitate
performance management of the subsidiaries. Specifically, the three companies included in this study are pseudo-named Co-
AST, Co-BAP and Co-CKI. Analyses on these companies are described in the following sections.
B. Case 1: Co-AST
Business Model Effectiveness Lens: Co-AST manages and operates a production facility in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, that
manufactures oil drilling equipment. The Company would participate in equipment procurement bids for oil drilling exploration
projects managed by oil companies, in various sites in Indonesia. Since each exploration project requires different equipment
depending on the complexities of the drilling site, Co-AST production is modeled as made-to-order. Market size is subject to oil
exploration projects in the Indonesian region. Product variety is limited to drilling equipment with specifications that vary
depending on the customer project requirements. Consequently, product pricing varies from one order to another, depending
on the client’s specifications.
The Samarinda production facility has a total area of 1.5 hectare and equipped with high value and sophisticated Computer
Numerical Control machines as well as many other supporting machineries and equipment to produce steel-based products.
Considering the product specifications from oil drilling companies, Co-AST must import raw material to meet the demanded
requirements. In addition to the production facility in Samarinda, Co-AST manages an office in Jakarta that mostly manages
marketing, sales and administrative functions, as well as a small workshop facility for storage, assembly and quality inspection
work. Co-AST organization structure can be described as having four tiers where the first level is the factory or line workers, level
two is the supervisors and team leaders, level three is the superintendents and managers, and level 4 includes three Directors
(CEO, CFO and Marketing Director) as well as one Head of Factory (General Mill Manager). This structure is divided between the
factory located in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, and the head office located in Jakarta. The production facility in Samarinda
employs close to 300 personnel while the Jakarta office have around 80 employees.
In terms of Governance, Co-AST is entirely owned by the Group of local affiliated companies. Factory operations are managed
under the Head of the Factory and supported by administrative functions, such as finance and accounting, human resources,
information technology, warehouse and logistics. Policies and procedures implemented at the factory is in accordance to the
requirements of an intensive labour factory with employees working in shifts from Monday to Saturday. Depending on the
production requirements, workers’ shifts are arranged to meet the predetermined production schedule, which sometimes
require 24-hour shifts. On the other hand, the Jakarta office is led by the executive team, which mainly takes care of the
marketing, finance and purchasing. Different with managing the factory-type activities, the Jakarta office adopts regular Monday
to Friday office hours and do not work in shifts. In other words, manufacturing activities are managed under the structure of the
factory while the Jakarta office becomes the centre hub of corporate and administrative activities.
Considering that the main business model of Co-AST is to manufacture products based on order, the revenue depends on the
progress and completion of those orders, which lead to untimely stream of cash inflow. Terms of payment vary between

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4209
customer orders while costs incurred immediately after order acquisitions, such as material purchasing, production preparation
and workers’ salaries. Working capital requirement is high while at the same time cash inflow from sales are slow, which
stretches the cashflow of the Company. Increasing costs of imported material further stressed the cashflow and requiring
additional working capital. Moreover, in the last five years Co-AST serves one main customer since all oil exploration projects in
Indonesia is operated by Pertamina (the Indonesian State-Owned Enterprise in Oil and Gas). Product specifications and terms of
payments are all subject to maintaining good rapport with Pertamina. Such conditions are evident of a weak business model
that result in fluctuating profitability (see Table 1) and unstable margins.
As disclosed in the internal reports, Co-AST largest expenditures are in production material, energy, employee salaries and
overhead. Those expenditures increase over time but product variety and income are subject to only one main customer, which
is Pertamina. Without varying the products manufacture and working towards targeting new customers, margins are depleting
and growth is impossible. The Company appears to not work towards adopting new business models in responding to the
changes in the environment or build new capabilities to manufacture products for other industries. Therefore, Co-AST is
overburdened with weak profitability and essentially no value improvement, which indicates its inability to alter the business
model or could be denoted as having low Business Model Effectiveness.
Productive Information Systems Lens: In the period between 2019-2022, Co-AST undertook major changes by reviewing its
human resources performance and recruited a large number of workers, including several mid to upper management personnel.
There were significant changes in the organization structure that aimed at improving quality and production efficiency. During
midway of the implementation in 2021, management initiated a study to assess whether the changes have effectively been
implemented and alter performance. The study was conducted using questionnaires distributed across the first three levels of
employees (excluding the executive level), which intended to measure effectiveness of the organization structure to facilitate
data and information in supporting decision making that would lead to performance. In other words, the study evaluated the
effectiveness of existing information system in providing support for management to make good decisions so as to achieve
performance. Key results and conclusions of this study is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Study Conclusions on New System Implementation at Co-AST
Level
Key Conclusions from the Co-AST 2021 Study
Level 1 (Factory
Workers)
 Analyses on Level 1 data resulted in more positive perception towards
data quality and organization in supporting good decisions resulting in
relatively good performance.
 However, measures indicate uncertainty towards performance
 Level 1 employees appear to comply to the Company directions but
without full comprehension of the implemented changes.
Level 2
(Supervisors &
Team Leaders)
 Relatively positive perception towards data quality and organization as
the basis of effective decisions made on time, on target and producing
good quality products.
