Concept Paper
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of XXXXXXXXXXX
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF XXXXXXXXX

by
NAME

Prescott Valley, Arizona
Month Year

Table of Contents

Concept Paper 1 Introduction 3 Statement of the Problem 4 Purpose of the Study 4 Research Questions 4 .Hypotheses 5 Brief Review of the Literature 5 Research Method 6 Data collection 7 The Sponsor Pay Case Study. 9 Measurements and Results 11 Web 2.0 tools in the SponsorPay 11 The impact of Business Capabilities on Performance 12 Conclusions and Further Research 12

Introduction
The social media has gained popularity in the recent past and has been used in many companies in their daily activities, ranging from small start-ups to large and medium enterprises (Bell & Loane 2010). Despite the use of this trend on the social media, little has been known on the specific impact on the companies and the business processes performance (Bell & Loane 2010). The purpose of this paper is to list the benefits of social media and its negative impact on the business performance (Bradbury, 2010). The business impact of the social media on management (Bradbury, 2010) on the knowledge management (Barney, 1991) on governance (Brocke & Rosemann, 2010) and on the strategic competitiveness of the companies (Bughin, 2011).
This paper concentrates on exploring the social media’s impact and how the organization can advantage of this emerging technology in improving company competitiveness and business performance. In this paper, we develop a research model which is based on two propositions which have been based on the resource view of the firm. Throughout the paper we analyze the impact of the social media in the performance of the SponsorPay, this is a small firm that has just been started and is majoring on the online gaming.
As one of the emerging technologies that have gained popularity rapidly and has been incorporated among the business networks (Bughin, 2009). Social networks applications in the market have been on the rise since the year 2000 (Birkinshaw & Crainer, 2010). Networked companies have taken the advantage of the social networks technologies and have been able to outperform their competitors who have not been able to do the same (Bughin, 2009). To show this in better context, companies need to understand the importance of understanding the relevance of the social media (Bughin, 2009). This will help the companies to gain the insight into the importance of the social media and maximize on this by integrating the social media sites into their daily environment.
Statement of the Problem
The emergence of the social media has affected the way business caries out their daily operations. Be it advertising, reaching out to already established clients and stamping authority on product loyalty. Depending on the size of the company and the company’s main area of operations, they use social media in many ways and in different manner. One major region exploited in the Social media is the need to advertise and the provision of advertisement media. The media can be in different form for example Yahoo does mail advertisements while Facebook advertises directly to customers subscribed as Facebook users (Bughin, 2009). The paper therefore finds how the social media has impacted these companies and how their operations have been affected by the emergence of new advertisement platform: the social media.
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to find out the linkages between the social media and the business processes and their performances by taking a close look at the operations as developed by SponsorPay.
Research Questions
The major questions to be answered by this are majorly on how the Web 2.0 has affected the daily operations of companies. This means that in what perspective has the companies changed their daily routine as a result of the emergence of the social media. The following research questions summarize the main research options for this paper.
Q1. What is the impact of social media on business process performance?
Q2. How has the social Media transformed the way major companies carry out business?
Q3. How has the social media transformed the competitive environment for businesses?
.Hypotheses
H10. The social media has not had any positive impact on the positive impact on companies.
H1a. Companies have utilized the emergence of the social media to their advantage.
H20. The social media has not transformed the way major companies carry out their businesses.
H2a. Companies’ Operations have been affected by the emergence of the social media.
H30. The social media has not transformed the competitive environment for businesses.
H3a. The social media as a platform has been used by companies to increase presence and gain a competitive edge.
Brief Review of the Literature
The term Web 2.0 was first mentioned by O’Reilly in a conference which was intended to brainstorm the transition from the management generated content to the contents generated by the users. O’Reilly identified the differences between Web 1.0 and the Web 2.0, using the web to gather intelligence, with the data as the next Intel for large businesses processes (Bradbury, 2010). O’Reilly also developed lightweight programming models that can be run on light single devices, rich end user interfacing and the end of the software release lifecycle. These terms were later to be adopted worldwide in emphasizing collaborations and improving communications which included the better user experience.
Web 2.0 platform can be perceived as the second generation of the Web Development and design which facilitates secure information sharing and communication with the world. Other duties entrusted to the Web 2.0 platform is interoperability and collaboration on the Web 2. 0, Harris and Rea (2009). Other definitions forwarded by the Bell and Loane (2010) define Web 2.0 as a set of social, economic and technological trends that collectively build the foundation for the next generation of the Internet. The next generation of the internet describes the characteristics of the Web Platform that is open, distinctive and has network effects, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010).
Web 2.0 and social media, according to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), are a group of internet-based applications that builds on the technological that allow the users to exchange the user generated data. The Web 2.0 described in this paper gives an overview of the technology platform; also called the social media.
In this research, we use six Web 2.0 tools that are used in this organization: Asana, Pivotal Tracker, Google Apps, Github (SponsorPay), Zendesk and Salesforce.
Research Method The research method used in this study consists of an analysis of one case, which is based on the interviews carried out by with the company employees who are experiencing the direct impact of the social media. Another approach is the deep analysis on one of the cases as an appropriate research strategy where it is very difficult to separate the social media from its context. That is the impact of the social media on the business processes, Myers (2007) differentiates three types of qualitative research on information systems: positivist, critical analysis and interprets. There are four research methods: a case study, ethnography, action research and grounded research. This research is not action research since the researcher was not involved in the design of the social media. To answer all the research questions, we find the imperial pieces of evidence for the three propositions, we use a mixed research method, including quantitative and qualitative analysis, during which a latent factor in the research model is assessed using the indicators listed using the Likert scales (1-5). The business process is assessed using the self-assessment tools BPP. We use multiple respondents in the company though we still use analysis based on the observations in one case. Strengths and weaknesses of the study Design
Strengths
* Can provide quantitative and qualitative research strengths. * Researcher can generate and test a grounded theory. * The research type can be used to answer wider range of research questions since the researcher is not confined to one method or approach. * Mixing the strengths of the two designed methods could help to eliminate the weakness of the individual research method. * The mixed method can provide stronger evidence and more conclusive coverage through coverage and collaborations of different finding. * More information can be found when two methods are used than when one method is used. * It is easier to generalize results on the two methods. * Qualitative and quantitative research used together produces more complete knowledge necessary to inform theory and practice.
Weaknesses
The main disadvantage of the mixed design is on the quantisizing qualitative data. When this is done on the data collected, the data loses its depth. This loss of depth is because qualitative codes are deemed to be multidimensional Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), while quantitative codes are one-dimensional therefore changing rich qualitative data to quantitative variables produces one dimensional immutable data and is said to be time consuming (Mingers, 2001).
Another problem with mixed method design is that there is a possibility of the statistical measurement limitations of qualitative data when it has been quantisized. This is because quantisized data, according to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), is very vulnerable. When researchers have to analyze qualitative data to reduce their time on time taken on the analysis using the statistical procedures such as t-tests. In summary the weaknesses of the mixed method can be given as follows; * It is expensive and time consuming. * It needs expert researcher with both qualitative and quantitative knowledge. * Most researcher prefer using one method therefore are more.
Overcoming the Weaknesses of the mixed method
In conclusion mixed methods design is an effective method that can be effective to use but when the researcher is has the experience with the qualitative and quantitative methods (Mingers, 2001). To curb this limitations, our research team had to have experts in both fields in order to avoid the major challenges of the mixed approach design.
Data collection
During data collection, a questionnaire was sent to the employees of the target company in order to understand the way web technologies are perceived and if they have any impact on the business processes and the business competitive environment. 70 respondents out of the total 133 employees participated in this study. The survey has been summarized in Table 2 below. These correspondents were classified into two sections as follows: technical employees and non-technical employees.

These groups were coded as follows: Marketing teams are coded as "Business". Other categories of users such as system developers and product managers are called, "IT. 1. | In which department do you work? | 2. | How long have you been working at the company? | 3. | Which of the following Web 2. 0 tools is used daily in your company? | 4. | In a scale of one to five, can you rate the benefits of the Social networks to the company? (scale 1-5) | 55. | To which business processes do you believe Web 2.0 technologies will benefit the company most? | 56. | How satisfied are the employees when using the Web 2.0 tools in a company using the scale of 1-5? | Y7. | Can you rate how much work has been improved or has become difficult since the introduction of Web tools? (worse - neutral - better 5 points scale) |
Table 2. Summary of the survey questions.
To validate the findings, we did five interviews with senior managers of the company: Chief of Product, Chief Technology Officer, Marketing Director and Advertising Officers. The interview was based on the following questions:
(1) What are the tasks you regularly do and what tools do you use to do them?
(2) Describe the impact of these tools on your work.
(3) Which tools have you not used, and why have you not used them?
(4) In which area have you used the Web 2.0 technologies to benefit the company?
The Sponsor Pay Case Study.
An online entertainment is a fast growing industry as shown in Facebook, Amazon, Intel and Apple. For example, apple app store has a net worth of 25 Billion apps online (O'Reilly, 2005). with annual growth of 13%. With more than 120 million users online, social games provide a platform to create an online business opportunity for online and in-game adverts. This company: SponsorPay has operated in the new world of marketing and has been operating as a startup company as since the beginning of the new millennia (Hakes,1995). This company provides in-game advertising while aiming at the user acquisition and brand management and content monetization on the publisher’s side (Bughin, 2011). The overall structure of the business network is given in the figure below and includes the following entities;
Publishers: the game creators. One example of a publisher is called EA Mobile. They integrate the SponsorPay products of the game applications. This enables the traffic users to interact with the advertised offers (Klein &Myers, 1999). The publishers are rewarded with a fixed fee for each completed offer.
Publisher Applications These is the applications developed by the app developers. The applications are owned by the publishers. They can be web based or Android iOS (De Herthog, et al, 2011). Users: The final consumers of the games. They pay to play the games. They play and pay using virtual currency.
Figure 2. SponsorPay Business model.
SponsorPay products contain a software which allow users to see the offers, interact with the software services and finally get rewarded with the game currency. The games also interact with the publishers and the advertisers (Dutta, 2012). A brand Engage includes several formal steps (3-5 steps with interaction budgets with next and previous buttons).
Measurements and Results
The report will first give the quantitative findings on the use of the Web 2.0 tools in SponsorPay, then the quantitative findings are validated in the final interviews (Nath, et al, 2010).
Web 2.0 tools in the SponsorPay Google App for business is an an application based on the cloud services that provide customizable Google products under the registered names such as Gmail, Google docs, websites and Google drive. Gmail is the backbone of all collaborations in the SponsorPay. Using Gmail, all employees have their email client set up (Liu & Liu, 2009). The continuous presence of employees gets notifications from other colleagues. This makes it possible to give priority to tasks. By integrating apps from Web 2.0 in the SponsorsPay? Google docs support multiple file formats (Excel, word, PowerPoint) and allow for file conversion before uploading so that the files can be converted online (Schneckenberg, 2009).
Asana is a task management tool that helps to keep track of daily to-do list by assigning people to these tasks. It offers functionality like sorting and grouping of subscriptions. Asana is majorly used in the SponsorPay's marketing where a team leader assign tasks and a deadline to designers (Hakes,1995). This will allow the tracking of the deadlines to the designers.
Pivotal Tracker is a tool to support the SCRUM. It has become Pivotal Tracker is the major tool of product management and IT operations (Eisenfeld & Fluss, 2009). Pivotal Tracker also acts as an archive of comments and attachments, therefore, this represents the products' life cycle from their conception to their release.
In summary, the mentioned tools are used to support the businesses among all 130 employees, the customers, and the providers. (Kietzmann, et al, 2011). From our interviews clearly marks the tools can collaborate to form a social media ecosystem the helps the company SponsorPay to coordinate inter-organization business processes.
The impact of Business Capabilities on Performance
The final evaluation is on the impact of social media on business performance. This was done by interviewing 40 business and 50 IT employees in the same company in order to indicate the impact of all the tools used by the SponsorPay on four points Likert Scale (1-good, 2 bad). Finally, the average score of all employees was 0.9. (Oesterle, et al, 2001), Indicating significant improvement on company performance (p< 1). IT employees evaluated the impact of the social media significantly higher than the business employees (ANOVA, p<0.02). The results were supported by the interview conducted on the managers in the subsequent interviews.
Conclusions and Further Research
This research was to help understand the importance of the social media tools used in the practice (Gordijn & Akkermans, 2001). In achieving this goal, we use the resources based view of the firm as the theoretical base to distinguish between the social media use has triggered organizational capabilities. During this study we specified three study propositions; linking social media use, performance, and capabilities. We conclude that when business capabilities are enhanced using social media, there is improved business performance.
Every study has got limitations (Harris & Rea, 2009).. Our study was conducted in an on-line advert in the online in the on-line gaming industry which heavily relies on the social media. Another reason for the weakness in this research is that the company used was a start-up organization. It is good to carry out the study in the future research (Mingers, 2001), The other weakness is the assessment tools; the tools we used is the self-assessment tools. There is the need for more performance tools that should be included.

