Search results

Presents the results of a survey into the nature and scale of tool management problems within the UK manufacturing industry and outlines strategies to improve the management and control of tooling. Discusses the qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques used to collate data. Describes the characteristics of the sample to provide a better understanding of their operations. Identifies most common tool management problems and reports their impact on the efficiency of manufacturing systems. Claims that more than 65 per cent of the sample acknowledge that the management of control of tooling is a significant operational problem. Provides an insight into the major causes of lack of interest in tool management. Identifies computerized tool management systems as a potential solution. Stresses that systematic analysis of tooling problems and identification of root causes are essential prior to implementation of computerized systems.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct an empirical analysis among large German companies to enhance the understanding of whether and which institutional factors influence the application of sustainability management tools. Stepping from corporate sustainability visions to implementation requires the application of management tools. A multitude of sustainability management tools have been proposed in literature. Research on their application in corporate practice is, however, scarce.

Based on a survey of large German companies and publicly available data, this paper tests the influence of corporate sustainability networks, indices, standards and the awareness of sustainability management tools on their application in corporate practice.

A particularly strong positive relation exists between awareness and application of sustainability management tools. Standards are also found to have a positive influence, while the influence of networks and indices is less strong. Our findings suggest that the application of sustainability management tools can be fostered through the promotion and increasing awareness of tools.

The analysis is based on a survey of large German companies. Factors of institutional isomorphism are tested. Further research is needed for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the influence of further aspects such as competitive and psychological factors.

The findings of this paper suggest that the application of sustainability management tools can be fostered particularly well through increasing awareness and the active promotion of tools. Networks, indices and standard help increase awareness.

The analysis unveils the role of institutional factors influencing the application sustainability management tools in corporate practice.

In the global economy, managers of organizations are constantly innovating with their use of available supply chain management tools. Some tools, like strategic planning and customer segmentation, have gained strong global acceptance while others are less universal. The paper aims to focus the contribution on the organizational factors that predict firm usage of supply chain management tools in two Eastern Europe countries, Slovenia and Croatia, while also comparing them to the global use of similar management tools.

This research provides an empirical analysis of supply chain management tool usage from a survey of 155 firms in Slovenia and 185 firms in Croatia while also comparing these findings to results from a global Bain & Company survey.

The 25 most commonly used supply chain management tools in the Eastern European survey were found to be relatively similar to those used across Europe and North America. However, further analysis of five selected tools reveals important differences. Evidence is found to support that particular organizational factors have a significant influence on supply chain management tool usage, of specific importance is the education level of the organization manager.

The findings are useful for business practice in understanding the influences of organizational factors on supply chain management tool usage. Also, the research is original as previous management literature has not provided a similar approach to researching management tools and their usage.

Eight years ago, Bain & Company launched an annual survey to investigate the actual experience of companies that adopt leading management tools: Which tools are the most popular? How well do they work? And do they continue to deliver results over time? This article presents the answers to these questions, based on the latest (2000) North American survey results. On the one hand, 78 percent of respondents agreed that “Companies that use the right tools are more likely to succeed.” Yet, at the same time, 82 percent agreed that “Most management tools promise more than they deliver.” Senior executives fundamentally believe there are tools that can improve organizational performance, yet experience using these tools has also dampened their enthusiasm for the results. Includes a discussion of the 25 top management tools.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the relationships between grain farm and farmer profiles and their respective choices to use forward pricing techniques and revenue protection crop insurance to manage risk.

An e-mail survey of Midwestern grain farmers elicited farmer demographic information, farm profile, risk attitudes and farmer use of forward pricing and revenue protection insurance. Responses regarding use of risk management tools were compiled as choices to use possible bundles of tools to account for simultaneous nature of the decision. Choices to use bundles of tools were used as the independent variable categories in a multinomial logit regression. Regressors were relevant data collected from the survey.

Farm size, using a market advisory service, and being a technology adopter are the most important factors in predicting risk management tool use by grain farmers. Farmers tend to use forward pricing and revenue protection insurance in combination. Large farms are more likely to use forward pricing tools.

Results provide researchers, extension professionals and risk management specialists with a current understanding of how farm and farmer characteristics relate to use of risk management tools. The authors also elaborate on findings to provide guidance for future risk management research.

