Search results

This chapter presents a sociological analysis of the work involved in producing neuroimaging scans used in clinical practice. Drawing on fieldwork in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units in hospitals and free-standing imaging centers; in-depth interviews with technologists, radiologists, and neurologists; and reviews of relevant medical literatures, this analysis demonstrates how assembly line techniques structure neuroimaging work. Neuroimages (after being ordered by the referring clinician) are created in an image production line where scans of brains, breasts, livers, and other body parts are all produced: although some facilities may focus on one area of the body, most create an array of scans. Following MRI scans as they are produced demonstrates how medical work emphasizes repetition, specialization, and efficiency – key features of mass production. On the medical assembly line, the organization of work aims to transform patients into objects – ones that multiply as scans are created and circulated. Neurologists, radiologists, and technologists are positioned as skilled workers who manage the flow of bodies and the production of knowledge with the aim of producing health or, at the very least, knowledge of illness. Patients are also actors who actively impact the imaging production process. Previous scholarship has shown that diagnostic work involves a distributed form of expertise; one that involves patients, other medical professionals, machines, and neurologists. This chapter demonstrates that the deployment and synchronization of this expertise is a form of labor, involving distinct professions, professional hierarchies, and reimbursement systems. Working conditions are central to the production of MRI scans as knowledge and contribute to the social shaping of neuroimaging techniques.

In contrast to the largely functionalist and apolitical literature which dominates organisational scholarship on exploitation and exploration after March, this paper seeks to complement this view of exploitation and exploration with a Marxist reading which is unwittingly implied by these terms. More specifically, we combine neo-Marxist and paleo-Marxist arguments to more fully understand the conflictual relations that underpin exploitation and exploration in the management of firms. This enables us to address both the objective and subjective dimensions of exploitation and exploration which firms and workers are involved in through the contemporary capitalist labour process. We illustrate this by drawing on a case study of a large Swedish manufacturing firm which sought to improve lean production by systematically helping employees to explore their own lifestyles and possibilities for a healthier and happier life.

The paper published below was prepared by Taylor Ostrander for Frank Knight’s course, Economic Theory, Economics 301, during the Fall 1933 quarter.

Knowledge transfer considers the company as a dynamic system dealing with different kinds of knowledge. As production becomes more knowledge-based, this increases the potential for capturing and taking advantage of knowledge. On the other side, these factors become more complex and difficulties increase for the effective transfer of knowledge across organizational boundaries.

Research on knowledge transfer has experienced substantial growth in the past 30 years and research on knowledge transfer is still increasing (Kumar & Ganesh, 2009). The literature argues quite unanimously that there is a positive link between knowledge sharing and competitive advantage. This is analyzed in several studies, but according to Dyer and Hatch (2006), this assumption has not been generally proven. In this chapter, we discuss the points of view from different contributions on this subject. In the empirical part of this chapter, we propose the idea that knowledge transfer is a way for organizations to be more competitive and implement changes essential to their survival. This is done by looking at five firms in the meat producing industry in different countries.

Computer systems firms in Silicon Valley are responding to rising costs of product development, shorter product cycles and rapid technological change by focusing and building partnerships with suppliers, both within and outside of the region. Well-known firms like Hewlett-Packard and Apple Computers and lesser known ones like Silicon Graphics and Pyramid Technology are organized to combine the components and sub-systems made by specialist suppliers into new computer systems. As these firms collaborate to both define and manufacture new systems, they are institutionalizing their capacity to learn from one another. Three cases - a contract manufacturer, a silicon foundry, and the joint development of a microprocessor - illustrate how inter-firm networks help account for the sustained technological dynamism of the regional economy.

Industry 4.0 and the new technological transformation process it represents pose major challenges for the world today. Now, a new period has been entered, which will affect every point of daily life, from production to trade, and from health to entertainment. In terms of its scope and complexity, this period is unlike any that humanity has experienced before. The concept of Industry 4.0 is an external reflection of the innovations and applications made and to be made not only in today but also in the production methods of the future. Because this change and development occurs as a result of a certain accumulation and continues to occur continuously, it is evident that strategy is of great importance in today’s constantly changing and developing world. It is of great importance for leaders to develop strategies for evaluating the opportunity areas emerging by anticipating change in the Industry 4.0 process and to carry organizations and society into the future. Strategic leaders can do this effectively. At this point, strategic leadership is an important issue. Based on this idea, in this study, the strategic leadership issue from Industry 4.0 perspective will be examined in a theoretical context.