 However, results showed Level 2 employees did not perceive improved
performance with the implementation of the new organization.
 Level 2 employees are behaving in accordance to the prescribed
organization changes but do not perceive such changes to result to
better performance.
Level 3
(Superinten-dents
& Managers)
 Analyses on Level 3 data showed that respondents perceived
questionable data quality, particularly in terms of accuracy.
 Organization implemented is also perceived to be ineffective to support
decisions and improve performance.
 Level 3 respondents appear to be the most skeptical towards changes
implemented and have not fully adapt to the new mechanisms that are
in place.
Co-AST management initiated this study in order to properly adjust and respond to the business conditions. At some level,
management realizes the need for Co-AST to alter their organization and improve its performance. External information was
captured by executives and triggered the decision to initiate improvements. However, information on existing performance and
the pressing need to change did not appear to be sufficiently distributed at all levels of the organization. The results of the study

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4210
found that there is a significant gap between what is understood at the upper management level, and the operational level
personnel. Interestingly, survey results showed that the level 3 employees demonstrated the least positive attitude towards the
changes initiated to improve performance. In turn, the implemented information system did not facilitate productive flow of
information, which lead to lack of understanding and learning. Consequently, information system in place did not facilitate
knowledge creation necessary for firm agility.
Independent-Dynamic Culture Lens: After its establishment in 1984, Co-AST was managed by a combination of local and
expatriate professionals, placed as representatives of founders. In 2006, a new management team was established and a new
CEO was appointed, with few expatriates as the Director of Operations and the Head of Factory. In 2021, there was a shift in the
executive management structure, where the expatriate Director retired and two new Directors were appointed to support the
executive function of this organization. As previously discussed, the organization structure managing operations under the Head
of the Factory is located in Samarinda, which is separated from the structure of the corporate and centralized administrative
activities at the Jakarta office.
Although the executive team has the strategic command over the entire organization structure, the different nature of
activities between the two distinct locations created different working environments. In Samarinda, the culture is made up of
mostly level 1 and 2 workers, which creates a more blue-collar, disciplined, factory-setting atmosphere. In contrast, the Jakarta
office with mostly levels 3 and 4 personnel, the office has a routine Monday-to-Friday, nine-to-five, administrative work
atmosphere. In addition to the differences between the functions and activities managed at the two sites, the distinct local
cultural environments between East Kalimantan and Jakarta (capital city) further exacerbated the differing culture within the
organization. The Co-AST organization culture consists of sub-cultures that developed independently at each location with few
commonalities given that both sites are under the same executive leadership.
When the Company was first initiated, the founders imprinted the main paradigm for Co-AST to be a high-quality
manufacturer of products serving the oil and gas industry exclusively. This cultural DNA imprint remains evident to this day, both
at the Samarinda factory and the Jakarta office. Many of the employees at the second, third and fourth tiers have worked at the
Company for over ten years. Interactions with key personnel, particularly at the second and third levels of the structure at both
locations, expressed not only commitment but also pride to work in a company such as Co-AST. Hence, the exclusivity to provide
products for oil and gas industry becomes the underlying paradigm that is engrained and unchanged within the Company’s
culture since its first establishment. The culture paradigm has not changed, even after the original founders left management
where the succeeding executives were not able to alter or adjust such values and beliefs.
Although the paradigm of both locations were uniform and remained unchanged, the other culture elements developed
differently between the Samarinda and Jakarta locations. Such elements as rituals and routines, stories, symbols, power
structures, organizational structure, control systems are different between the two locations. For example, in Samarinda factory
the working conditions have strict dress code related with health and safety rules. At the factory, there are guidelines and
procedures associated with employee attendance, clock ins, break times and proper behavior when workers are at the
production area. In contrast, the Jakarta office does not have strict dress code, employees do not have to clock in and all
employees conduct administrative work in a small-sized office building, which is more easily supervised. Consequently, Co-AST
culture encompasses two sub-cultures as the culture elements developed differently between one location and the other.
Nevertheless, the culture imprinted by the original founders prevail up to this day. Further insights can be obtained when we
compare to the key traits that Denison and Mishra (1995) identified to be positively relate to performance, which are
involvement, consistency, adaptability and mission. Lack of involvement and adaptability is apparent in the employees’
complaisance and going along with what has been imprinted by the founders and ignored changes that are happening in the
market. The existence of sub-cultures within the organization showed low consistency and sense of mission, as there appears to
be no well-defined and unified culture between Samarinda and Jakarta locations. In fact, as the business serves only oil and gas
industry, it creates a culture of exclusivity towards this industry and closed off towards other industries. Therefore, Co-AST has
not demonstrated a culture that builds agility.
