Monday, November 25, 2013

One Hundred Years of Management - American Paradigms and the Japanese Management “Reloaded” - Thesis Information

One Hundred Years of Management
American Paradigms and the Japanese Management “Reloaded”

 Institute of Management
Department of Management and Organization

Supervisor: Prof. Miklós Dobák

© Balázs Vaszkun, 2012

In spite of its European roots, management, as a field of study or science, was born in  the United States of America. “Management is an American term and an American  creation”, writes Locke (1996: 1). Therefore, we must start our investigation for the  evolution of management in the “New World”. But in order to study change, it seems logical to direct special attention to Japan as well, the country which heavily impacted American management. Japan is even more interesting due to her fascinating story of  rising to the “second biggest” position after World War II, and then fading with the  bubble burst. How has management evolved in the States and how could Japan take over such a great share of the global trade? Was it just an inevitable “paradigm shift”?  For somebody familiar with Taylor, Mayo, Fayol, Drucker and other “gurus” of
management, the U.S. seems to evolve through distinctive phases or paradigms
somehow separate from each other. How was this once powerful Japanese management system created and why could it not retain its supremacy? Did those evolutionary changes follow a logical pattern and can they be explained? These questions will serve as a structure for the following chapters.

Lean Manufacturing - Production - Research Papers and Thesis

Exploring organizational translation A case study of changes toward Lean Production
Jostein Langstrand
February 2012

Department of Management and Engineering
Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

The thesis is based on a longitudinal case study that has focused on the
introduction of the management concept Lean in a large Swedish
manufacturing company. The study has been performed in two phases. In
the first phase, a series of retrospective interviews have been performed with
employees at all hierarchical levels within the company. The second phase
of the study has been based on a prospective approach. This phase has
comprised a combination of interviews, observations and document studies,
with focus on a pilot project within the company. The study was performed
between 2007 and 2011 and covers events between 2003 and 2011.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Innovation Process Participant Benefits and Motivation

To analyse whether an innovation will be worthwhile, the focus is on the economic value of the outcome of the innovation process. “Will it earn enough profit from use internally  or sale  to justify the money and time required to develop it?” is the question answered.

However, this standard cost-benefit assessment is found to be seriously incomplete when applied to individual innovators. The individuals who participate in innovation projects  can gain significant benefits from participation in a development process as well as — or even instead of — benefits from using or selling the innovation created.[1]

The finding comes from some other situations, wherein problem solving is known to be valued by participants for the process itself. People often engage in problem solving for the value of participating in the process — independent of any value derived from the solution found. Crossword puzzles provide a good example. Crossword solvers spend hours working hard to solve a crossword puzzle. Their reward is entirely in the fun of solving, not in the solution found. (After all, the solution is already known to the puzzle designer.) Indeed, if you were to offer avid crossword puzzle fans the puzzle solution to save them the effort of doing the puzzle for themselves, your offer would certainly be declined — and you might well be reproached and told not to spoil the fun.

 Definition: “Innovation process benefits” are those benefits that innovators will get if they directly participate in the innovation development process — and will not get if somebody just hands them the solution to an innovation challenge. Important examples of innovation process benefits include enjoyment and learning obtained from participation in the project, as well as reputational gains obtained from being known as having made high-quality contributions.

Innovation process benefits are distinct from benefits associated with using or selling the innovation created. They are only available to participants in the development process.

A study in Finland asked a representative sample of individual consumer-innovators to identify five reasons for their total motivation to develop a particular innovation.[4] When  the five reasons were sorted  into output-related and process-related motives, the results was  that output-related motives that have to do with benefiting from the innovation itself (a combination of personal use and potential profit) represent 54% of consumer-innovators’ total motivation, on average. Process motives (enjoyment of and learning from participating in the innovation process and satisfaction derived from undertaking an effort to help others) account for 45% of their total motivation, on average.


1. N. Franke and M. Schreier, “Why Customers Value Mass-Customized Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 27, no. 7 (December 2010): 1020-1031.

2. K.R. Lakhani and R.G. Wolf, “Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in “Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software,” ed. J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S.A. Hissam and K.R. Lakhani (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2005): 3-21.

