Search results

Purpose – The purpose of the chapter is to sketch the historical and evolutionary development of the Wichita Aircraft Manufacturing Cluster from inception to present and provide a descriptive narrative of aircraft industry knowledge spillovers currently driving effort to establish a Medical Device Manufacturing Cluster. The chapter illustrates how carbon-fiber composite materials knowledge and technology developed for use in the aviation industry is facilitating the creation and growth of medical device manufacturing.

Methodology/approach – We use an historical case study approach to trace the development of the aircraft cluster in the Wichita, KS metropolitan area. A number of technologies are identified that had initially been adopted by one firm but eventually diffused through other firms in the local cluster and ultimately throughout the industry.

Findings – In addition to providing examples of within industry knowledge spillovers, we provide an example of technology-based knowledge that is diffusing through the aircraft manufacturing industry and is now being used as the basis for establishing an unrelated industry manufacturing cluster. The use of carbon-fiber composites in aircraft manufacturing has diffused from one manufacturer to many in the industry. Subsequently, the knowledge base surrounding carbon-fiber composite materials is being used in a local R&D effort to create a second manufacturing cluster producing medical devices ranging from surgical instruments to joint-replacement implants.

Originality/value of paper – The chapter illustrates a unique example of a manufacturing cluster, intra-industry knowledge spillovers, and inter-industry knowledge spillovers to create a new manufacturing cluster.

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.

This chapter develops a conceptual framework to help us position and understand the increasing importance of project-based innovation for industrial organization in the 21st century. It builds on and extends Joan Woodward's (1958 and 1965) pioneering research, which classifies industrial organizations according to the complexity of production technology and volume of output. We suggest that a radical revision of Woodward's framework is required to account for the extensive use of project-based organizations to gain competitive advantage through accelerated innovation and growth in new technologies and markets.

Air cargo was traditionally considered as a by-product of passenger air transport. However, in the last decade a defined strategy for air cargo has gained a key position in the strategies of most combination airlines, contributing largely to the cash and profit levels of these airlines. The global air cargo industry is nowadays a mature industry with over 60 billion USD in direct revenues. The strategic context is, therefore, far beyond the basic entrepreneurial framework in which an emerging and young industry tends to operate. This chapter aims to gain an enhanced insight into the strategies of airlines that transport cargo, either in the bellies of passenger aircraft or in full-freighter aircraft. A Cluster Analysis generates a typology of seven representative clusters of air cargo operators’ strategy models. The typology proposes a spectrum of strategies for air cargo, ranging from the cluster group “Carpet Sellers” up to the “Cargo Stars” cluster. While the former tend to be the small airlines or all-cargo carriers which barely manage to cover their costs with their revenues, the latter are profitable, very large globally operating airlines that focus on both passengers and cargo with passenger and freighter aircraft. Within this spectrum there are five other main strategy groups: the “Basic Cargo Operators,” the “Strong Regionals,” the “Low Cost Low Yielder,” the “Large Passenger Wide-body Operators,” and the “Premium Cargo Operators.” Our findings suggest the existence of superior strategy models that could be defined as “winning strategies” that differ according to airline size.

At the same time, new military and political factors have emerged, which determine the strategy of the Russian defense industry, rates of its development, and change of the structure. On February 8, of the current year, the chief of Pentagon, R. Gates spoke at a session of the Committee for the Armed Forces of the Chamber of Representatives of the Congress, declaring that USA should be ready to possible military conflicts with other countries including Russia and China: “We need the whole spectrum of war facilities for army involving conflicts, since we do not know what could happen in such places as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and other.”¹ As a result, the USA military policy is encircling Russia with antimissile defense systems. They are supposed to install a powerful radar in the Czech Republic and shaft-basing missiles in Poland. A superpowerful floating radar is to be transferred from Hawaii islands to Aleut islands, etc. Thus, the whole territory of Russia will be surrounded with radar-missile complexes. These activities will produce an increased attention to elaboration and manufacturing of constituents of the antimissile defense system and by-pass systems, possible withdrawal from the Treaty on conventional weapons in Europe and the Treaty on medium-range strategic missiles etc., which may change the direction and paces of development of the defense industry.