C. Case 2: Co-BAP
Business Model Effectiveness Lens: Co-BAP was established in the 1972 on a five-hectare production facility site located in
Cakung, East Jakarta. It is a project-based steel fabricator and provided engineering services for industrial construction projects,
such as building manufacturing facilities, office buildings, bridges and toll roads. In particular, the Company provided steel
fabricating services as a sub-contractor of major Engineering Procurement Construction companies (EPCs). Initially, the business
positioning of Co-BAP was to contribute to the major infrastructure and industrial construction projects that were developing in

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4211
the Jakarta area at the time. The Company adopted the basic made-to-order business model and was able to build strong
partnerships with several major EPCs, which lead to the Company’s stable performance. Since the related EPCs were the ones
who participated in the construction projects and deal directly with the clients, revenue acquired depends on the portion of the
work sub-contracted to Co-BAP.
As a consequence, the greatest challenge in the adopted business model by Co-BAP was to maintain the lowest costs while at
the same time meeting the project requirements. Such challenges entailed sourcing raw material appropriate for the project at
affordable costs and utilizing the most efficient resources to complete the project. Over time, such challenges become
increasingly burdensome and stresses the financial capabilities of Co-BAP. The emergence of competitors that target the same
markets further heightened the livelihood of the Company’s business, which further strained its profit model. In 2012, the
shareholders appointed new executive team to remedy the situation.
New appointed leaders initiated a transformation of the Company to diversify its capabilities beyond the sub-contractor
business model. The strategy was to add engineering design services and developed more sophisticated engineering solutions,
which opened up the opportunity to serve a wider market. To support this strategy, the Company recruited a significant number
of new employees as management trainees, acquire the design such products as a small-scale modular power generation
system, and also allocated resources to renovate the administrative office area. They also initiated a Corporate Academy
program to provide internal training for the designated management trainees.
Nevertheless, all of these efforts to transform the organization fell short due to over investments on the new business
program and not enough attention to building new capabilities of existing facilities or developing the existing workforce. Aside
from existing projects that need to be delivered, the business model was essentially remained unchanged. The initiatives were
similar to adding a new wing of a hospital building, instead of upgrading existing hospital facilities and improving capabilities to
care for patients. Investment funds were disbursed completely for the new initiatives without proper considerations to identify
steps for quickly obtaining returns, which caused further suffering to the existing business operations and cashflows. In turn, the
Company fell into heavy debts that they were not able to repay without leveraging off the available assets. Co-BAP seized
operations in 2017 and assets were liquidated to pay off portions of the debt.
As summarized in Table 1, the negative profitability incurred appear to improve as the Company gradually paid off their debts by
selling their tangible assets. This process is still ongoing where the highest valued asset owned by the Company, which is the 5.5
hectares of land located in a prime commercial location in East Jakarta, is still up for sale and under negotiations with potential
buyers. It is unfortunate that Co-BAP failed to initiate and manage a business model transformation, which lead to this
Company’s demise. This Co-BAP case demonstrated the necessity for building Business Model Effectiveness so as to be agile and
adapt the business model to meet the demands of the industry.
Productive Information Systems Lens: During the initiated transformation by the newly appointed executive team in 2012,
management decided to invest in one of the most comprehensive information systems to update and upgrade existing system.
The selected system is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, which required integrating the organization’s structure,
processes and information with the support of technologies. Such initiative required appropriate implementation methodology
and change management considering the significant changes that would entail when implementing an ERP.
Prior to commencing the ERP implementation, management conducted an assessment to determine the organization’s
readiness for implementing the new system. Organizational readiness assessments found issues in the existing human resources
capabilities, structure design and operating processes. Review of the human resources and questionnaires collected on all
workers concluded in the weak workforce of the Company at that time. Most of the workers were at the age of 40 and over,
who have worked at the Company for over 20 years. Organization structure was adjusted to the additional executive team
assigned, which consisted of the CEO, Finance Director, Marketing Director, Operations Director and Business Development
Director. Scope of work under the new Directors were unbalanced where HR, Finance and Accounting, Procurement, as well as
General Admin were all under the Finance Director. Moreover, at the operations level, processes were conducted in a
conventional manner where production mostly entailed manual labour and non-digital administrative records.
The organizational assessment concluded poor human capital conditions with an outdated information system in place and
very low digitalization. For example, the inventory recording at the warehouse still used log books and the administrator did not
have a master data of their inventory. Nevertheless, the ERP implementation proceeded with the recruitment of more
professionals to eliminate the human resources gap in the systems requirement. As previously discussed, the transformation
initiative was unsuccessful and the Company operations slowly deteriorated until it seized operations in 2017. This brief ana lysis

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4212
using the Productive IS Lens concluded in the poor information systems in place, which lead to poor decision making and lack of
knowledge creation.
Independent-Dynamic Culture Lens: From the very beginning, Co-BAP was established to be a steel fabricator as part of major
construction projects in the country. Although the Company extended its capabilities from pre-engineered steel constructions to
fabrication of various auxiliary equipment, Co-BAP was positioned to be a sub-contractor and not as an EPC. As the industry
landscape changes, the Company was still managed the same way as when it was initially established by the founder. Evidently,
the Company’s cultural traits that were imprinted by the founder was maintained for over 30 years and remained unchanged.
