Search results

The traditional product-costing continuum is too limited to account for the new mass customization approach currently used by many corporations in many industries. Mass customization has changed the nature of many transactions, activities and, indeed, the very essence of many manufacturing companies, who have become more of assemblers than manufacturers. These new developments necessitate establishing new way of accounting for proper planning and control. After tracing the development of the mass customization approach from modular manufacturing into common platforms applied in one firm, and then shared by a group of firms, the paper explains the benefits of these approaches to both manufacturers and their suppliers. The central theme of this paper is to develop a product costing system for mass customization. It begins with the traditional product-process matrix in operations management literature and adds to it two elements: firm size and the modular manufacturing method. The rationale for this addition is that modular manufacturing is the best mass customization method; firm size and mass customization are inherently related as indicated by the typical evolutionary pattern of production processes. At this point, the operations management taxonomy is renamed the modular-process matrix; this matrix displays three groups of major activities: manufacturing, supplemental manufacturing, and assembling activities. These three activity groups provide the basis for developing a new set of accounts and a ledger system to account for specific customer orders developed by mass-customization processes.

Customers today expect businesses to cater to their individual needs by tailoring the products they purchase to their own preferences. The term “Industry 5.0” refers to a new wave of manufacturing that aims to meet each customer's unique demands. Even while Industry 4.0 allowed for mass customization, that wasn't good enough before, customers today demand individualized products at scale, and Industry 5.0 is driving the transition from mass customization to mass personalization to meet these demands. It caters to the individual needs of each consumer by meeting their demands. More specialized components for use in medicine are made possible by the widespread customization made possible by Industry 5.0. These individualized parts are included into the medical care of the patient to meet their specific needs and preferences. In the current medical revolution, an enabling technology of Industry 5.0 can produce medical implants, artificial organs, bodily fluids, and transplants with pinpoint accuracy. With the advent of AI-enabled sensors, we now live in a world where data can be swiftly analyzed. Machines may be programmed to make complex choices on the fly. In the medical field, these innovations allow for exact measurement and monitoring of human body variables according to the individual's needs. They aid in monitoring the body's response to training for peak performance. It allows for the digital dissemination of accurate healthcare data networks. In order to collect and exchange relevant patient data, every equipment is online.

Strategy researchers have given very little attention to services, even though they now dominate the gross domestic product of almost all countries. We encourage more research focused on service as the basic mode of generating revenue today, especially as the economic landscape is being restructured by recent financial crises. This chapter suggests a basic framework for services research and then outlines issues in three areas that are particularly important to customer-oriented service innovation: individuation, standardization, and export. Illustrative examples from Germany provide more specific contexts for considering the range of activity in this under-researched domain.

The fifth industrial revolution, known as Industry 5.0, envisions an industry that is innovative, resilient, socio-centric, and competitive while minimizing negative environmental and social impacts, respecting people, the planet, and prosperity. Industry 5.0 is replacing earlier advancements and it is successful because it reaches the pinnacle of perfection. Additionally, machine work saves human workers time and effort. It is built on the concept of fusing digitalization elements from the fourth industrial revolution with Sustainable Development Goals through human-centric solutions, bio-inspired technologies, and secure data transfer. Industry 5.0 mentions about the various opportunities, constraints, and potential directions for future research. Industry 5.0 places less emphasis on technology and focus on human collaboration for progress, it supposed to have a shift in existing paradigm. Industry 5.0 is necessary in contemporary business with the paid technology advancements in order to get competitive advantages as well as economic growth for the manufacturing and it has three drivers: “green transition”, “digital transition”, and “competitive transition”. The goal of green transition is to prevent climate change and environmental degradation. This necessitates changes to current economic growth strategies. The goal of digital transition is to support the circular economy by modernizing digital strategies in terms of digital skills, data, technologies, and infrastructure. Competitive transition aims to convert marketing policies, regulations, standards to increase people's prosperity and business value. It focuses on business and marketing rules that are fair, competitive, innovative, and adaptable.

“Shared purpose,” understood as a widely shared commitment to the organization’s fundamental raison d’être, can be a powerful driver of organizational performance by providing both motivation and direction for members’ joint problem-solving efforts. So far, however, we understand little about the organization design that can support shared purpose in the context of large, complex business enterprises. Building on the work of Selznick and Weber, we argue that such contexts require a new organizational form, one that we call collaborative. The collaborative organizational form is grounded in Weber’s value-rational type of social action, but overcomes the scale limitations of the collegial form of organization that is conventionally associated with value-rational action. We identify four organizational principles that characterize this collaborative form and a range of managerial policies that can implement those principles.

In this research we explore the issue of “competence management,” as usually defined in the corporate vocabulary, mostly in the human resource (HR) function, and more particularly of “strategic competence management” (long-run management of competences which are critical to achieve strategic goals). We try to show that competence management is a dynamic organizational competence. We analyze it in the case of a large European telecommunications company, France Télécom, in the years 2001–2003. The telecommunications sector is characterized by quick changes in technology, markets, and industrial structures, and therefore a high level of uncertainty. It is also a high-tech activity, based upon continuously evolving personal skills which require long education and training times. There is an apparent contradiction between uncertainty, which makes planning difficult, and the necessity to plan new competence development with long response times. This contradiction cannot be solved if competences are defined in a static way, as structural attributes of actual or potential employees or groups of employees. The strategic competence management issue must be considered rather in the frame of a dynamic, process-based view, which involves an on-going collective and reflexive activity of actors themselves to define and manage their competences. We tested process-based competence management in the case of two telecommunication domains: high bit-rate ADSL telecommunications and Internet services to small and medium businesses. The reflexive and collective competence management process had to be instrumented with instruments which did not aim at an accurate representation of competences as objects, but rather tried to offer a meaningful support for actors’ continuous (re)interpretation of present and future work situations in terms of critical competences. As a conclusion we extend the example of competence management instruments to the general issue of management instruments, in the context of uncertain and dynamic environments. Information-based theories of instruments view instruments as specular representations of situations, which allow optimal or satisficing problem-solving procedures. But when business environments continuously evolve and resist prediction, we must move toward an interpretive view of management instruments as meaningful signs, which help actors to make sense of the situations in which they are involved. Their relevance is not an absolute ontological truth but the practical effectiveness of their context-situated utilization and interpretation. A semiotic and pragmatist theory of activity and instruments can then be proposed.