How has Japan become a major economic power, a world leader in the automotive and electronics industries? What is the secret of their success? The consensus has been that, though the Japanese are not particularly innovative, they are exceptionally skilful at imitation, at improving products that already exist. But now two leading Japanese business experts, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hiro Takeuchi, turn this conventional wisdom on its head: Japanese firms are successful, they contend, precisely because they are innovative, because they create new knowledge and use it to produce successful products and technologies. Examining case studies drawn from such firms as Honda, Canon, Matsushita, NEC, 3M, GE, and the U.S. Marines, this book reveals how Japanese companies translate tacit to explicit knowledge and use it to produce new processes, products, and services.

The knowledge-creating company : how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation

\"What are your assumptions (implicit as well as explicit) about the most effective way to manage people?\" So began Douglas McGregor in this 1960 management classic. It was a seemingly simple question he asked, yet it led to a fundamental revolution in management. Today, with the rise of the global economy, the information revolution, and the growth of knowledge-driven work, McGregor's simple but provocative question continues to resonate-perhaps more powerfully than ever before. Heralded as one of the most important pieces of management literature ever written, a touchstone for scholars and a handbook for practitioners, The Human Side of Enterprise continues to receive the highest accolades nearly half a century after its initial publication. Influencing such major management gurus such as Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis, McGregor's revolutionary Theory Y-which contends that individuals are self-motivated and self-directed-and Theory X-in which employees must be commanded and controlled-has been widely taught in business schools, industrial relations schools, psychology departments, and professional development seminars for over four decades. In this special annotated edition of the worldwide management classic, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Senior Research Scientist in MIT's Sloan School of Management and Engineering Systems Division, shows us how today's leaders have successfully incorporated McGregor's methods into modern management styles and practices. The added quotes and commentary bring the content right into today's debates and business models. Now more than ever, the timeless wisdom of Douglas McGregor can light the path towards a management style that nurtures leadership capability, creates effective teams, ensures internal alignment, achieves high performance, and cultivates an authentic, value-driven workplace--lessons we all need to learn as we make our way in this brave new world of the 21st century.

The Human Side of Enterprise.

This paper aims to clarify the concept of business models, its usages, and its roles in the Information Systems domain. A review of the literature shows a broad diversity of understandings, usages, and places in the firm. The paper identifies the terminology or ontology used to describe a business model, and compares this terminology with previous work. Then the general usages, roles and potential of the concept are outlined. Finally, the connection between the business model concept and Information Systems is described in the form of eight propositions to be analyzed in future work.

/pdf/clarifying-business-models-origins-present-and-future-of-the-375li6grbd.pdf

Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept

Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

This article argues that current public management theory is not fit for purpose—if it ever has been. It argues that it contains two fatal flaws—it focuses on intraorganizational processes at a time when the reality of public services delivery is interorganizational, and it draws upon management theory derived from the experience of the manufacturing sector and which ignores the reality of public services as “services.” The article subsequently argues for a “public service dominant” approach. This not only more accurately reflects the reality of contemporary public management but also draws upon a body of substantive service-dominant theory that is more relevant to public management than the previous manufacturing focus. We argue that this approach makes an innovative contribution to public management theory in the era of the New Public Governance. The article concludes by exploring the implications of this approach in four domains of public management and by setting a research agenda for a public-service...

A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach:

Lean in healthcare: the unfilled promise?

Co-production is currently one of cornerstones of public policy reform across the globe. Inter alia, it is articulated as a valuable route to public service reform and to the planning and delivery of effective public services, a response to the democratic deficit and a route to active citizenship and active communities, and as a means by which to lever in additional resources to public service delivery. Despite these varied roles, co-production is actually poorly formulated and has become one of a series of ‘woolly-words’ in public policy. This paper presents a conceptualization of co-production that is theoretically rooted in both public management and service management theory. It argues that this is a robust starting point for the evolution of new research and knowledge about co-production and for the development of evidence-based public policymaking and implementation.

/pdf/co-production-and-the-co-creation-of-value-in-public-4u7rqr2wyd.pdf

Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?

This article considers whether public sector organizations regard Lean merely as a set of tools and techniques without considering either the underlying conditions and principles or regard Lean as a philosophy. The authors analyse a series of case studies of Lean in the public sector around four themes—process-based view, focus on value, elimination of waste and employee-driven change—before considering the implementation approach taken and outcomes achieved. The outcomes were significant, but the authors warn against an implementation approach which focuses solely on Lean tools.

Learning to Walk Before We Try to Run: Adapting Lean for the Public Sector

‘Lean’ has become a popular approach to public service reform. In the current era of reduced public spending, it promises to maintain service productivity, improve utilisation and maintain quality. Drawing on literature and empirical data, this paper will argue that the implementation of Lean to date has been defective – it has focused on the technical tools of implementation without an over-arching business logic to validate it. This paper will argue that Lean can only achieve its potential in public services when based within a public service dominant business logic. Without this, Lean is doomed to fail both as a theory and a set of practices.

Zoe Radnor

Papers

A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach:

Lean in healthcare: the unfilled promise?

Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?

Learning to Walk Before We Try to Run: Adapting Lean for the Public Sector

Lean: A failed theory for public services?