When the new executive team initiated the transformation initiatives in 2012, focus on the changes were on the business and
insufficient attention was placed on the organization culture. This condition was apparent in the approach of the ERP
implementation where less attention was directed towards the human resources capabilities and more emphasis was placed on
the technology tools. Moreover, most of the workforce had nearly reached a limited productivity stage, some even close to
retirement, and there appears to be lack of regeneration. New recruitments were not directed towards renewing the labor but
rather for the back-office activities. Hence, the culture established was one of “doing as they are told” without any motivation or
curiosity for renewing processes, using technology, new methodology or updating knowledge. In turn, Co-BAP organization
culture did not evolve, unchanged over time and did not incorporate the traits necessary for a high performing firm. As a
consequence, the Company was unsuccessful in building capabilities to alter and further expand its business.
D. Case 3: Co-CKI
Business Model Effectiveness Lens: Co-CKI is a manufacturing Company that produces steel roofing and wall cladding for large
industries in Indonesia. Initially, Co-CKI was established as a joint venture with a Japanese Cooperation in 1996. Major shares of
the Company are owned by the Japanese Corporation, which makes Co-CKI falls under the category of a Foreign Company. At
the time, the main business objective was to market steel roofing and wall cladding for Japanese industries that were setting up
operations in Indonesia. Specifically, the Company became sub-contractors for large Japanese EPC companies and was able to
tap into the emerging market of Japanese automotive and electronics industries who were setting up production facilities in
Indonesia. Analyses on the financial reports showed that the Company has experienced stagnant growth and worsening
profitability (see Table 1). Since it was first established, Co-CKI did not add new products or diversified its business, focusing
solely on selling specific products to a niche market. At the same time costs are increasing, which cause profit margins depleting
over time.
Co-CKI is a relatively small-sized company, with a total of 59 employees structured under the CEO, the General Manager, the
Finance Director and the Operations Manager. The CEO, General Manager and several expert engineers are Japanese, while the
rest are Indonesian employees. There are a total of 8 departments included in the structure, where HR and Accounting are
under the Finance Director while the six other departments, marketing, purchasing, engineering, workshop, project and trading,
report directly to the operations manager who is under the direct supervision of the General Manager. The production facility
and administrative office are located in Cikarang, West Java, with a total land area of 7,639m2. When observed on site, the
workshop area and machineries are in fairly good conditions, yet, the office and supporting facilities appeared dated.
In 2019, the Company initiated a study to analyze existing resource conditions and alternative new businesses that can be
pursued. The results of the analysis showed that the declining performance was not only caused by the small targeted market,
but also due to the decline in productivity followed by consistent increase in salary and production costs. Targeting Japanese
contractors require the Company to import raw material, which prices continue to increase over time. Moreover, the Cikarang
location has the highest minimum wage regulation in Indonesia, which consistently increases each year. The fact was, a large
number of workers have reached optimum productivity where most of them already reached over the age of 40. Hence,
improving productivity and performance with the existing organization would require an organization transformation.
Based on the conducted study, the proposed solution includes moving the facility to another location and larger area as well
as pursue new business models in related industries. Existing production facility is already tightly-spaced to cater current
operations where adding new business models require new infrastructure and facilities Moreover, moving to another location
with lower minimum wage regulations will give room for new recruitments and alleviate costs. Alternative business models
include exploring pre-fabricated constructions to help with natural disasters, or provide housing and offices at remote mining
sites. Despite the validity and completeness of the study, all of the proposed solutions were rejected by the Japanese
shareholders and no changes were done. Management inclined with continuing the business ‘as-is’ without diversifying the
products but the Company attempted to expand the market to target local construction companies. Hence, Co-CKI did not
initiate a business model innovation and the declining performance indicated lack of Business Model Effectiveness.

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4213
Productive Information Systems Lens: Given the size of the organization and the low complexity of the business model, flow of
data and information throughout the structure runs sufficiently. Control, monitoring and reporting systems have been well-
established which largely due to the instilled values of a Japanese production facility. However, there appears to be issues when
concerning strategic decisions, which are those that would significantly impact the policy and business model. Executives of this
Company tend to not be allowed to make strategic decisions, such as asset acquisition, procure new equipment, recruitment or
business diversifications. Instead, executives must go through a lengthy process of approval for changes in such policies or
strategic decisions in compliance with the intricate bureaucracy of the Japanese Corporation who owns a majority of the shares.
Hence, the implemented information system, particularly in processing external information required in knowledge creation, did
not appear to be effective and impede selection of strategies. As a result, Co-CKI is not able to be agile and swiftly adjust the
organization to enhance performance.
Independent-Dynamic Culture Lens: The analysis on the organization’s existing conditions discussed prior also include analysis of
the human capital quality. Human capital analysis was conducted in two parts, which are the HR profile, namely age
demography, education level of the employees, remuneration and how many years they have worked in the Company, and
analysis on potential human capital ability to developing the business and promoting new growth. Data showed that most of the
employees have low education background, which may create a large gap in managerial competencies and questions the ability
to build new capabilities. Moreover, most of the employees have worked in the current position throughout their entire career
working for the Company. Profile of existing HR, such as age, education and remuneration profiles, are evidence that the
recruitment, placement and remuneration policies are generalized across all positions and divisions without distinctions based
on individual competencies or performance. In addition, the survey found that employees are ambiguous about the Company’s
competitive positioning. Based on their responses, there appears to be unclear comprehension about Co-CKI’s business or how
to develop new growth.
