Suchergebnisse

This article explores the moderating effects of in-house formal R&D and industrial environment turbulence on the relationship between institutional drivers, in terms of incentives and pressures, and firm innovation. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of manufacturing firms in Guangdong Province of China, where institutional changes and governmental policies play prominent roles in shaping innovation. Results show a positive main effect of institutional incentives, but an insignificant main effect of institutional pressures. In-house formal R&D and industrial turbulence negatively moderate the institutional incentives–innovations relationship, yet positively moderate the institutional pressures–innovations relationship. This study links the innovation systems literature with the institution-based view and deepens the understanding of the joint forces of institutional transitions, industrial changes, and resource heterogeneity in shaping innovation. The findings also inform managers and policymakers in institutional transition environments to better manage institutional drivers of innovation by considering firm- and industry-specific characteristics. ; Part of this research has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action (Grant No. H2020-MSCA-RISE-2016-734447) Also accessible at https://academic.oup.com/spp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/scipol/scz058/5684867

AbstractThis article explores the moderating effects of in-house formal R&D and industrial environment turbulence on the relationship between institutional drivers, in terms of incentives and pressures, and firm innovation. Hypotheses were tested on a sample of manufacturing firms in Guangdong Province of China, where institutional changes and governmental policies play prominent roles in shaping innovation. Results show a positive main effect of institutional incentives, but an insignificant main effect of institutional pressures. In-house formal R&D and industrial turbulence negatively moderate the institutional incentives–innovations relationship, yet positively moderate the institutional pressures–innovations relationship. This study links the innovation systems literature with the institution-based view and deepens the understanding of the joint forces of institutional transitions, industrial changes, and resource heterogeneity in shaping innovation. The findings also inform managers and policymakers in institutional transition environments to better manage institutional drivers of innovation by considering firm- and industry-specific characteristics.

PurposeExperiencing more frequent, system-wide disruptions, such as pandemics and geopolitical conflicts, supply chains can be largely destabilized by a lack of materials, services or components. Supply chain resilience (SCRES) constitutes the network ability to recover after and survive during such unexpected events. To enhance the understanding of SCRES as a system-wide quality, this study tests a comprehensive SCRES model with data from multiple industries.Design/methodology/approachThe study proposes a theoretical framework conceptualizing SCRES as system quality, extending the classical proactive/reactive taxonomy by multiple system states consisting of the supply system properties, behaviors and responses to disruptions. Underlying hypotheses were tested using an online survey. The sample consists of 219 responses from German industries. Maximum likelihood structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) and moderation analysis were used for analyzing the survey data. The study was particularly designed to elaborate on supply chain theory.FindingsTwo pathways of parallel SCRES building were identified: proactive preparedness via anticipation and reactive responsiveness via agility. Both system responses are primarily built simultaneously rather than successively. The present study further provides empirical evidence on the central role of visibility and velocity in achieving comprehensive SCRES, while flexibility only exerts short-term support after a disruption. The study additionally points to potential "spillover effects" such as the vital role of proactive SCRES in achieving reactive responsiveness.Originality/valueThe present study confirms and expands existing theories on SCRES. While stressing the multidimensionality of SCRES, it theorizes the (inter-)temporal evolution of a system and offers practical guidelines for SCRES building in various industrial contexts. It thus supports the transformation toward more resilient and viable supply chains, contributing to the increasing efforts of middle-range theory building to achieve an overarching theory. The study also points to potential future research avenues.

PurposeThe study aims to examine a discrepant industrial case that demonstrates how to achieve economies of scale with additive manufacturing (AM), thereby expanding the scope of AM beyond high-variety, customised production contexts.Design/methodology/approachAbductive reasoning is applied to analyse a case of using AM to compete with conventional production, winning a contract to supply 7,700,000 products. Comparing this case to existing theories and contemporary practices reveals new research directions and practical insights.FindingsEconomies of scale were realised through a combination of technological innovation and the adoption of operations management practices atypical of AM shops (e.g. design for volume, low-cost resource deployment and material flow optimisation). The former improved AM process parameters in terms of time, cost and dependability; the latter improved the entire manufacturing system, including non-AM operations/resources. This system-wide improvement has been largely overlooked in the literature, where AM is typically viewed as a disruptive technology that simplifies manufacturing processes and shortens supply chains.Originality/valueIt is empirically shown that an AM shop can achieve economies of scale and compete with conventional manufacturing in high-volume, standardised production contexts.

