Knowledge-sharing Strategies in Distributed Collaborative Product Development

Knowledge-sharing strategies are used across the industry as open innovation and distributed collaboration are becoming more popular to achieve technological competencies, faster time-to-market, competitiveness and growth. Sharing of knowledge can provide benefits to manufacturing and new product development (NPD) companies in improving their product quality and enhancing business potential. This paper examines the implementation of knowledge-sharing strategies in New Zealand aimed at bridging the physical locational issues to achieve collaborative benefits in NPD firms through an in-depth case study. The analysis of this only one, but interesting, case extends a holistic multi-mediation model by Pateli and Lioukas for the effect of functional involvement in a distributed collaborative product development environment. This study explores the external and internal knowledge transfer and how it affects early-stage, late-stage, and the overall product development process. Findings present a knowledge-sharing toolset that enhances innovation in all stages of product development overcoming the environmental factors to improve early and late-stage development through a two-way knowledge-transfer loop with distributed stakeholders. An encouraging management culture is found as key for transparent knowledge transfer across cross-functional teams. The organizational structure and management style play an important role for both external and internal distribution of knowledge.fals

Innovation determinants in manufacturing firms

In this paper the findings of an empirical study concerning the innovation determinants in manufacturing firms is presented. The empirical study covers 184 manufacturing firms located in the Northern Marmara region of Turkey. The types of innovation considered here are product, process, marketing and organizational innovations. An extensive literature survey on innovation determinants is provided. A model is proposed to explore the probable effects and the amount of contribution of the innovation determinants to firm’s innovativeness level. Among all possible determinants considered, intellectual capital has the highest impact on innovativeness followed by organization culture

Taking services seriously: how policy can stimulate the 'hidden innovation' in the UK’s services economy

Policy could have an important role in stimulating innovation in services. However, policymakers have lacked robust evidence showing how these sectors innovate. Drawing on a survey of more than 16,000 firms, this research reveals the high levels of ‘hidden innovation’ in some services sectors, especially in how they develop new business models and exploit technology. But the research also reveals that innovation is confined to a minority of service firms, and that many lack the skilled personnel or intelligence on markets and technology that would enable them to become more innovative. Because of their dominance in the economy, improved performance by the UK’s services sectors is necessary if we are to significantly close the productivity gap between the UK and other leading nations. However, if we are to take innovation in services seriously, we must recognise that they innovate differently from advanced manufacturing. We need policies to support increased training and development, and the effective dissemination and exploitation of technology

Innovation performance and competitive strategies in the Turkish manufacturing industry

In this paper, we report on empirical investigation within the context of the Innovations in Manufacturing Industries in Turkey Study 2004/2005. The data was gathered in nine different cities in Turkey during the period August 2004 – January 2005. The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews due to the complex nature of the survey and was implemented in 135 manufacturing firms operating in four sectors: Textiles, chemicals, food, and metal. The study has been an extension of the European Manufacturing Survey 2004 (EMS 2004) coordinated by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research and covering nine countries: Germany, Turkey, Austria, Switzerland, France, Slovenia, Croatia, Italy, and United Kingdom. An extended version of the questionnaire form used in EMS 2004 has been employed. Some of the basic results concerning competitive priorities, new product development, and operations management are presented

Innovative capabilities, operations priorities and corporate performance in manufacturing firms

The purpose of this paper is to explore the linkage between innovative capabilities and operations priorities and corporate performance and try to answer the question of how innovative capabilities support a manufacturing firm’s operations priorities and corporate performance. By using survey data from 184 manufacturing firms, firms are clustered according to their innovative capabilities. These clusters are explored in terms of operations priorities and corporate performance. The findings substantiate that manufacturing firms can be clustered according to their innovative capabilities. Each innovation cluster adopts and develops different operations priorities and they attain diverse financial performance levels implying that there are alternative ways to compete in the market even within the same industry. However, each alternative strategy provides diverse levels of benefits. The findings demonstrate further that high performing firms compete effectively on multiple operations priorities simultaneously. Hence, firms need to excel in multiple priorities and innovation types in their market

An empirical study into the determinants of innovativeness in manufacturing firms

