Karteikarten
SM
Karten in diesem Stapel (32)
- 1Schumpeter, 1942Large firms have the technological capabilities and infrastructure needed to innovate continuously
- 2Hill and Rothaermel, 2003Organizational inertia: keep going on current trajectory
Startups have the economic incentive to make investments in unproven technologies that have a high risk high return profile - 3Teece, 1986Complementary assets: HR, sales team, marketing, supply chain expertise
- 4Bessant et al, 2005Serendipitous element to innovation
Existing players who may be strong in the mature phase of an existing trajectory might find it hard to move into the new one - 5Gilbert et al, 1984Profitable firms likely to invest less in producing radical innovations than new entrants for fear of cannibalizing existing products
- 6Yu and Hang, 2010A firm's culture is a critical component of its success
Large firms fear cannibalization thus "less likely to develop disruptive innovations" - 7Christensen and Raynor, 2003Size of firm negatively correlated with success of disruptive innovation
- 8Shapiro and Varian, 1999Standards wars: battle for market dominance between incompatible technologies i.e. netscape failed to compete with firefox and internet explorer, lost standard war and disappears
- 9Schilling, 2002Several standards may compete for years/decades i.e. firefox chrome
Locked out of market (if technology incompatible with dominant design)
Timing needs to be just right - 10Christensen, 1997Disruptive technologies (replace existing products, typically worse performance short term) differ from sustaining technologies (improve existing product performance)
- 11Paap and Katz, 2004Predict future disruption by not ignoring current and potential customers
- 12Markides, 2006Dilemma for established firms: new ways of competing conflict with existing ways
Pioneers that create new to the world markets rarely able to scale up to mass market (Xerox GUI, mass market Apple or Microsoft) - 13Adner, 2002consumer switch from sustaining to disruptive innovation due to decreasing marginal utility from performance improvement
- 14Leonard, 1998Managers do not design large firms for innovation
- 15Hall and Saias, 1980Structure: conceptual and functional framework of an organization, as well as configuration of its resources
Strategy grows out of structure
As strategy changes structure will have to follow "mismatch will result in inefficiency"
Firms try to meet environmental and structural demands without realizing they implicitly adopted a new strategy - 16Daft and Lewin, 1993Information appears to be instrumental for greater effectiveness
Greater effort to empower workers with the authority to make decisions (how much autonomy?)
Management of organizations undergoing a paradigm shift, moving away from bureaucracy towards flexibility - 17Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2000Organizational physiology
A clear sense of corporate purpose
No matter how clear the vision or purpose it cannot succeed unless employees understand and accept the company's stated goals and objectives - 18Becker and Stafford, 1967As organizations grow so do their assets and employees
- 19Duncan, 1972Bureaucratic structure restricts perceptual ability of organization as well as flow and speed of communication within it
- 20Greiner, 1972Growth in organizations consist of phases of evolution and revolution
A major solution in one time period can become a major problem at a later date - 21Balogun and Johnson, 2005Organizational change is a context-dependent, unpredictable, non linear process
Intended strategies often lead to unintended outcomes - 22D'aveni, 1989Organizations tend to alter activities principally when performance is poor
- 23Harris and Ogbonna, 2002Ivory tower planning: people responsible for cultural change ignorant of realities
- 24Collins and Montgomery, 2000Issues in corporate strategy "one size does not fit all"
Company's resources define the businesses that make sense for it to own and those that do not
Some companies fit the lean mode, while others require richer and deeper infrastructures
Company's businesses must not be worth more to another owner (acid test)
Many strategies do not enhance value - 25Langlois and Robertson, 1989Firms could find it cheaper to acquire capabilities necessary to produce its own inputs
Integration forced upon Ford (cost more to explain process of automobile manufacture to tool makers than to diversify into tool design) - 26Jacobides and Billinger, 2006Any given firm is as good as its weakest link
No company's strategy can endure without continual pressure to improve - 27Camuffo et al, 2001Zara fully vertically integrated supply chain
- 28Peters and Waterman, 1982stick to their knitting
- 29Campbell et al, 1995Most businesses have parenting opportunities (consulting firms being acquired by much larger firms booz pwc parthenon EY, monitor (Porters firm) deloitte
Companies without sound corporate level strategies lose strength and fall prey to hostile predators or become emaciated from periodic downsizing and cost cutting - 30Baden-Fuller and Stopford, 1991Inevitability of the superiority of global strategies
- 31Harzing, 2002Two different types of international strategies
Global: high level of global competition, interconnecting with national product markets, focus on capturing economies of scope and scale, prefer greenfields
Multidomestic: lower level of global competition, compete predominantly on domestic level, adapts product and policies to various local markets, prefer acquisitions - 32Ghoshal and Moran, 1996Organizations fail when they cannot build trust and commitment needed to maintain cooperation
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am SM, erstellt von facialhydratingc am 29/05/2015.
- Erstellt von
- facialhydratingc
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung