This line of thought is similar in many respects to the ecosystem engineering concept of Jones, Lawton and Shachak (1994) who define their concept as “organisms that directly or indirectly control the availability of resources to other organisms by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials”. They differentiate between allogenic ecosystem engineers and autogenic ecosystem engineers, the same key terminology used by McKelvey (1982) within his evolutionary approach. “Autogenic physical engineers directly transform the environment via endogenous processes (e.g. tree growth, development) that alter the structure of the engineer, and the engineer remains as part of the engineered environment…in contrast, allogenic engineers change the environment by transforming living or nonliving materials from one physical state to another (e.g. a beaver’s dam), and the engineer is not necessarily part of the permanent physical ecosystem structure”. They also note that it is possible for an organism to simultaneously be both an autogenic and allogenic engineer.
It would seem a main difference in the focus of the two works is the formers explicit focus on ecological inheritance and the latter’s categorization of different types of engineers. From the perspective of the social sciences, it would appear that the two approaches are compatible, and have much to offer with regards developing and explanation of how firms may alter their environments. It would also appear that the activities of Pizza Hut might be associated with the proposed process of Transferred Demand, and could be potentially considered allogenic/niche construction. The fact that
the preliminary case outcomes (presented in chapter 2) relate to a single sub-population (i.e. pizza) prevent comment as to how the behaviours of Pizza Hut may have benefited (or harmed19) other restaurant/fast food providers. Alternatively, Dominos increased local presence in major cities would seem to represent a case of autogenic engineering with their increased physical presence casting a large selection shadow upon those competing directly with the Dominos style of operation (e.g. low cost producer). Niche construction theory would seem to hold much potential to assist explanation of the coaction occurring between franchised and independent pizza firms given that the theory holds that “an organism [i.e. firm] may act in ways that benefit another organism, if the second organism’s niche-constructs in ways that increment the first organism’s relative fitness” Odling-Smee, Laland and Feldman (2003, p. 298).
Incorporating such new ‘old’ ideas within organisational research presents a serious challenge. Geoffrey Hodgson (2001, p. 90) argues “explanations in one domain have to be consistent with explanations in another, despite examination of different properties and deployment of different concepts”. Hodgson’s argues that attention must be paid to the ‘principle of consistency’. Interestingly (and perhaps ironically), that the evolutionary concepts noted thus far have not previously been applied where potentially useful suggests a potential inconsistency that may impact upon the development of sound (and useful) evolutionary theories in the organizational studies literature. To recap, there are differing views within the current literature as to whether or not firms are capable of altering their environments. Such difference in opinion is not assisted by the paucity of
empirical studies addressing this fundamental issue. The recent development of niche construction and ecosystem engineering theories offer a new window through which to consider how and under what conditions firms may alter their environments, and those of other firms. Several postulates emerge from this section of the literature review.
3.4.4 Summary and postulate development
Drafting in the niche construction and ecosystem engineering theories from biology and ecology provide the means to address the possible causal mechanism that alter the transfactual conditions associated with the proposed model of Transferred Demand. Importantly, we can consider the specific impact of an entity upon the environment (i.e. niche construction) and also how such influence is related to allogenic and autogenic forms of engineering (i.e. ecosystem engineering), therefore;
Postulate 9: The natural development of franchised pizza firms in the pizza industry will
significantly alter the nature of the ecological and selective environments experienced by other associated firms.
Evidence of niche construction and/or ecosystem engineering should be reconcilable to the differential survival outcomes experienced by local independent pizza firms (relative to all other similar types of firms), therefore;
Postulate 10: Evidence of niche construction and/or ecosystem engineering in the pizza
industry should highlight which specific firms have (and have not) benefited due to change in their respective ecological and selective environments.
A basic premise of niche construction and/or ecosystem engineering is that of ecological inheritance. Evidence of either process should highlight the presence of a favourable environment within which certain firms can commence operations favourable vis-à-vis other similar firms, therefore;
Postulate 11: Evidence of niche construction and/or ecosystem engineering in the pizza
industry may indicate the possibility that certain populations and/or firms should inherit a survival advantage relative to other populations and/or firms.
Having accounted for harmful and non-harmful relations, environmental heterogeneity and specific mechanism of environmental influence as components within the proposed model of Transferred Demand, the next section considers the presence of an invisible force from which energy transfer is possible.