The main objective of this paper is to report on the findings of an empirical study on the determinants of innovativeness in manufacturing firms. The empirical study covers 184 manufacturing firms located in the Northern Marmara region of Turkey. The types of innovation are taken as product, process, marketing and organizational innovations as suggested in the Oslo Manual 2005 published by OECD. A model is proposed to explore the probable effects and the amount of contribution of the determinants of innovativeness to innovativeness level. Among all possible determinants of innovativeness considered, intellectual capital has the highest impact on innovativeness followed by firm culture

Effects of innovation types on firm performance

Innovation is broadly seen as an essential component of competitiveness, embedded in the organizational structures, processes, products, and services within a firm. The objective of this paper is to explore the effects of the organizational, process, product, and marketing innovations on the different aspects of firm performance, including innovative, production, market, and financial performances, based on an empirical study covering 184 manufacturing firms in Turkey. A theoretical framework is empirically tested identifying the relationships amid innovations and firm performance through an integrated innovation-performance analysis. The results reveal the positive effects of innovations on firm performance in manufacturing industries

Effects of innovation types on firm performance

Innovation is broadly seen as an essential component of competitiveness, embedded in the organizational structures, processes, products, and services within a firm. The objective of this paper is to explore the effects of the organizational, process, product, and marketing innovations on the different aspects of firm performance, including innovative, production, market, and financial performances, based on an empirical study covering 184 manufacturing firms in Turkey. A theoretical framework is empirically tested identifying the relationships amid innovations and firm performance through an integrated innovation-performance analysis. The results reveal the positive effects of innovations on firm performance in manufacturing industries

Make-or-buy configurational approaches in product-service ecosystems and performance

This research examines firm boundary configurations for manufacturers' product-service offerings. We argue that the building of a product-service ecosystem through collaboration with service providers in certain types of business services can increase performance as a result of the superior knowledge-based resources coming from specialized partners. By using fuzzy set qualitative analysis on a sample of 370 multinational manufacturing enterprises (MMNEs), the results reveal that effective servitization is heterogeneous across manufacturing industries and across business service offerings. The findings indicate that most industries achieve their highest performance through collaborations with value-added service providers in two out of three of the service continuum stages (Base and Intermediate services); while keeping the development of Advanced services in-house. The results help to contextualize the best practices for implementing service business models in MMNEs by detailing which service capabilities should be retained in-house and which should be outsourced to specialized partners in various industrial contexts.Peer ReviewedPreprin

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Many capital good firms deliver products that are not strictly one-off, but instead share a certain degree of similarity with other deliveries. In the delivery of the product, they aim to balance stability and variety in their product design and processes. The issue of engineering change plays an important in how they manage to do so. Our aim is to gain more understanding into how capital good firms manage engineering change, design variety and process variety, and into the role of the product delivery strategies they thereby use. Product delivery strategies are defined as the type of engineering work that is done independent of an order and the specification freedom the customer has in the remaining part of the design. Based on the within-case and cross-case analysis of two capital good firms several mechanisms for managing engineering change, design variety and process variety are distilled. It was found that there exist different ways of (1) managing generic design information, (2) isolating large engineering changes, (3) managing process variety, (4) designing and executing engineering change processes. Together with different product delivery strategies these mechanisms can be placed within an archetypes framework of engineering change management. On one side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to open product delivery strategies, have some practices in place to investigate design reuse potential, isolate discontinuous engineering changes into the first deliveries of the product, employ ‘probe and learn’ process management principles in order to allow evolving insights to be accurately executed and have informal engineering change processes. On the other side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to a closed product delivery strategy, focus on prevention of engineering changes based on design standards, need no isolation mechanisms for discontinuous engineering changes, have formal process management practices in place and make use of closed and formal engineering change procedures. The framework should help managers to (1) analyze existing configurations of product delivery strategies, product and process designs and engineering change management and (2) reconfigure any of these elements according to a ‘misfit’ derived from the framework. Since this is one of the few in-depth empirical studies into engineering change management in the capital good sector, our work adds to the understanding on the various ways in which engineering change can be dealt with