Search results

As de‐localization, restructuring, rationalization, delayering and reengineering chip away at the number of jobs in manufacturing, is there still a future for manufacturing in Europe? And if so how does it look? Arnoud De Meyer presents the conclusions of empirical monitoring by INSEAD of Europe's largest manufacturers.

Today, to improve productivity in manufacturing, one has a large variety of improvement programmes at one′s disposal. Zero defects, value analysis, just‐in‐time, manufacturing lead time reduction are just a few of a long list of potential action programmes. Their real impact is not always clearly described, and manufacturing managers often have to start implementation on a basis of belief. In this article we use the database of the European Manufacturing Futures Survey to explore some of the medium‐term effects of these improvement programmes on manufacturing performance. The conclusions show that there are no simple cause‐effect relationships between single improvement programmes and manufacturing performance. Tenacity in implementation is required since some programmes have negative effects in the short term, but can have positive effects in the long term.

The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the set of papers which comprise this issue of the journal, and to provide an interpretation of the current strategic debates about the future evolution of business school paradigms and, hence, identify possible strategic options.

The papers can be categorized into three broad themes: first, the impacts and environmental influences on management education including issues of globalization, global sustainability and advances in digital and social media. Second, challenges and criticisms of management education covering issues of legitimacy, business model sustainability and the need for change in business models. Third, the re‐invention of business schools and the creation of alternative models of management education and approaches for effective implementation and delivery of those models.

Globalization is an important environmental influence. Arnoud de Meyer, the President of SMU, offers his reflections. The paper by Peter Lacy and his colleagues at Accenture builds on the theme of globalization by examining the new era of global sustainability in the management arena. In discussing the second theme of challenges and criticisms, David Wilson and Howard Thomas examine the continued legitimacy of the business school with respect to both academic legitimacy in the university and business relevance and thought leadership legitimacy in the management community. Kai Peters and Howard Thomas address the issue of the sustainability of the current business school financial model and question whether it is too luxurious. Santiago Iñiguez and Salvador Carmona reinforce this urgent need to review the sustainability and viability of the existing business school models. Building on the importance of technology impacts, James Fleck illustrates how the Open University Business School (OUBS), the leader and pioneer in blended and distance learning in management education, has focused on further developing models of blended learning which will challenge the current weak adoption of such models in well‐known business schools. Rich Lyons, on the other hand, presents a thoughtful analysis of the careful implementation of a completely new MBA curriculum at the well‐regarded Haas Business School at Berkeley. Peter Lorange's “network‐based” model, on the other hand, is the most radical change model. Granit Almog‐Bareket's leadership paper offers one perspective on the importance of business school leadership in creating the conditions for innovative and insightful management of business school futures.

Clearly, debates and criticisms of business schools will continue to be addressed. It is a sign of a healthy academic and management community that such debates – particularly through the auspices of EMFD – can be presented in an open and constructive manner, as in this special issue of the Journal of Management Development.

The integration of information systems within manufacturing, and between manufacturing and other functions, is a growing concern. A survey of 560 manufacturing companies in Europe, North America and Japan reveals that management is paying increasing attention to this issue, though it is given slightly less priority in Japan. European respondents appear to favour a top‐down approach to the integration of the various information sub‐systems, while North American and Japanese respondents support the bottom‐up approach. North Americans are more concerned with control of materials flow when developing systems, the Europeans with demand management, and the Japanese with technical and engineering issues.

Globalization of management education seems to have become the natural way to go for management and business schools. Almost every week one can find in the specialized press another announcement about an overseas campus, a new international partnership or a major research tie up. But announcing an international venture is easy, implementing is the challenge. The purpose of this paper is to provide some advice on how to implement globalization.

This paper is based of the author's own experience with INSEAD, the University of Cambridge and Singapore Management University, as well as his observations of many other business schools. It is thus anchored in a few case studies.

The author offers some reflections on what he sees as the challenges of implementation and how one can overcome these; focusing in particular on the need to understand what the driver for the globalization is and on implementation issues, e.g. how to build an international brand, some of the lessons one can learn from professional firms about the internationalization of key staff, the impact on the business model of a University, and the need for internationalization of the school's leadership and the deployment of technology.

The paper brings new insights based on an extensive experience with internationalization.

China has the potential to become a major source of innovation for the world. The scientific investment is in place and rapidly growing. But in order to reap the benefits of this investment its organisations will have to become better at managing innovation. One of the key elements of innovation management is the determination and implementation of a sound technology strategy. The purpose of this paper is to offer a framework and a detailed overview of what it entails to develop and implement a technology strategy.

The methodology adopted is observation and literature survey.

The paper emphasizes the alignment of the strategy with the organisational competencies and the strategic context, as well as the capacity to manage risk. The attention is also drawn on the need to find better ways for intellectual property protection, leveraging the Chinese market to explore opportunities for innovative ideas and the need to create less hierarchical organisations, that enable creative thinking.

This paper is an original summary of a wide range of research results on technology strategy.

Doctoral education in business administration needs to change in order to cope with the fast growing demand for PhD holders, who can teach and perform research at a high quality level. Additionally, society has a rapidly growing need for knowledge workers who have a doctoral education or an equivalent. The traditional apprentice approach may not be able to cope with that demand. Society has also criticized the inefficiency and cost associated with the current model of PhD education in management or business administration. The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection for leaders in business education on how we can design a portfolio of different avenues for doctoral education.

This paper is based on the author's own experience with INSEAD, the University of Cambridge and Singapore Management University, as well as his observations of other universities. It is thus anchored in a few case studies.

The author pleads for more diversity in doctoral education. It is proposed that we may need to add different models of doctoral education, characterized by more interdisciplinary work and a more diverse career path. Business Schools will have to find new ways to deliver the education and to develop the communities of practice that will share the values of scientific research.

Society needs more knowledge works. Many of these will have the ambition to obtain a research degree, for example, a PhD. This article provides some suggestions and guidelines on how to innovate in the design and delivery of doctoral education in business administration. This should help society to be able to count on more and better adapted PhD graduates.

The paper brings new insights based on extensive experience with leading institutions that groom leaders in business administration.