ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN PROCESS-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

This paper investigates the role of the organization structure in process-based organizations. We argue that companies cannot be designed upon organizational processes only or that process management can be simply imposed as an additional structural dimension on top of the existing functional or product dimension. It is more promising to consider process-based companies as organizations with a multidimensional structure with process ownership as a dominant dimension. The paper focuses on a number of consequences of the implementation of process-based organization structures. First, the complementary role of different types of processes is clarified. Second, we focus on the question how processes can be translated into the design of organizational units. Two key ideas underpin a process-based organizational structure. First, organizational units are organized around core processes. Second, other processes are added to these units minimizing the necessity of cross-unit coordination. This has several implications for planning and control activities and the way how process-based business units fit together to create a performing corporation. The latter can no longer be conceived within the traditional strategy- structure paradigm because of the fundamentally different role of middle and top managers.management and organization theory ;

Effective knowledge transfer to SMEs

EIM examined to what extent small and medium-sized enterprises may be stimulated to absorb more know-how in respect of for instance new process technology to use that know-how for in-company business process upgrading. The study focuses primarily on the cluster of businesses hardly involved in technological innovation, and examines to what degree knowledge about marketing and know-how management is employed to stimulate the absorption of know-how among retarded businesses.

How to manage people who think. A structural approach.

This is a paper about creativity, diversity and other often used buzzwords. It is also a paper about how to manage people who think. Today we live in a world in which computers and mobile phones have become the key artifacts. Nokia´s slogan ”connecting people” expresses in a brilliant way what it is all about. When we connect people information is transfered and new knowledge hopefully created. And innovations, ideas and individuals are central for everything that takes place. We are all supposed to be flexible, exercising our knowledge in a setting characterized by diversity. This setting is also characterized by paradoxes that I will write more about further down. But transformations such as the globalization and implementing of new information technology race crucial questions about how to deal with a changing economic landscape and new mindsets and changing attitudes. The pages that follow is based on extensive reading of the literature and participating in many conferences and work-shops. In addition to this I have interviewed managers and employees at Electrolux, Ericsson, TeliaSonera and The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise. I have asked people in the above mentioned organizations how they react to concepts such as the knowledge society and the practice of managing knowledge, creativity, diversity and flexibility. This paper is written with a Scandinavian perspective. It is also written with a social constructionist perspective. The theoretical framework includes theories about knowledge management, structuration theory and cognitive theories. The findings are based on interpretative research and I have systematically reflected over the material I have collected. I direct myself towards people in business who think and worry about the future. The purpose is to inspire to further discussions about these very important matters.Knowledge management; structuration theory; knowledge society; globalization; creativity; diversity; flexibility.

Problem-Solving Behaviours, Organisational Forms and the Complexity of Tasks

--

The knowledge domain of chain and network science

This editorial paper aims to provide a framework to categorise and evaluate the domain of Chain and Network Science (CNS), and to provide an envelope for the research and management agenda. The authors strongly feel that although considerable progress has been made over the past couple of years in the development of the CNS domain, a number of important and exciting challenges are still waiting to be tackled. This paper provides a definition of the object of study of CNS, its central problem area, the organisation and governance of chain and network co-operation, and the relationships between chain organisation and technology development, market dynamics, and the economy and society at large. It indicates relevant sources of knowledge among the various academic disciplines. It touches upon CNS problem solving by identifying areas for knowledge development and CNS tool construction

Strategic perspectives on modularity

In this paper we argue that the debate on modularity has come to a point where a consensus is slowly emerging. However, we also contend that this consensus is clearly technology driven. In particular, no room is left for firm strategies. Typically, technology is considered as an exogenous variable to which firms have no choices but to adapt. Taking a slightly different perspective, our main objective is to offer a conceptual framework enabling to shed light on the role of corporate strategies in the process of modularization. From interviews with academic design engineers, we show that firms often consider product architecture as a critical variable to fit their strategic requirements. Based on design sciences, we build an original approach to product modularity. This approach, which leaves an important space for firms' strategic choices, proves also to seize a large part of the industrial reality of modularity. Our framework, which is a first step towards the consideration of strategies within the framework of modularity, gives an account for the diversity of industrial logics related to product modularization.product modularity ; corporate strategy ; technological determinism