The survey covered 9 Midwestern states and 648 grain farmers. The survey results update understanding of grain farmers’ risk management practices. The empirical approach treats risk management decisions to use available tools as simultaneous, which recent literature suggests is more appropriate than earlier approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to present the main barriers, practices, methods and knowledge management tools in startups that are characterized as agile organizations with dynamic capabilities to meet the demands of a business environment of high volatility, uncertainties, complexity and ambiguity.

The conceptual basis of the research focused on the triad: agile organization, dynamic capabilities and knowledge management. Field research began by interviewing experts to identify the barriers, practices, methods and knowledge management tools in startups. Based on the theoretical review, on the desk research and on the result of interviews with experts, a quantitative research was carried out with the leading startups coworking of São Paulo city. The obtained data made it possible to develop descriptive analyses and run linear regressions and cluster analysis for exploratory research.

Startups with higher maturity in innovation level, solution development level, and scalability development level, present a higher degree of utilization of the practices, methods and tools dedicated to knowledge management.

It is expected that results of the research presented in detail will be able to illustrate concrete examples of practices, methods, and knowledge management tools for large established companies seeking the organizational agility of startups.

This study contributes to the identification of barriers, practices, methods and tools of management of knowledge in startups, through the conceptual triad: agile organization, dynamic capabilities and knowledge management.

Lean-inspired approaches and performance management systems are being implemented in public healthcare organisations internationally. However, the literature is inconclusive regarding the benefits of these management tools and there is a lack of knowledge regarding processes for large-scale implementation of these tools. This article aims to describe the implementation process and to better understand how this process influences the mandated performance management system.

This research is based on a comparative case study of three healthcare organisations in Canada. Data consist documents, non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews with key actors (n = 30). Analysis is based on a sociotechnical approach to management tools that considers organisational context, and the tool's technical substrate, theory of action and managerial philosophy.

Results show that despite a standardised national mandate, the tool as implemented varied between organisations in terms of technical substrate and managerial philosophy. These variations are explained by the flexibility of the technical substrate, the lack of clarity of the managerial philosophy, and some contextual elements. Successful implementation may rest upon high hybridization of the tool on these different dimensions. A precise and prescribed technical substrate is not sufficient to guarantee implementation of a managerial philosophy.

Mandated implementation of management tools may be more successful if it is explicit on the managerial philosophy, the technical substrate and the link between the two, and if it provides some leeway to adapt both to the organisational context.

This is one of the few studies to describe and analyse the process involved in mandated large-scale implementation of performance management systems in public healthcare organisations.

As organizations globalize, they are facing twin challenges of (1) how to develop actionable intelligence from the vast amount of data flowing into their organization and (2) how to effectively manage the increasing risks to their supply chain. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to bring these two issues on a single platform to understand how firms can effectively predict supply chain risk by developing and using BDA capabilities, through an automated risk alert tool.

The authors used a questionnaire-based survey methodology supported by secondary data to collect information related to managerial perceptions on how firms can develop a risk alert tool by improving BDA capabilities. A database of 213 senior and middle-level managers was developed and used to test the proposed hypothesis. Using econometric techniques, the authors identify the conditions necessary for such an automated risk management tool to be effective.

The results suggest that if organizations focus on developing an effective IT infrastructure supported by a strong BDA capability, they will be able to leverage these capabilities to develop an effective risk management tool. Moderating influences of Upstream and Downstream Supply Chain IT Infrastructure capabilities were also observed on different types of BDA capabilities within a firm. In conclusion, it was argued that the effectiveness of a risk alert tool is dependent on how well firms harness big data analytics capability.

The value of the research stems from the fact that it uses managerial surveys to identify specific BDA capabilities that can enable firms to develop risk resilience capabilities. In addition, the article is one of the few empirical studies that aims to identify how firms can use BDA capabilities within a supply chain context to develop an automated risk alert tool. The article, therefore, contributes to the literature that identifies the value of BDA capabilities within the context of supply chain risk management.

This paper aims to highlight the degree of diffusion and intensity of use of knowledge management systems (KMSs) among small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Brazil and apply a taxonomy that synthesizes the strategies of use of KMSs by the SMEs. In addition, it seeks to better understand the processes, practices and technologies of KM by SMEs, pointing improvements in the KMS of Brazilian SMEs and contributing to obtain better results in the search for efficiency and innovation.