3. G. von Krogh, S. Häfliger, S. Späth and M. Wallin, “Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development,” MIS Quarterly 36, no. 2 (June 2012): 649-676; and Lakhani and Wolf, “Hackers.”

4. J. De Jong, F. Gault, J. Kuusisto and E. von Hippel, “The Diffusion of Consumer-Developed Products in Finland: Evidence of Market Failure,” working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2013.

5. C. Hienerth, E. von Hippel and M. Berg Jensen, “User Community vs. Producer Innovation Development Efficiency: A First Empirical Study,” Research Policy, in press.

7. N. Yee, “Motivations for Play in Online Games,” CyberPsychology & Behavior 9, no. 6 (December 2006): 772-775.

10. C. Franzoni and H. Sauermann, “Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects,” Research Policy, in press.

11. J. Füller, K. Hutter and R. Faullant, “Why Co-Creation Experience Matters? Creative Experience and Its Impact on the Quantity and Quality of Creative Contributions,” R&D Management 41, no. 3 (June 2011): 259-273.

3. J. Füller, “What Motivates Creative Consumers to Participate in Virtual New Product Development?” American Marketing Association Educators Proceedings 18 (summer 2007): 111-121.

14. R.M. Stock, P. Oliveira and E. von Hippel, “Impacts of Hedonic and Utilitarian Motives on the Novelty and Utility of User-Developed Innovations,” working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2013.

15. L. Dahlander and M. Magnusson, “How Do Firms Make Use of Open Source Communities?” Long Range Planning 41, no. 6 (December 2008): 629-649.

16. K.J. Boudreau and K R. Lakhani, “High Incentives, Sorting on Skills — Or Just a Taste for Competition? Field Experimental Evidence from an Algorithm Design Contest,” working paper 11-107, Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Management Unit, Boston, Massachusetts, 2011; and B.M. Hill and A. Monroy-Hernández, “The Remixing Dilemma: The Trade-off Between Generativity and Originality,” American Behavioral Scientist 57, no. 5 (May 2013): 643-663.

17. G.S. Becker, “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” Economic Journal 75, no. 299 (September 1965): 493-517; and R. Gronau, “Leisure, Home Production and Work — The Theory of the Allocation of Time Revisited,” Journal of Political Economy 85, no. 6 (December 1977): 1099-1123.

18. Christina Raasch and Eric von Hippel     "Innovation Process Benefits: The Journey as Reward", Sloan Management Review, Fall 2013

Sunday, October 13, 2013

50 Themes in Management Research - 2007-2012

Today 50 themes that had contributions during 2007 to 2012 were identified to further develop them with literature review and further research scope. Such a collection should help aspiring researchers to evaluate the current themes and choose their research topic from currently researched areas. They have many times familiarity with textbook topics and do not have exposure to currently researched areas.


Leadership Succession

Theory of Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Enablers of Frugal Innovation: Propositions - Rajnish Tiwari and Cornelius Herstatt - 2012 Working Paper

Open Global Innovation Networks as Enablers of Frugal Innovation: Propositions Based on Evidence from India
Rajnish Tiwari
Cornelius Herstatt
December 2012

Working Paper No. 72

An edited & peer-reviewed version of this paper has been published as “Frugal Innovation: A Global Networks’ Perspective” in: Die Unternehmung, 66(3): 245-274.

Hamburg University of Technology
Schwarzenbergstr. 95, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany

“Low-income markets present a prodigious opportunity for the world’s wealthiest companies – to seek their fortunes and bring prosperity to the aspiring poor.”
(Prahalad and Hart, 2002, 2)


Frugal innovations have a greater chance of commercial success if their value proposition
incorporates the twin objectives of reducing the cost-of-ownership while matching
customer aspirations for quality and image.

Companies can increase the probability of offering an attractive value proposition for successful frugal innovations if they are able to successfully connect their product development process with global innovation networks.

Setting up innovation capabilities in product-specific “lead markets” increases the
probability to identify and access suitable global innovation networks.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Strategic Management - Research Methodology Issues

2011 Paper

Research Methodology in Strategic Management Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges
David J. Ketchen Jr, Brian K. Boyd and Donald D. Bergh
Organizational Research Methods October 2008 vol. 11 no. 4 643-658

2008 paper

Michael A. Hitt, Brian K. Boyd and Dan Li
Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 1, 1–31, 2004