Search results

Tooling is a common component of an industrial product’s manufacture. Specific tooling is devised to serve the fabrication of a particular product, while generic tooling can be used in the manufacture of multiple products. In the latter case, companies are confronted with the problem of fairly allocating the indirect costs of the tooling. This article studies how to allocate costs of generic tooling to single production orders.

Ten allocation methods (AMs) are described that are in principle suited to the distribution of generic tooling costs to production orders. Since the presented methods have for the most part been discussed in differing contexts, we apply them to a specified generic tooling problem for comparison. Evaluation of the various methods is based on 16 criteria. Reasoning is supported by a computational Monte Carlo simulation. Furthermore, we suggest using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to elaborate one final proposition concerning the most preferable allocation scheme.

The article reports the single allocation rules’ performances for different allocation scenarios. The described characteristics refer to fairness, efficiency, and simplicity as well as to empty-core performance. Using AHP analysis allows for the aggregation of the rules’ criteria ratings. Thus, especially suitable allocation schemes for the problem at hand are identified.

An allocation is required for budgeting reasons and also for the definition of projects’ bottom-up sales prices. Selecting the “right” AM is important, as a suboptimal AM can result in unfair allocation vectors, which will act as incentives to stop using the common resource, potentially leading to higher total costs.

Research on the comparison of AMs is typically performed for certain purposes, such as enterprise networks, horizontal cooperative purchasing scenarios, or municipal service units. This article will augment the research evaluating AMs by introducing a novel set of evaluation criteria and by providing an in-depth comparison of AMs suited for the allocation of generic tooling costs.

During the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal created a wide range of spending and loan programs. Brief descriptions are provided for the programs created by the New Deal and loan and spending programs that were in place before the New Deal. I worked with others to create a panel data set with estimates of the spending and lending by the programs each year from 1930 through 1940. The data aggregated to broad categories are reported here and the methods and sources used to construct the estimates of the spending and lending for the categories are discussed.

Partner firms to the same joint venture experience sharply different stock price reactions. These differences cannot be explained by mechanical factors related to differences in firm size and ownership share in the project, nor are they attributable to different partner roles in the project or differences in investor anticipation of the announcement. We conclude that the stock price reactions reflect a revaluation of non-project assets that is different for each partner. Additionally, we find evidence indicating that investors infer information about agency problems (in the sense of Jensen, 1986) from the joint venture announcements and subsequently, revalue the whole firm – not just the marginal project being announced. Finally, we find that free cash flow is value-enhancing for one type of partner firm after we control for the extent of agency problems.

Forming a project organization is, in our opinion, the most essential characteristic of the project-working mode. A project task calls for contribution from several parties, e.g., user representatives with knowledge of the application situation, specialists with professional knowledge and experience, and management that can provide the overall support and position the project strategically. Cooperation across professional areas and organizational units is required.

A project organization should be designed in view of the project task. In this chapter, we present and discuss a basic pattern of a project organization consisting of three generic parts: a decision, a management, and a working part. The specific appointments to these parts will depend on questions and issues related to four aspects: professional contribution, management contribution, anchoring of the project results, and influence (where should stakeholders’ influence and involvement be dealt with).

The chapter discusses adjustment of the project organization as the project comes along. We also discuss organizational issues when there are several independent partners, e.g., joint ventures and partnering.

This chapter aims to conceptualise the role of gastronomy and events in destination strategic development and explore the possibility for destination management organisations (DMOs) to capitalise their potential. Thus, it firstly explores the role of gastronomy and events in contemporary tourism and their impact on destination appeal, authenticity and development. Secondly, it delves into the possible ways by which DMOs can utilise events to achieve destination goals and competitiveness. As gastro events are a common denominator of gastro-tourism and events, they are given special attention. In the empirical part, two prominent destinations in the most developed tourism country of the Western Balkans, Croatia, are analysed. Also, in the empirical part, archival analysis is used to analyse relevant documentation and sources covering the 2016–2018 period. In the analysis, the strategic role of gastronomy, events and DMOs' activities and budgets are explored to unveil the existing interlinkages and patterns among them. The contribution of the study is the systematisation and critical review of existing literature on the role of gastronomy and events in the destination offer and of DMOs' usage of events for achieving destination goals and competitiveness. The chapter provides valuable implications for destination strategic management and marketing as well as for future academic studies on the subject.

In the study of entrepreneurial behavior types, “ambitious entrepreneurship” recently emerged as a new research concept. Unfortunately, a systematic overview of what is known (and not known) about this topic is missing. In particular, insights into the various definitions, measures, and antecedents of ambitious entrepreneurship are lacking. In this chapter, we offer a state-of-the-art review and analysis of extant research on ambitious entrepreneurship. We structure the literature review by providing insights into antecedents of ambitious entrepreneurship, and extensively discuss the conceptualization and operationalization of this research concept. We clarify the differences between related concepts such as growth intention, expectation, and aspiration, and argue how all these concepts fit into a unifying framework of ambitious entrepreneurship. We summarize promising future research avenues for the study of ambitious entrepreneurship, both from a methodological and a conceptual point of view.

Our notion of project control is based on the five-by-five model and constitutes a comprehensive control model including control of results, time and work control, resource control, financial control, and contract management.

The task of project control is determined by uncertainty and complexity and calls for improvisation and ingenuity in order to be able to maneuver the project. The notion of forward-oriented follow-up is introduced.

This chapter addresses issues of what should be done and when. Structuring of the project task into a number of activities is key to planning a course of action for a project. It involves combining two dimensions: when (the time) and what (relevant subject areas or work paths). Several examples will illustrate the issue.

The five-by-five model will be used to identify five parallel processes of a project: (1) task-oriented processes concerned with development of a solution, (2) organisational change processes focusing on understanding and accepting the change, (3) application and operational processes concerned with application and use of the project’s results, (4) environmental processes focusing on the interplay between the project and its environment including stakeholders, and (5) management processes dealing with activities in the middle box of the five-by-five model.

A number of models of the project’s course of action will be presented and discussed, e.g., a waterfall model, a parallel stream model based on the four perspectives introduced in Chapter 1, the course of actions as decisions and as a change process. Finally, we shall discuss Agile and Lean project management.