Search results

Over the past two years, senior managers at several automotive companies have begun to implement a new business model called a digital loyalty network (DLN). The model enables companies in any industry to continuously collect and monitor their customer, product and supply chain data and more precisely adjust engineering, production, distribution and sales/marketing activities to meet current and future demand. Moreover, they can use the same data to enhance their partnership with suppliers. For example, GM has put in place a number of components of a digital loyalty network, including the implementation of an integrated network connecting the company with suppliers, alliance partners, dealers and customers. GM has also adopted a new formula for managing the order‐to‐delivery process, has launched Web‐portals for customers and suppliers and continues to enhance and support its OnStar system, which allows drivers to communicate on the road with GM customer service representatives and vendors. Digital loyalty networks have three components: (1) Digital – the companies use sophisticated information technologies to manage information more effectively; (2) Loyalty – the system is designed to target, satisfy, and retain the most profitable customers and, in turn, use customer information and loyalty data to make the supply chain more efficient; (3) Networks – the information system links suppliers, producers and customers and is continuously updated. DLN companies use information technology resourcefully to increase the effectiveness of supply chain and customer relationship management initiatives. They develop a solid network of digitized information that ties together the value chain and creates loyalty and on both the front and back end of business operations. On the supply side, DLN companies continuously monitor customer value based on feedback about customer requirements, purchase history, and potential purchases and rely on digital technology to make certain their most valuable customers are kept satisfied. They do this by managing inventory through the supply chain so that the best customers are served first, and making certain short and long‐term capacity planning responds to these customer priorities. In addition to General Motors, Deloitte Research identified three other innovators in the automotive industry – Porsche, DaimlerChrysler and Renault/Nissan – that are developing certain aspects of a DLN.

Over the last two years, the authors have studied the growth strategies and the supporting operations of nearly 650 companies around the world. While most have the expectation that innovation will drive corporate fortunes, the research makes it clear that building or restructuring business operations to profitably bring new products and services to market is a top priority only for best performing companies but near the bottom of most companies' priorities.

Explains how top‐performing global companies are investing in the product development capabilities, the supply chain process infrastructure, and the sophisticated information systems needed to support and synchronize innovation across the value chain.

Research on a subset of the survey base (the 300+ larger companies and business units with revenues ranging from US$200 million to US$10 billion and higher) shows that those that can synchronize complex global value chains – the complexity masters – are up to 73 percent more profitable than the others.

Interviews with senior managers at leading firms and case studies on the complexity masters would be of high value.

The authors suggest three steps: create innovation – build an idea‐generation machine; exploit innovation where and when it matters; and invest in innovation capabilities for creating and sustaining a profit cycle. The four ingredients that make top‐performing companies stand out are visibility, flexibility, collaboration, and technology.

Lists the best practices – the strategies and tactics – of the most profitable innovators, the elite “complexity masters.”

The purpose of this paper is to propose that a form of communities of practice (CoP), a community of innovation (CoInv), is the best support for sustainable innovation. It aims to outline a method for identifying champions of innovation in organisation.

The paper draws on extant research to argue that innovation is facilitated and supported by innovation champions, who have most influence outside traditional organisational structures when they are members of a close‐knit community – a CoInv. A potential method for identification of champions of innovation is highlighted.

Innovation champions are special people, with particular personality types and psychological profiles. In order to succeed in championing innovations in organisations they need both procedural and resource support, and social and cognitive support. The influence of innovation champions comes through social contacts, multiplied through the communities in which they participate, through the genuine esteem in which they are held. Developing CoInv around such champions makes practical sense for organisations.

Identifying champions of innovation will permit a CoInv to form that links social networks and transcends organisational internal boundaries and forming such a community will potentially trigger more successfully supported innovations.

There is good evidence that the shift in global sourcing is toward so‐called “low cost country suppliers.” Yet conditions in these countries are often not well‐known. At the same time, best practices in integrated supply dictate a multi‐faceted decision, rather than basing supplier location on a single attribute say, labor cost alone. With these issues in mind, a research project was formulated with two primary objectives. First, the authors wanted to compile the knowledge and perceptions of purchasing managers regarding low cost regions and their capabilities and to reflect the multiple factors involved in current sourcing strategies and supplier selection decisions in these low cost geographies. Second, the authors wanted to compare managers' subjective perceptions with objective data regarding attributes of sourcing locations to identify the relationship between perceptions and reality. This paper aims to explore the issues.

The authors surveyed over 100 sourcing professionals on their perceptions of various low cost sourcing alternatives. Perceptual mapping techniques were used to combine the rankings on some 12 different attributes to visualize how the various attributes relate to each other and how the low cost regions compare when rated against sourcing managers' ideal perceptions.

The research results show that procurement managers select regions for low cost sourcing based on both specific measures and individual and/or group perceptions of the region, whether these perceptions are correct or not. This paper probes these perceptions. Also the paper compares these subjective perceptions with objective data to show that cultural stereotypes may bias managers' perception of location‐specific characteristics. The paper closes with implications for procurement managers and opportunities for further research.

The authors have demonstrated that purchasing managers choose sourcing locations using multiple criteria instead of only focusing on cost. But some perceptions are biased by cultural stereotypes and do not reflect reality. This suggests that managers have to be careful when using their subjective judgment in choosing sourcing locations.

The authors believe that visual representations of alternative sourcing options have great potential to improve the efficiency of cross‐disciplinary and multi‐company teams that are increasingly responsible for global sourcing strategies. Comparing managers' perception with objective data of location attributes shows that mangers' perception may be biased by cultural stereotypes.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how much the Italian manufacturing companies are ready to be concretely involved in the so-called “Industry 4.0” (I4.0) journey. In particular, this paper focuses on analyzing the knowledge and adoption levels of specific I4.0 enabling technologies, also considering how organizations are involved and which are the main benefits and obstacles.

A descriptive survey has been carried out on a total of 103 respondents related to manufacturing companies of different sizes. Data collected were analyzed in order to answer five specific research questions.

The findings from the survey demonstrate that Italian manufacturing companies are in different positions in their journey toward the I4.0 paradigm, mainly depending on their size and informatization level. Furthermore, not all the business functions are adequately involved in this transformation and their awareness about this new paradigm seems quite low because of the absence of specific managerial roles to guide this revolution. Finally, there are strong differences concerning both benefits and obstacles related to the adoption of I4.0 paradigm, depending on the technology adoption level.

Future research should focus on developing case studies about pilot I4.0 practitioners in order to understand the root cause of successful cases. Both managerial and practical references should be developed, helping Italian manufacturing enterprises to consolidate and strengthen their position in global competitive market. Finally, it would be interesting to carry out the same study in other countries in order to make comparisons and suitable benchmark analyses.

Despite scholars have debated about the adoption of technologies and the benefits related to the I4.0 paradigm, to the best of authors’ knowledge, only a few empirical surveys have been carried out until now on the adoption level of I4.0 principles in the manufacturing sector of a specific country.