Co-CKI has predominantly been managed by Japanese professionals who imprinted a paradigm that promotes discipline,
precision and efficiency. Furthermore, the designated market of Japanese construction companies intensified the organization
culture towards Japanese work values. Key executive positions are always assigned to Japanese expatriates as representatives of
the majority shareholder. Although the Finance Director and the rest of the positions are held by Indonesian employees, the
rituals and routines complied with the directions of the Japanese expatriates. The overall culture is more characterized as
submissiveness and the existing workforce showed no drive for performance or innovation. As a result, the organizational
culture did not cultivate the key traits necessary for a high performing firm.
IV. DISCUSSIONS
The three-lens agility framework comprises of three distinct strategic views on firm agility but capturing the perspectives at the
same time. Just as different camera lenses can capture the same object differently, the three-lens agility framework allows for
painting three pictures of the same firm in order to gain complete understanding of the organizations’ inner-workings. More
importantly, these three pictures provide explanations on why and how the firm is agile. Starting with the Business Model
Effectiveness lens, which views the organization at its entirety by looking at the inner-workings of the Company and selected
strategies adopted. Next, the Productive Information Systems lens looked at the detailed flow of information that directs
decision-making and knowledge creation. Final lens is the Independent Dynamic Culture lens that captures how the culture
develops and should embed traits leading to high performing firms. Unfortunately, the multiple case study applying this three-
lens agility framework showed that none of the Companies under study represented agile firms.
In line with the demands of adapting to the changes in the business environment, firms must have the agility to change the
business model and manage the transformation effectively to ensure performance. Strategic agility is demonstrated by the
firm’s ability to proactively cultivate specific capabilities necessary for complete renewal of the business model (Battistella, et.al.
2017). The Business Model Effectiveness lens was established based on the basic premise of agility as the ability to successfully
manage the series of business model transformations that may have occurred during firm’s adaptation cycles. In turn, a firm’s
agility is apparent when it demonstrates Business Model Effectiveness. Put differently, firms must build capabilities to manage
business model transformations effectively in order to be agile. In particular, this lens is defined by the ability to manage
changes in the three business model superblocks, which are customer value proposition and delivery, processes and parties
involved, governance and management role.
In the Co-AST, Co-BAP and Co-CKI cases, the business models of these companies did not change over time. These companies
are not agile as they were not equipped with the capabilities necessary for transforming the business model superblocks. Co-AST

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4214
was unable to build capabilities necessary to manufacture products for industries other than oil and gas, which lead to the
inability to shift from the make-to-order to the make-to-stock model. Co-BAP and Co-CKI were unable to rearrange themselves
from their positioning as sub-contractors to EPCs due to the inability for exploring opportunities in related industries and
exploiting capabilities to make new products. Based on this observation we estimated where in the s-curve the companies are
currently positioned (see Table 1).
Table 3. Summary of Analysis: Business Model Effectiveness
Superblocks
Co-AST
Co-BAP
Co-CKI
Customer Value
Proposition and
Delivery
Manufacture quality oil drilling
equipment, made-to-order.
Steel fabrication, sub-
contractor for major EPCs,
project-based.
High quality steel roofing and
wall cladding, sub-contractor
for Japanese EPCs, project
based.
Processes and
Parties Involved
Import raw material, production
processes located in Samarinda,
marketing, major procurement and
corporate processes in Jakarta.
Purchase raw material,
production processes located
in the facility, delivered and
assembled on project site.
Import raw material,
production processes located in
the facility, delivered and
assembled on project site.
Governance and
Management
Role
Shareholders are members of the
Group, production organized under
Samarinda structure, marketing
and administrations centralized
under Jakarta structure.
Shareholders are members of
the Group, structure was
imbalanced where finance HR
and GA all under Finance
Director.
Majority shareholder is a
Japanese Corporation,
Japanese expatriates assigned
to key leadership positions.
Results from the analysis using the Business Model Effectiveness lens were supported by the Productive Information System
Lens. The Productive Information System lens was developed based on the basic premise of converting data into information,
which is the fuel for knowledge creation and learning in organizations. Using this lens allows for a two-part analysis, which
consists of the information system necessary to address external information, and the management of internal data and
information for appropriate decision-making. Addressing external information is part of the environmental scanning process
necessary for decisions on internal resources during strategy process, which needs to be facilitated by a proper information
system necessary for knowledge creation in the organization. Moreover, an information system needs have a built-in capability
for managing flow of the data conversion process throughout the structure and facilitate use of information for organization
learning required for performance. The three companies studied appear to not incorporate the productive information systems
necessary for agility.
For Co-AST, environmental scanning is limited to oil and gas industry without processes in place to expand the scanning to
other industries. This is especially apparent in Co-AST inability to explore possibilities for existing internal resources to make
alternative products to respond to the changing circumstances in the environment. In the Co-BAP case, environmental scanning
is also limited to only construction industry without formal scanning processes that only depended on top executives to expand
their views limited to personal preferences and abilities. Similarly, Co-CKI environmental scanning is bounded by the Japanese
construction projects and management did not establish formal processes to expand views to explore servicing other industries.
