Search results

Purpose – The aim of this study is to inquire into the circumstances and mechanisms that drive temporary systems to become permanent organizations.

Methodology/approach – This study is based on a retrospective longitudinal case study (1980–1995) and informed by research on organizational path dependence. Our research object is SEMATECH, the leading global semiconductor manufacturing consortium.

Findings – This longitudinal case study of the research and development consortium SEMATECH shows how and under what conditions a project, once its initial objective had been achieved, managed to turn itself into a permanent organization, that is, it terminated its institutionalized termination. Based on our findings, we argue that the postponing of this specific project's institutionalized termination can be understood by adopting a path dependence perspective that allows for the capturing of self-reinforcing processes to account for the stability of the (once temporary) system.

Originality/value of the paper – In this chapter, we question the certainty put forward in organizational studies of projects concerning the ephemeral nature of projects due to their built-in termination mechanism.

The goal is to manage the key value‐added processes from the “suppliers' supplier to the customers' customer.” Such end‐to‐end supply chain integration is very rare; however, many companies actively strive to implement initiatives in the areas of new product development, cycle time reduction, process redesign, cost minimization, and quality improvement across organizational boundaries. Most efforts are dyadic, focusing on a buyer/supplier relationship. Few examples of multi‐tier implementation efforts have been documented. This paper looks at the challenges encountered in the implementation of a quality initiative in the semiconductor industry. The focus is on the challenges encountered as a successful first‐tier implementation was driven back to the second tier. Initial efforts failed and responsibility for second‐tier implementation was passed back to the first‐tier suppliers. Efforts at this level continued to stall because the leverage dynamics of the supply chain was very different as smaller, second‐tier suppliers were engaged and encouraged to adopt the new quality standard.

The semiconductor industry has attracted considerable attention during the last twenty years as a major high stakes business battlefield between American corporations and Japanese society. Recently, other Asian countries have made inroads into this industry. Consistent with Michael Porter's thesis on the importance of national industry related clusters (Porter, J 990), this paper predicts that between now and the year 2000, the entrepreneurial characteristics of American companies will lead them to significant market share increases and that Japanese businesses will lose market share to other Asian companies, particularly in South Korea. Beyond the year 2000, the industry may evolve to the point where geographic areas concentrate on specific dimensions of the industry with the United States strong in innovation and Asia emphasizing manufacturing efficiencies. It is also possible that later in the 21st century, continued economic growth in Asia could lead to Asian companies taking expanded leadership roles in the industry. This paper acknowledges the importance of government intervention both in the United States and Japan in the early stages of the industry, but argues that the evolving maturity of the semiconductor industry is reducing the need for government subsidies, even though trade issues, especially with China, continue to be important.

Knowledge management is the key success factor of today’s business leaders. Focuses on the rise of knowledge management. Provides a summary of useful concepts, different project types, supportive organizational structures, effective technologies and points out future knowledge management directions. Shows that currently, within knowledge management, attention management has become the most important success factor. In future the management of attention management is likely to decide which businesses will be among the leaders of the new economy.

This paper aims to focus on formation motivations and processes of R&D consortia to appreciate their differential innovative and learning capabilities.

The paper presents its argument in two separate steps. First, a two‐by‐two framework, comprising four consortium types, is developed based on two formation motivations (i.e. risk sharing and networking) and two formation processes (i.e. emergent and engineered). Four case vignettes are used to demonstrate the practical relevance of the two‐by‐two consortium typology framework. Second, the innovative and learning capabilities of each of these consortia are explored and eight propositions are advanced.

The paper introduces four types of consortia: community builders, gamblers, visible hands, and opportunists. It is argued that visible hands generate greater innovation than community builders and opportunists, and community builders and opportunists generate greater innovation than gamblers. It is also argued that government involvement moderates the relationship between consortia type and innovative capabilities in an inverted U shape. Lastly, relative appropriateness of frequency, outcome, and trait imitations to facilitate organization‐level learning among consortium members is explored.