Based on a literature review on KMSs used by SMEs, an empirical investigation was conceived, developed and conducted through online questionnaires involving 49 selected SMEs operating in several sectors.

This paper reinforces the results of the previous work of Cerchione and Esposito (2017) that point to the existence of a reciprocal relationship between KM-Tools and KM-Practices: one reinforces the other and vice versa. On the other hand, it indicates a difference in the behavior of Brazilian companies in relation to the sample of Italian companies studied by Cerchione and Esposito (2017), which presented a negative correlation between the general differentiation index and the general use intensity index of SMEs, while the Brazilian ones showed a positive correlation.

The study points out the need for greater dissemination of practices and tools to support knowledge management (KM), as well as greater support for the implementation and effective use of these practices and tools within the organizational context of SMEs.

This paper identifies the main practices and tools to support KM used by Brazilian SMEs, indicating the need for investments in employee training and acquisition of tools.

SMEs represent an important part of the generation of jobs and income in Brazil. Initiatives that lead to the successful implementation of tools and practices to support KM can increase the efficiency and productivity of these organizations.

This paper applies in a sample of Brazilian companies the taxonomy proposed by Cerchione and Esposito (2017) combining strategies of SMEs for the use of KMSs.

This paper aims to evaluate a range of best practice knowledge management (KM) ideas used to manage knowledge resources. In total, four KM toolkits and 16 KM tools were tested over a five-year period (2008-2013), as part of a large-scale longitudinal change project. Each tool was assessed against an evaluative framework designed to test criticisms of KM: strategy, implementation and performance. The results provide empirical evidence about which KM tools work and which do not and why, and outcomes for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

The case study organization participating in the study was selected because it was a knowledge-intensive organization, with an ageing workforce. An invitation and cover letter explaining the study were sent via email to all 150 engineering and technical staff at the case study organization. Therefore, the entire population was included in the study. Respondents were asked to attend training workshops. Following each workshop, respondents were asked to complete feedback in the form of learning journals and to be involved in work-place based trials of the KM tools. Both management and staff participated in the project.

The results provide empirical evidence that KM can be used to manage knowledge resources. The highest rating toolkit was knowledge strategy, followed by knowledge measurement. The most value was created by using KM to introduce objectivity into future thinking (future capability requirements) and decisions when filling competency gaps (sourcing). The results tended to support criticism that KM is difficult to implement and identified the main barriers as participation located at the operational action research level, i.e. how do we make this work? Evidence that KM works was found in progress towards learning organization capacity and in practical outcomes.

The action research cycle and learning flows provide opportunities to examine barriers to KM implementation. The research also presents opportunities for further research to examine the findings in other organizational and industry settings, for example, the relationship between the KM toolkits and organizational change and performance, presents an important area for further research. Researchers might also consider some of the toolkits which rated poorly, e.g. knowledge creation (KC), and challenge these findings, perhaps selecting different KC tools for testing. The paper has limitations. It is based on a single case study organization, offset, to some degree, by the longitudinal nature of the empirical evidence. It is ambitious, and the findings may be controversial. However, the depth of the study and its findings provide rare longitudinal empirical evidence about KM, and the results should be useful for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

There are many critics of KM. It has been described as overwhelmingly optimistic and managerial rhetoric; that its claims are false; and that many KM initiatives fail and, therefore, it does not create value for the firm, and its return on investment is unlikely. There is a shortage of empirical studies demonstrating an actual connection between KM and organizational performance. Despite widespread interest and growth in investment by practitioners and growth in research, KM needs validation to give people confidence in its value and some of the problems associated with implementation. This paper provides rare empirical evidence gathered from a five-year (2008-2013) large-scale longitudinal change project to address this gap. For practitioners, the research findings provide management with an evaluative framework to use when making decisions regarding KM.

Much of the previous research on this topic looks at specific KM tools only, and often at one point in time. This study examined a wide range of best-practice KM tools as part of an integrated set of KM systems, launched at the same time and studied over five years. The study did not examine what the case study does in terms of KM. Instead, it deliberately introduced tools which were new to the case study organization. The results provide practical outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of KM when introduced to an organization as a system of integrated tools, and what happens in the five years that follow.