Search results

This paper aims to investigate theoretically and empirically the interactions between smart economic development (SED) and competitiveness in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The main argument to uphold here is that smartness approach has been traditionally more focused on smart urban planning and smart specialization.

An evaluation by index, correlation and significance analysis is used to present original empirical evidence from six CEE countries.

Smartness approach integration into economic development justifies the identification of SED determinants: basics (welfare, digitality, environmental, social responsibility) and enhancers (learning, networking, agility, innovations and knowledge-driven). The interaction between SED and countries’ competitiveness in CEE countries might be described by two approaches, namely, focus-based (several most important basics and enhancers) and balance-based (equal importance of basics and enhancers).

The limitations relate to the particular sample of CEE countries and gathering opportunities of statistical data.

The combination of SED-Index sub-indices and WEF GCI might aid a more accurate ex ante measurement. Despite common global challenges, each country should choose its own combinations for smartness determinants to achieve long-term competitiveness.

The findings are important for fostering smartness approach in economic development for long-term competitiveness.

This paper contributes to economic development literature by discovering basics and enhancers for SED. By linking well-known term of competitiveness and economic development with a concept of smartness, the new approaches, namely, focus-based and balance-based, to policy making in CEE countries emerged.

The increasing pace of global competition has recast the balance between multinational corporations’ (MNCs’) needs to protect the knowledge that underlies their competitive advantages and their needs to continually create new knowledge. This essay will discuss MNCs’ knowledge-seeking strategies as industry-level phenomena. I will argue that knowledge-seeking strategies demand a concept of industries both as arenas for competition and as global knowledge networks within which firms collaborate to innovate. Contemporary MNCs face challenges to function not only as self-contained production systems that internationalize in the search for efficiency and markets, but also as open systems globally seeking knowledge and innovations. Metanational strategies and organizations represent a new response to these challenges. I present empirical evidence of distinctive metanational industry opportunities and organizational responses from the emergence of the global flat panel display industry. The essay concludes with a framework that outlines the characteristics of a global knowledge-driven generic strategy as an alternative and synthesis of generic product-driven strategies of cost-leadership and differentiation.

The ongoing paradigm shift in the energy sector holds paramount implications for the realization of the sustainable development goals, encompassing critical domains such as resource optimization, environmental stewardship and workforce opportunities. Concurrently, this transformative trajectory within the power sector possesses a dual-edged nature; it may ameliorate certain challenges while accentuating others. In light of the burgeoning research stream on open innovation, this study aims to examine the intricate dynamics of knowledge-based industry-university-research networking, with an overarching objective to elucidate and calibrate the equilibrium of ambidextrous innovation within power systems.

The authors scrutinize the role of different innovation organizations in three innovation models: ambidextrous, exploitative and exploratory, and use a multiobjective decision analysis method-entropy weight TOPSIS. The research was conducted within the sphere of the power industry, and the authors mined data from the widely used PatSnap database.

Results show that the breadth of knowledge search and the strength of an organization’s direct relationships are crucial for ambidextrous innovation, with research institutions having the highest impact. In contrast, for exploitative innovation, depth of knowledge search, the number of R&D patents and the number of innovative products are paramount, with universities playing the most significant role. For exploratory innovation, the depth of knowledge search and the quality of two-mode network relations are vital, with research institutions yielding the best effect. Regional analysis reveals Beijing as the primary hub for ambidextrous and exploratory innovation organizations, while Jiangsu leads for exploitative innovation.

The study offers valuable implications to cope with the dynamic state of ambidextrous innovation performance of the entire power system. In light of the findings, the dynamic state of ambidextrous innovation performance within the power system can be adeptly managed. By emphasizing a balance between exploratory and exploitative strategies, stakeholders are better positioned to respond to evolving challenges and opportunities. Thus, the study offers pivotal guidance to ensure sustained adaptability and growth in the power sector’s innovation landscape.

The primary originality is to extend and refine the theoretical understanding of ambidextrous innovation within power systems. By integrating several theoretical frameworks, including social network theory, knowledge-based theory and resource-based theory, the authors enrich the theoretical landscape of power system ambidextrous innovation. Also, this inclusive examination of two-mode network structures, including the interplay between knowledge and cooperation networks, unveils the intricate interdependencies between these networks and the ambidextrous innovation of power systems. This approach significantly widens the theoretical parameters of innovation network research.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on studying the concept of “Smart Organization” and providing a comprehensive framework for the various factors as barriers for the smart organization, identifying and classifying the key criterion of these factors based on their direct and indirect relationships.

In this paper an extensive literature survey and experts’ opinion have been used to identify major barriers of smart organization. These barriers are then modeled using interpretative structural modeling (ISM) methodology. The model so developed has been further improved and an integrated model has been developed using fuzzy-MICMAC.

Various barriers of smart organization have been identified and a structural model has been developed for barriers using the ISM methodology. The critical barriers have been found out by fuzzy-MICMAC analysis. The driver power and dependence graph has been plotted for barriers. The barriers are classified into four categories which are, autonomous, linkage, dependent and independent according to their driver power and dependence. From the ISM model and the integrated model, and from further discussions with the experts, it has been found that the barriers “(B1) organizational structure” and “(B6) Managerial actions” are the two most important barriers, every other barrier is directly or indirectly driven by these.

The basis of developing the ISM model, i.e, the structural self-interaction matrix is based on experts’ opinion, therefore the result may get influenced if there is any biasing in judging the barriers. The future research scope for this paper will be to test the model generated in this paper. The testing of the model can be done by applying structural equation modeling technique, it has the capability of testing the hypothetical model. Further a framework of smart organizations can be created to find out the smartness of different organizations.