References
Andriole SJ (2010). The business impact of Web 2.0 Technologies. CACM, 53(12), 67-79.
Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, J of Management 17 (1) 99-120
Bell J, Loane S (2010). "New Wave" Global Firms: Web 2.0 and SME internationalization. J of Marketing Management, 26(3-4), 213-229.
Birkinshaw J, Crainer S (2010). Using Web 2.0 to create management 2.0. Business Strat Rev, 21-23.
Bradbury D (2010). Web 2.0 beyond buzz words. Computer Weekly.
Brocke JV, Rosemann M (2010). Handbook on business process management: Strategic alignment, governance, People, and Culture: Springer.
Bughin, J. (2009). How firms are benefiting from Web 2.0. McKinsey Quarterly.
Bughin J (2011). How Web2.0 pays off: the growth dividend enjoyed by networked enterprises. McKinsey Quarterly.
De Herthog S, Viaene S, Dedene G (2011). Governing Web 2.0. CACM, 54(3), 124-130.
Denyer D Parry E, Flowers P (2011). Social, open, and participative? Exploring personal experiences and organizational effects of Enterprise2.0 use. Long Range Planning, 44(5/6), 375-396.
Dutta, S. (2012). Enterprise 2.0: let the revolution begin! Rotman Magazine, 66-71.
Eisenfeld B, Fluss D (2009). Contact centers in the Web 2.0 world. CRM Magazine, 13(2), 48-49.
Gordijn J, Akkermans H (2001) Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Int Systems 11-17.
Hakes C, (1995). The corporate self-assessment handbook for measuring business excellence.
Chapman Hall.
Harris AL, Rea A (2009). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies. J of IS Education, 20(2), 137-144.
Kietzmann JH, Hermkens K, McCarthy IP, Silvestre BS (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54 (3), 241-251.
Klein HK and Myers MD (1999): A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in IS. MIS Quarterly 23 (1) 68--93.
Liu CH, Liu HZ (2009). Increasing competitiveness of a firm and supply chain with Web 2.0 initiatives. Int J of Electronics Business Management, 7(4), 248-255.
Mingers, J (2001): Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist method. ISR 12 (3) 240-259. Myers MD (2007): Qualitative Research in Information Systems. IS -World: www.qual.auckland.ac.nz Nath AK, Singh R, Iyer L, Ganesh J (2010). The web 2.0.: Capabilities, Business Value, and Strategic
Oesterle H, Fleisch E, Alt R (2001): Business Networking, shaping collaboration between enterprises. 2nd ed, Springer, Berlin.
O'Reilly T (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation software (downloaded April 2012 from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228).
Osimo D (2008): Web 2.0 in government. EC Research Centre Scientific & Technical Reports. Schneckenberg D (2009). Web 2.0 and the empowerment of the knowledge worker. J of Knowledge Management, 13(6) 509-520. Swabey, P. (2009). The Social Process: Web 2.0 and business process management, (downloaded April 2012, www.information-age.com/channels/comms-and-networking/features/1053092).