Risk Management in an Age of Change

The environment in which banks and other financial services industry firms operate was once very stable. It is now increasingly permeated with change. Enhanced performance demands make this change salient to high-level decision-makers. Many of the opportunities firms now face are path-dependent and this will continue to be so. For firms to make effective choices in such an environment, both competitive strategy and the strategy-making process must come to terms with opportunities which evolve over time. Old decision-making systems and attitudes are unhelpful in this and may even be impediments to good outcomes. Risk inevitably features in getting these decisions right. All strategic decisions induce and impose constraints on the types of risk banks traditionally monitor and manage. This needs to be explicitly considered and is generally not. Strategic decisions also impose a new type of risk, detailed here, which also needs to be analyzed, monitored, and controlled. All these activities require changes, discussed in detail, both in decision-making protocols and in the organizational structures and routines supporting decision-making.

Analyzing Product Efficiency – A Customer-Oriented Approach

The purpose of this study is to provide a broader, economic perspective on customer value management. By developing an efficiency-based concept of customer value we aim at contributing to the presently underrepresented research field of marketing economics. The customer value concept is utilized to assess product performance and eventually to determine the competitive market structure and the product-market boundaries. Our analytical approach to product-market structuring based on customer value is developed within a microeconomic framework. We measure customer value as the product efficiency viewed from the customer’s perspective, i.e., as a ratio of outputs (e.g., resale value, reliability, safety, comfort) that customers obtain from a product relative to inputs (price, running costs) that customers have to deliver in exchange. The efficiency value derived can be understood as the return on the customer’s investment. Products offering a maximum customer value relative to all other alternatives in the market are characterized as efficient. Different efficient products may create value in different ways using different strategies (output-input- combinations). Each efficient product can be viewed as a benchmark for a distinct sub-market. Jointly, these products form the efficient frontier, which serves as a reference function for the inefficient products. Thus, we define customer value of alternative products as a relative concept. Market partitioning is achieved endogenously by clustering products in one segment that are benchmarked by the same efficient peer(s). This ensures that only products with a similar output-input structure are partitioned into the same sub-market. As a result, a sub-market consists of highly substitutable products. In addition, value-creating strategies (i.e., indications of how to vary inputs and outputs) to improve product performance in order to offer maximum customer value are provided. The impact of each performance parameter on customer value is determined, identifying the value drivers among them. This methodological framework is applied to data of the 1996 German Automobile Club (ADAC) survey.Customer Value, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Efficiency Analysis, Market Partitioning, Product-Market Structuring

Analyzing Product Efficiency – A Customer-Oriented Approach

The purpose of this study is to provide a broader, economic perspective on customer value management. By developing an efficiency-based concept of customer value we aim at contributing to the presently underrepresented research field of marketing economics. The customer value concept is utilized to assess product performance and eventually to determine the competitive market structure and the product-market boundaries. Our analytical approach to product-market structuring based on customer value is developed within a microeconomic framework. We measure customer value as the product efficiency viewed from the customer’s perspective, i.e., as a ratio of outputs (e.g., resale value, reliability, safety, comfort) that customers obtain from a product relative to inputs (price, running costs) that customers have to deliver in exchange. The efficiency value derived can be understood as the return on the customer’s investment. Products offering a maximum customer value relative to all other alternatives in the market are characterized as efficient. Different efficient products may create value in different ways using different strategies (output-input- combinations). Each efficient product can be viewed as a benchmark for a distinct sub-market. Jointly, these products form the efficient frontier, which serves as a reference function for the inefficient products. Thus, we define customer value of alternative products as a relative concept. Market partitioning is achieved endogenously by clustering products in one segment that are benchmarked by the same efficient peer(s). This ensures that only products with a similar output-input structure are partitioned into the same sub-market. As a result, a sub-market consists of highly substitutable products. In addition, value-creating strategies (i.e., indications of how to vary inputs and outputs) to improve product performance in order to offer maximum customer value are provided. The impact of each performance parameter on customer value is determined, identifying the value drivers among them. This methodological framework is applied to data of the 1996 German Automobile Club (ADAC) survey.Customer Value, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Efficiency Analysis, Market Partitioning, Product-Market Structuring