Moreover, the dominant Japanese expatriates in the structure were having difficulties in building marketing and sales
capabilities for the local markets or EPC Companies.
Table 4. Summary of Analysis: Productive Information Systems Lens
IS Elements
Co-AST
Co-BAP
Co-CKI
Capturing external and
internal information for
knowledge creation
External information
captured is limited, no formal
processes in place to expand
scanning.
Environmental scanning
process is limited to
construction industry, limited
expansion depending on top
leaders.
Environmental scanning
process is limited to Japanese
construction industry, no
processes to expand views.
Facilitate flow of data/
information / decisions
throughout the structure
for learning
Data quality was
questionable, information
gaps exist, leading to slow
decision-making
Manual data was
questionable, limited
information support when
making decisions.
Ineffective strategic decisions
due to slow flow of
information to shareholders.

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4215
Flow of data and information of these Companies tend to be sluggish, which slowed-down deliberations and accuracy of
decision making as not enough information is acquired. Results of the study at Co-AST showed that there is a significant gap
between the tiers of the structure and data quality was deemed questionable. More importantly, respondents expressed their
uncertainty about the firm’s performance given existing information system. In the Co-BAP case, digital data from operations
activities were scarce and not enough information was able to be collected to support performance management. On the other
hand, the Co-CKI case had different impediments where decisions related to strategy and policy had to go through a rigorous
process of approval from the Japanese shareholders, which inhibits decision-making on major issues. Overall, the information
systems in these companies were unproductive and even constrained knowledge creation, which further emphasized the
inability to be agile. Difficulties in knowledge creation lead to the inability to build organizational knowledge so as to be used
and shared by the firm.
Following the Business Model Effectiveness and Productive IS Lenses, the Independent Dynamic Culture lens provided a
better understanding and further provide explanations on each company’s issues with agility. Organization culture needs to be
examined and understood as the behavior and way of thinking of human resources are influenced by culture (Hofstede, 1997).
Since agility entails swiftly responding and adjusting to the environmental dynamics, culture can help shape behavior and
motivations to undertake organizational change. On the one hand, an organization culture should be uniform and converge in
accordance with the firm’s vision and objectives. On the other hand, an organization culture should stay current and up-to-date
with the needs of adopting good business practices. Development of organizational knowledge and increased use of technology,
for example, would most likely emerge in the efforts for continuously improving performance. Hence, an agile company should
adopt a positive culture that stays current regardless of initial traits instilled by the founders.
When values or beliefs of the company founders are no longer valid to keep up with the business, an organization culture
needs to be fluid in order to adapt, adjust and be agile. The three companies analyzed did not show agility as the organization
culture did not change as firm circumstances change. The central beliefs and values making up the culture’s paradigm,
conformed with those imprinted by the founders, despite the fact that founders were no longer involved in running the
company. The exclusivity of providing products for the oil industry made Co-AST employees overconfident about their
capabilities and felt it to be unnecessary to explore products of other industries. Although the structure is managed under the
same Board of Directors, the two distinct locations between production facility and corporate office shaped two sub-cultures
due to the different rituals and routines, stories, symbols, power structure, organizational structures, and control systems.
Despite the employee turnover and management’s efforts to transform the organization structure, the overall Co-AST culture
remains the same as when it was originally set by the founders.
Table 4. Summary of Analysis: Independent-Dynamic Culture Lens
Culture
Co-AST
Co-BAP
Co-CKI
Culture Web
Paradigm of exclusivity
towards oil industry,
employees are proud and
overconfident, two locations
created distinct sub-cultures
that adapt to new
developments.
Paradigm as sub-contractor
not as EPC, process
transformations through ERP
failed, remained as original
founder imprint although
under new leadership.
Paradigm as sub-Contractor
predominantly for Japanese
EPCs, submissive culture
complied with Japanese
dominant leadership, and did
not evolve over time.
Traits Related to
Performance
Did not observe traits related
to high performance culture.
Did not observe traits related
to high performance culture.
Did not observe traits related
to high performance culture.
Similarly with Co-BAP and Co-CKI, the original paradigm imprinted by the founders fundamentally did not develop over time.
This is apparent in the fact that process transformations at Co-BAP with implementation of an ERP did not lead to improved
performance. In the Co-CKI case, the dominance of the Japanese counterparts led to a culture of submission and complied with
the initial tone set by the founders. Alas, none of the companies under study built cultural traits that are positively related with
high performance.
Analysis using the three-lens agility framework showed that companies under study did not represent agile companies. All
three companies are found to not have business model effectiveness, the information systems were unproductive and the
organizations culture were not independent of the founders and tend to be outdated. Considering that the compan ies included
in this study were members of the same Group of companies with the same founders, there are two key commonalities that
lead these companies to their current circumstances. First common thread is the strategy executors, vis a vis, the human

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4216
resources, that appeared to not have the knowledge and skills necessary to develop growth. Limitations in the human resources
led to each if the company’s inability to build capabilities to change the business model, or develop a proper information system
for knowledge creation and, fundamentally, incapable to evolve into a modern culture that promote performance. Moreover,
the analysis showed the need for strong leadership to orchestrate firm resources and organize processes required to increase
company value.