The main contribution of this paper lies in its two‐by‐two typology of consortium formation contextual conditions. Instead of focusing on evolutionary cycles and performance issues of consortia, this paper draws research attention to contextual conditions surrounding consortia formation. Consortium formation contextual conditions are critically important because they predetermine the life cycle and performance trajectory of consortia. This paper also links innovation and learning dynamics in consortia.

Vigorous competition among companies for customers, talent, and capital serves everyone well, for the most part. But competition can be harmful as well, when companies fight over things that hold little value to customers or that offer little potential for differentiation.

The article discusses how thinking and changing the compete/collaborate ratio offers a way out that benefits all players. By joining forces to carry out common and largely undifferentiated functions or processes, companies can avoid redundant expenditures and capitalize on economies of scale and shared expertise. Strategic collaboration can take place at any stage of an industry's value chain. It can take many other forms, consistent with antitrust laws, including the sharing of back‐office functions, factory production, R&D efforts, marketing and distribution, and repair or return facilities.

Even bitter rivals have sometimes joined forces to achieve common goals and solve common problems. Notable examples are the Airbus consortium of European aircraft manufacturers, the Sematech consortium of US semiconductor manufacturers, banks working together to launch Visa and Mastercard, and small hardware stores using the TruValue organization for cooperative marketing, purchasing, and loyalty programs.

Collaborating on well‐defined activities offers an immediate payoff in reduced costs. And it tends to promote, rather than hamper, constructive competition in the areas most valued by customers.

The purpose of this paper is to build a conceptual framework for understanding how in‐depth joint supply chain learning can be successfully developed. This kind of learning is becoming increasingly important in highly turbulent and uncertain economic environments of new and growing interdependencies and complexities.

Using a “synthesizing” or “bricolage” approach, key insights, now dispersed over a variety of literatures and disciplines, are integrated to develop the framework.

The leading facilitative actor's orientations, competencies and behavior play a significant role in enhancing the relationships between the supply chain actors shaping in‐depth joint learning. Starting with establishing interaction boundary conditions by the leading actor, this process is likely to lead to system‐level generative outcomes. These outcomes, in turn, serve the process cycle of in‐depth joint learning as inputs for the relationship building process among all the actors.

By centering on the actual shaping of in‐depth joint learning, and the concrete enactment of roles by protagonists enhancing this process, the paper has opened the black box. Future research should refine the framework.

Apart from giving insight into the repertoire of relational competencies and behaviors needed to enhance the relationship building process conducive to in‐depth joint learning, the paper addresses how these skills can be developed in practice and education.

The paper identifies several implications for research, practice, and education. Instead of focusing predominantly on the content, procedure, levers, or outcomes of learning, the relational construction of the learning process itself is clarified.

Cooperative strategies, both domestic and foreign, have become an important component of the strategic repertoire of firms. Various forms of interfirm alliances are redefining and transforming the very nature of competition. Considering their importance, a solid understanding of their fundamental dynamics is necessary. Different forms of alliances exist: from those that emerge because partners have some preexisting advantages such as geographic proximity or shared history to those that arise because third parties such as governments have created the enabling environment. Looking at the context and operational dynamics of various alliance configurations may help our understanding of how to manage them. This paper presents four configurations or clusters of alliances based on their origins and link the context to operational dynamics. The policy and research implications of the paper are also presented.

Innovation – the process of transforming research ideas into marketable products and services – requires the collaboration of multiple actors across a variety of interactive situations. Increasingly, innovation is recognized as an important driver of economic growth and human development. Understanding the contexts within which these actors – including researchers, university administrators, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, private corporations, and public officials – solve recurrent and often complex problems of collective action is therefore of interest to analysts and policymakers. This task begins with the broader theoretical understanding, emphasized by Austrian economists, of the economy as an intricate, interactive, and interconnected system. In complement, the applications to practical policy analysis, developed by Vincent Ostrom and Elinor Ostrom and their colleagues at the Bloomington School, emphasize the role of crafting rules and designing policies to solve recurrent problems of collective action.