The paper can be used by organizations in understanding the barriers in becoming “smart” on the basis of their inter-relationships. This model can help manufacturing organization of North India in understanding the barriers which needs to be worked upon and the inter-relationship among these factors. This model-based study may be helpful in understanding and implementing the practices of smart organization by removing the possible critical barriers.

This is the first study to identify the barriers of smart organizations and to develop a model of these barriers using ISM and fuzzy-MICMAC.

In this chapter, the authors explain the value of the KLC approach to building cultural capacity in knowledge-driven organizations. This chapter also explains the importance of coherent multilevel interactions to expose and experience a company culture. The authors reinforce that culture is learned simultaneously, consciously and unconsciously, through all company’s related experiences. The effects of leadership, hierarchy, and maturity on cultural capacity are discussed at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Finally, the chapter provides a step-by-step methodology and sample questions for taking stock of an organization’s cultural capacity.

This chapter focuses on corporate cultures as critical focus points for the knowledge economy. The authors explain how culture is a crucial intangible asset in the hyperdynamic knowledge economy. The de facto business cultures in every organization – visible or invisible – are also discussed. The authors describe the four common types of business cultures – bureaucracy, market, clan, and fief. Finally, the importance of aligning culture and strategy is explained. In the event of culture, this chapter explains why culture will always prevail in any strategy-culture conflict. The chapter is supported by practical use cases.

Chapter 4 addresses the importance of internal knowledge cultures. It provides a deeper dive into how internal knowledge cultures can contribute to a company’s performance. The authors explain how knowledge culture shapes practical knowledge processes and fosters intellectual capital. The authors also provide insights into a critical knowledge paradox and discuss the interplay of knowledge paradoxes and cultural collisions. The chapter is supported by practical use cases that illustrate the points in the chapter.

This paper aims to investigate the smart economic development (SED) patterns in Europe in relation to competitiveness. Motivational focus corresponds to global events: the fourth industrial revolution, transition to a low-carbon economy, economic shocks (such as the 2008 financial crisis, Brexit or the coronavirus pandemic), which requires rethinking development policies, targeting competitiveness increase and reducing imbalances in economic development.

The analysis includes self-organising neural networks cluster analysis and correlations, comparative analysis of SED indicators structure and cumulative index estimation with World Economic Forum (WEF) global competitiveness index. The panel data set of 19 years from 2000 to 2018 for 30 European countries.

Overall, cross-country examination suggests that European countries of higher competitiveness illustrate higher estimates in SED. The key determinants are juridical fairness, social responsibility, competence building, intelligence and welfare employment to develop smart patterns for reaching higher competitiveness.

The limitations relate to the particular sample of European countries and gathering statistical data and a methodology of the SED index calculation. In addition, the paper contains a macroeconomic environment focus on competitiveness estimation. Further research may be improved with micro and mezzo environment incorporation at a cross-country analysis level.

By linking well-known terms of competitiveness and economic development with a concept of smartness, new approaches to policymaking emerged. The methodology presented in this paper has implications for territorial cohesion policies, competitiveness and branching strategies. The combination of SED sub-indexes and WEF GCI might aid a more accurate ex ante measurement.

The findings are essential for fostering a smart approach in economic development for long-term competitiveness.

This paper provides original empirical evidence about the relationship between SED and competitiveness and adds new knowledge that smartness becomes a way for building countries’ competitiveness by identified two profiles of SED patterns by development stages, namely, integrated to economic development and institutional-based which is divided to focus and balanced.

This paper aims to provide a holistic view to support the choice of appropriate strategy for conducting a knowledge transfer (KT) project in an international manufacturing network (IMN) environment. It proposes a model that includes multiple aspects of a KT project along with guidelines on each aspect.

To achieve the research goals, multiple case study method was adopted. Data have been collected by conducting semi-structured interviews regarding five KT projects in three multinational corporations. Data were triangulated by means of comparisons to complementary data acquired through observations and archival documents.

The results of this paper detail the key issues of five KT projects. Furthermore, the paper proposes an aggregated model comprising the main aspects and strategies for a KT project within an IMN.

Despite the abundant research on KT area, not many research projects provide holistic views on KT process. The focus has rather been sectional and concentrated on each specific aspect within the KT.

The paper guides practitioners to identify multiple aspects in KT that will eventually increase the odds for successfully performing such projects.

The proposed learning network model improves the performance of KT projects by providing a holistic view including several factors that the organization should emphasize to succeed with inter-plant KT.

To share some key strategic paradigms for business schools with leading educators, academic administrators and executives.

The article is normative. The normative propositions and conclusions are drawn from the research done for the author's monograph New Vision for Management Education: Leadership Challenges. A number of case studies are reported, as well as an inductive study of IMD.

There is a need to focus on growth niches, such as executive education rather than MBA, undergraduate or PhD education.

Limitations include the lack of a large‐scale database established from rigorously compiled survey data, and the lack of parametric/non‐parametric statistical analysis.

Leading business schools must be demand‐oriented, must listen to customers‐cum‐executives and corporations, should undertake research that points towards thought leadership, and should work with the business world through lifelong learning networks.

The article draws on IMD's strategy, implicitly and explicitly, and builds on experiences tried out there. IMD's strategy is unique. The paper also reports on unique, new thinking on strategy‐setting and key priorities for business schools and academic institutions.