著者

Shumpei Iwao Yumi Kato

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.6, pp.251-262, 2019-12-15 (Released:2019-12-15)

参考文献数

18

被引用文献数

1 3

---

The keiretsu, or long-term stable business network that exists between Toyota and its suppliers, seems to demonstrate exceptional resilience in the face of natural disasters. Toyota shares production knowledge among the firms in its keiretsu through long-term kaizen-based inter-company learning activities (jishuken). In this regard, we have confirmed that (A) in times of normal operations, jishuken adopt a flat structure of interpersonal connections among firms that facilitates mutual trust. From case studies, we also found that (B) in times of disaster response, the structure “switches” to a hierarchical one with a clearly delineated leadership to bring knowledge and human resources into play.

著者

Atsushi AKIIKE Shumpei IWAO

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, no.5, pp.231-246, 2015-10-15 (Released:2015-10-15)

参考文献数

60

被引用文献数

5 4

---

The Innovator's Dilemma (Christensen, 1997) has been cited in many studies since Christensen published it in 1997. Some of these studies have advocated that concepts such as “dynamic capability,” “ambidexterity,” and “market orientation” can be used to overcome the environmental changes caused by the innovator's dilemma. However, these studies are categorized into two general types that are not logical refutations: (a) those which merely suggest the concept without suggesting an opposing example, and (b) those which do not demonstrate that a trajectory disruption has occurred even when suggesting an example. We must demonstrate that a trajectory disruption has occurred and then suggest a case in which the environmental changes were mitigated to suggest an example of overcoming the innovator's dilemma. However, arguments exist that doubt Christensen's concept of trajectory disruption, indicating that the arguments are not facile.

著者

Hiroki KIKUCHI Shumpei IWAO

出版者

グローバルビジネスリサーチセンター・東京大学MERC

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

pp.0160213a, (Released:2016-05-13)

参考文献数

17

被引用文献数

1 4

---

Since the development of the idea of dynamic capabilities by Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997), it has been broadly discussed. However, there is no general view regarding the types of competencies that can be called dynamic capabilities. Teece et al. (1997) asserted that dynamic capabilities are one of the roles of organizational processes. Moreover, they asserted that organizational processes include static concepts, such as integration and coordination. This fact caused some confusion. Helfat and Winter (2011) contrasted the two concepts of operational and dynamic capabilities. They noted that the source of confusion was the fact that some competencies possess the nature of both concepts. In other words, three types of capabilities exist: pure operational, pure dynamic, and hybrid capabilities possessing both features. Helfat and Winter (2011) presented the example of corporate growth, such as an expansion in retail stores, an area where pure dynamic capabilities without any operational capabilities can be observed. Therefore, if pure dynamic capabilities are the pure competencies necessary for corporate growth, it is highly likely that these are the same competencies posited by Penrose (1959), who differentiated between economies of growth and economies of size. Takahashi (2015) conjectured that competencies that become resources unused for anything but growth are, more specifically, “competencies for start-up experts.”

著者

Shumpei IWAO

出版者

グローバルビジネスリサーチセンター・東京大学MERC

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, no.5, pp.279-291, 2015-10-15 (Released:2015-10-15)

参考文献数

31

被引用文献数

2 4

---

The technical term “organizational routine” has been broadly used in management and organizational science. The study by Nelson and Winter (1982) is considered to be the origin of this terminology. However, Nelson and Winter (1982) were not management scientists, but they were evolutionary economists. Researchers in both evolutionary economics and management science used organizational routine as a unit of analysis, but three major conceptual differences exist with the definition of organizational routine used in management science. For example, Nelson and Winter (1982) explain that (a) each company has an organizational routine; (b) organizational routines change through natural selection after random mutation; and (c) the organizational routines of one organization can be easily transplanted to other organizations. However, observation of actual firms from management science perspective reveals that (a) each company has many organizational routines that combine in a mosaic-like fashion; (b) the creation, imitation, and selection of organizational routines are intentional; and (c) transplanting an organizational routine is difficult due to needs for coordination. These points are clear from a review of the literature on these topics called as “routine dynamics.” In recent years, scholars have regarded routine dynamics as a new framework for the theory of organizational routine. However, routine dynamics tends to focus less on the need for the coordination mentioned in (c). This study employs a case study of the failure of Company A—an automaker—to implement Toyota's production methods and to indicate that future analysis for changes in organizational routines must be considered from the perspective of coordination.