Stop Measuring AI at the Firm Level — A New Typology Tracks Individual Applications Instead

Conceptual paper argues the firm is the wrong unit of analysis for AI adoption research. Proposes a 4-dimension typology at the application level, surfacing two neglected types: co-invention and internalisation.

Imagine you're inventorying a restaurant kitchen. You could say "this restaurant uses knives" — but that tells you nothing about whether they're using a $12 paring knife from Amazon or a custom-forged Japanese yanagiba, whether the chef bought it or made it, and whether it's for prep work or tableside theater. Castellacci's argument is that the entire empirical literature on AI in firms is stuck at the "this restaurant uses knives" level, and it's time to zoom in on individual implements. The core claim is a unit-of-analysis shift. Instead of asking "does Firm X use AI?" or even "how does Firm X use AI?," the paper argues you should ask "what is Application Y inside Firm X, along four dimensions?" Those dimensions are: novelty (new-to-firm vs. new-to-market), sourcing mode (bought externally vs. built in-house), objective (process optimization vs. product/service innovation), and technology type (the specific AI technique — ML, NLP, computer vision, etc.). Each application inside a single firm can occupy a different position in this four-dimensional space. The interesting payoff isn't the framework itself — taxonomies are cheap — but the two types it surfaces that the prevailing adoption-vs-innovation binary misses. "Co-invention" is when a firm takes off-the-shelf AI and applies it in a genuinely novel way the vendor never intended. "Internalisation" is when a firm builds AI in-house that it could easily have purchased, usually for strategic control or capability-building reasons. Both are real and common; neither fits cleanly into the standard "did you adopt or innovate?" survey question. Methodologically, this is purely conceptual. There is no dataset, no regression, no survey instrument. The paper builds the typology from existing literature and illustrates it with documented use cases. That's honest — Castellacci is explicit that the framework needs empirical validation — but it means we're evaluating a lens, not a result. The value depends entirely on whether future empirical work picks up the application-level unit of analysis and finds it explanatory. The framework draws explicitly on evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter), the innovation studies tradition (Pavitt's taxonomy, the CDM model), and the technology sourcing literature (make-vs-buy). It's positioned against the dominant survey-based approach in economics where firms are asked binary adoption questions. The critique is well-aimed: CIS-style surveys genuinely do flatten AI use into a single yes/no, and anyone who has worked inside a large firm knows that "we use AI" can mean anything from a purchased chatbot plugin to a custom-trained foundation model. The practical implication for firms is strategic awareness: recognizing that co-invention (creative reuse of purchased AI) and internalisation (strategic in-house building) are distinct strategic choices with different capability-building trajectories. For policymakers and diffusion researchers, the implication is that firm-level adoption statistics dramatically undercount the variety of what's actually happening. A firm with 50 AI applications spanning all four quadrants looks identical to a firm with one chatbot in current survey data. The limitation is obvious and the author acknowledges it: this is a conceptual scaffold waiting for empirical load. The four dimensions are reasonable but not derived from data — they're synthesized from prior literature. Whether the typology carves nature at its joints or imposes arbitrary cuts is an open question. The co-invention and internalisation categories are the paper's most distinctive contribution, but their empirical prevalence and strategic consequences remain undemonstrated.