Second common thread is the context when these three companies were established in the 70s-80s, where Indonesia’s
economy was significantly driven by government projects and directed by the political landscape at the time. The founders of
this group of Companies took advantage of their network and government relations to arrange positioning in the abundance of
government projects that took place at the time. Co-AST was set up in Samarinda, East Kalimantan to support the Government’s
major oil exploration and drilling project located in Tarakan, North Kalimantan. Co-BAP was established due to the many
infrastructure and industrial property developments in the Jakarta area at the time, where not many sub-contractors existed
yet. Similarly, Co-CKI was established as a joint venture with a Japanese counterpart, who was looking for local partner to set up
sub-contractor operations for Japanese projects in manufacturing industries that were developing in the Cikarang-Karawang
industrial estates. In other words, these companies were not established due to entrepreneurial endeavours but rather for
servicing the government projects that were flourishing during those periods. The history of the establishment of this Company,
ultimately, led to the current trajectory of difficulties and poor performance.
CONCLUSION
In sports, athletic agility encompasses three dimensions, namely, strength, speed and flexibility. Similarly, firm agility is the
amalgamation of many organization elements and capabilities that allow the company to be strong but at the same time flexible
towards adapting to necessary changes and undertake those changes in a swift manner. Agile firms require structure that can
effectively organize resources managed to execute strategy and operate the business model. Agility is not the same as flexibility
where agile firms require strong organization structure with adaptive components and developed capabilities that allow for
swift responses accordingly. More importantly, just as professional athletes need to be adults in good physical conditions, agile
firms have to be healthy and mature. This is why the three-lens agility framework is appropriate for evaluating a firm’s health
and development.
In this study, analyses were conducted on selected companies that are part of the same group, founded by the same parties
and established for similar objectives. The basis for the founders to establish the companies were more opportunistic rather
than entrepreneurial. These Companies were formed not based on capturing business opportunities but rather for leveraging off
the rise of mega and major projects that occurred at the time. Consequently, the companies were not able to reach a mature
state in a more naturally-progressing manner. Instead, these companies were up and running operated in full capacity almost at
an instant where acquiring customer orders were not difficult given that the orders exist prior to the company establishment. As
a result, the companies in this study were analogous to babies being born prematurely, where vital organs or body parts may
have not been fully developed and required incubation. When the companies were first initiated, the organizations were
established prematurely and were not incubated properly and, in turn, did not have the components for building agility.
Analysis using the three-lens agility framework allows for observing the birth and development of a firm. While each lens
offers a distinct approach to analyse agility, together the lenses make up an integrated framework that provides insights on firm
evolution and development. Such discussions are necessary for learning how to develop companies successfully and build agility.
More importantly, the three-lens agility framework offers prescriptions of an agile firm. Agility is represented in three ways,
specifically, having the capability to manage a series of business model innovations, established information system that support
and facilitate knowledge creation, and developed organization culture that resists founders’ imprinting when no longer relevant.
For practitioners, the three-lens framework offers a concise tool to assess whether the organization is agile, as well as
whether gaps exist, where the gaps are and how to eliminate them. Proper analysis of the three strategic views on agility allows
for identifying and recommending focused initiatives to improve agility. For academicians, the three-lens framework provides a
novel three-way perspective on such a complex topic of agility. Future research includes more detailed exploration of each lens
to identify appropriate measurements for each variable. Moreover, examination of applying the three-lens framework to more
diverse companies in different industries would further strengthen arguments and enhance the effectiveness of this analytical
tool. Ultimately, the framework allows for prescribing agility and should be use to formulate strategic moves for successful
adaptation.

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4217
REFERENCES
1) Acar, A.Z. & Acar, P. (2014), “Organizational types and their effects on organizational performance in Turkish hospitals”,
Emerging Markets Journal, 3 (3), 16-31.
2) Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2001). “Value Creation in E-Business,” Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6/7), 493-520.
3) Battistella, C., Toni, A.F.D, De Zan, G. & Pessot, E. (2017). “Cultivating Business Model Agility Through Focused
Capabilities: A Multiple Case Study,” Journal of Business Research, 73, 65–82,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.007.
4) Chakravarthy, B.S. & Doz, Y. (1992). “Strategy Process Research,” Strategic Management Journal, Summer (Special Issue):
13: 5-14.
5) Chakravarthy, B., Mueller-Stewens, G., Lorange, P. & Lechner, C. (2003). Defining the Contours of the Strategy Process
Field, In Strategy Process: Shaping the Contours of the Field, Blackwell Publishing, Berlin, Germany, 1-17.
6) Davenport, T.H., Leibold, M. & Volepel, S. (2006). Strategic Management in the Innovation Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH & Co KgaA, Erlangen, Germany.
7) De Luca, M.M.M., Parente, P.H.N., Silva, E.M.S. and Sousa, R.R. (2018), “The effect of creative corporate culture and
intangibility on the performance of foreign firms traded on the NYSE”, Innovation and Management Review, Vol. 15 No.
4, pp. 356-372.
8) Demil, B. & Lecocq, X. (2010). “Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamix Consistency,” Long Range Planning, 43,
227-246. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.004.
9) Denison, D.R. & Mishra, A.K. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness,” Organization Science,
Mar. - Apr. 1995, 6 (2), 204-223.
10) Doz, Y. (2020). “Fostering Strategic Agility: How Individual Executives and Human Resource Practices Contribute, Human
Resource Management Review, 30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100693.
11) Doz, Y.L. & Kosonen, M. (2010). “Embedding Strategic Agility A Leadership Agenda for Accelerating Business Model
Renewal,” Long Range Planning, 43, 370-382. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.006.
12) Fontana, A. & Zubaedah, Y. (2012). “A Conceptual Model on the Relationships between Business Strategy, Business
Model Innovation, Resource Configuration and Performance. Jurnal Manajemen Teknologi SBM ITB, 11 (2), 167-194.
13) Hedman, J. & Kelling, T. (2003). “The Business Model Concept: Theoretical Underpinnings and Empirical Illustrations,”
European Journal of Information Systems, 12, 49-59.
14) Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.
15) Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its importance for
Survival. McGraw-Hill.
16) Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M. & Kagerman, H. (2008). “Reinventing Your Business Model.” In Harvard Business
Review on Business Model Innovation 2010, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
17) Johnson, G & Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring Corporate Strategy. (5th ed). Prentice Hall.
18) Nonaka, I. (1994). “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.” Organization Science, 5, 1, 15-37.
19) Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). “Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in
Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory.” Organizational Science, May-June, 20(3): 635-652.
20) Nunes, P. & Breene, T. (2011). “Reinvent Your Business Before It’s Too Late.” Harvard Business Review, January –
February, 80.
21) Ouchi, W.G. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies and clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 129-141.
22) Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
23) Poku, K., Owusu-Ansah, W. and Zakari, M. (2013), “Organisational culture and organisational performance: empirical
evidence from the banking industry in Ghana”, International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 54-63.
24) Pomffyova, M. & Bartkova, L. (2016). “Take Advantage of Information Systems to Increase Competitiveness in SMEs,”
Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 220, 346-354. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.508.
25) Rahimi, F., Møller, C., & Hvam, L. (2016). “Business process management and IT management: The missing integration.”
International Journal of Information Management, 36(1), 142–154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.10.004.
26) Rahman, M.S., Hossain, M.A., Chowdury, A.H. and Hoque, M.T. (2021). “Role of enterprise information system
management in enhancing firms competitive performance towards achieving SDGs during and after COVID-19 pandemic,”
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35 (1), 214-236. DOI 10.1108/JEIM-04-2021-0163.

The Three-Lens Approach to Agility: Capturing Distinct Strategic Views on the Organization for Comprehensive
Examination of Firm Agility
JEFMS, Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023 www.Ijefm.co.in Page 4218
27) Schein, E.H. (1991), “Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture”, in Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M. and Osland, J.S.
(Eds), The Organizational Behaviour Reader, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 369284.
28) Schein, E.H. (1996). “Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Jun., 41 (2),
40th Anniversary Issue, 229-240.
29) Srivastava, A. & Sushil. (2015). “Modeling organizational and information systems for effective strategy execution,”
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28 (4), 556-578. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2013-0071.
30) Sun, S. (2008). “Organizational Culture and Its Themes,” International Journal of Business and Management, 3 (12), 137-
141.
31) Teece, D.J. (2009). “Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation,” Long Range Planning.
doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.
32) Wang, J., Omar, A.H., Alotaibi, F.M., Daradkeh, Y.I. & Althubiti, S.A. (2022). “Business intelligence ability to enhance
organizational performance and performance evaluation capabilities by improving data mining systems for competitive
advantage,” Information Processing and Management, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103075.
33) Wheelen, T.L. & Hunger, J.D. (1998). Strategic Management and Business Policy, 5th Ed., Addison-Wesley Longman,
Reading, MA.
34) Zhang, M.J. & Lado, A.A. (2001). “Information systems and competitive advantage: a competency-based view,”
Technovation, 21, 147-156.
35) Zook, C. (2007). “Finding Your Next Core Business.” In Harvard Business Review on Business Model Innovation, 2010.
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
36) Zubaedah, Y. (2016). Building Agility: Firm Configuration for Innovation and Growth, Fontana, A. Editor, UI Press, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
37) Zubaedah, S.Y., Ranti, B. and Luhukay, J. (2017). “Successful Information Technology Adaptation Process to Enable
Business Agility,” International Conference on Business and Management Research, Conference Proceedings.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/icbmr-17.2017.48.
38) Zubaedah, S.Y. (2022). “Reading The Signs: Incorporating Knowledge Creation within Strategy Formation to Attain
Performance,” International Conference on Business and Management Research, Conference Proceedings.
http://ebook.uipublishing.id/books/xlwt/.
There is an Open Access article, distributed under the term of the Creative Commons
Attribution – Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0
(https://creativecommons.or/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting and
building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.