PurposeThis study aims to provide an overall framework that connects and explains a macro-perspective of the findings from the five studies of this special issue. Through this, we aim to answer two main questions: How can Lean and Industry 4.0 be integrated, and what are the outcomes for workers from such integration?Design/methodology/approachThe special issue received 64 papers that were evaluated in multiple stages until this final sample of five papers that describe different facets of the integration between Lean and Industry 4.0 and their relationship with worker activities. In this introduction, we review the main findings of these five studies and propose an integrative view and associated propositions. A discussion provides directions to advance the field further.FindingsThe framework shows that when Lean and Industry 4.0 are integrated, companies will face two types of tensions, dialectical and paradoxical, which require different managerial approaches. By managing such tensions, the Lean-Industry 4.0 integration can help improve social performance, as well as develop systematic problem-solving and cumulative learning capabilities. Five important themes for this field of research are outlined: the importance of work routines, legitimation, competence, sense and mental flexibility.Originality/valueThis study brings a new theoretical perspective to the integration of Lean with Industry 4.0-related digital technologies. The results go beyond the usual view of improving operational performance and dig into the effects on workers. It also shows that the integration process relies on and can enhance human capabilities such as learning and problem-solving.

ABSTRACTWhen introducing production control solutions, most textbooks focus on a to‐stock, repetitive context. In response, we extend the classical match‐and‐dice game, which also assumes a repetitive context, to teach complexities that emerge in a nonrepetitive setting, such as the appearance of direct and indirect load, and to introduce appropriate production control solutions (e.g., Constant Work‐In‐Process [ConWIP] and Control of Balance by Card Based Navigation [COBACABANA]). Two field tests were used to prove the playability of our game and assess its teaching effectiveness using postgame scores and self‐assessment. Both test results give support to our game and highlight that it helps students to understand complex production control issues. Applying the simulation as part of an iterative design process not only ensured the pragmatic validity of our design, but also provided important insights on the production control systems being taught. During the application, we encountered several issues associated with the implementation of these production control systems in practice. In terms of theory, applying the simulation showed that there is a change in mindset required when switching from Kanban to COBACABANA, and physics synchronization is essential for logistics synchronization.

Purpose This study focuses on (re-)introducing computer simulation as a part of the research paradigm. Simulation is a widely applied research method in supply chain and operations management. However, leading journals, such as the International Journal of Operations and Production Management, have often been reluctant to accept simulation studies. This study provides guidelines on how to conduct simulation research that advances theory, is relevant, and matters.Design/methodology/approach This study pooled the viewpoints of the editorial team of the International Journal of Operations and Production Management and authors of simulation studies. The authors debated their views and outlined why simulation is important and what a compelling simulation should look like.Findings There is an increasing importance of considering uncertainty, an increasing interest in dynamic phenomena, such as the transient response(s) to disruptions, and an increasing need to consider complementary outcomes, such as sustainability, which many researchers believe can be tackled by big data and modern analytical tools. But building, elaborating, and testing theory by purposeful experimentation is the strength of computer simulation. The authors therefore argue that simulation should play an important role in supply chain and operations management research, but for this, it also has to evolve away from simply generating and analyzing data. Four types of simulation research with much promise are outlined: empirical grounded simulation, simulation that establishes causality, simulation that supplements machine learning, artificial intelligence and analytics and simulation for sensitive environments.Originality/value This study identifies reasons why simulation is important for understanding and responding to today's business and societal challenges, it provides some guidance on how to design good simulation studies in this context and it links simulation to empirical research and theory going beyond multimethod studies.

Modern slavery and conflict minerals are often treated as two separate grand challenges governed by different legislation, yet conflict mineral settings commonly involve and inflict slavery in supply chains – hence these two wicked problems are deeply interconnected. This paper focuses on due diligence in the context of conflict mineral supply chains, and in doing so provides important insights for modern slavery in general. Using more than 38 hours of recordings from exploratory interviews with 46 experts from 43 organizations, our study investigates: a) how due diligence costs and benefits are actually distributed in supply chains in practice; and b) the means through which due diligence costs and benefits can be (more appropriately) shared. We find that there is a lack of contextualization of cost-sharing mechanisms to conflict mineral supply chains, with most mechanisms being imported from the standard business literature where the producer must pay the production costs before reaping the benefits that offset these costs. But in conflict mineral supply chains, these benefits often do not materialize for the producer and, consequently, cost-sharing mechanisms lead to unintended consequences. The findings question the usefulness of due diligence, call for alternative financing mechanisms, and for contextualized solutions designed from the bottom up. This in turn has important implications for enhancing legislation on modern slavery.

PurposeSupply chains must rebuild for resilience to respond to challenges posed by systemwide disruptions. Unlike past disruptions that were narrow in impact and short-term in duration, the Covid pandemic presented a systemic disruption and revealed shortcomings in responses. This study outlines an approach to rebuilding supply chains for resilience, integrating innovation in areas critical to supply chain management.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on extensive debates among the authors and their peers. The authors focus on three areas deemed fundamental to supply chain resilience: (1) forecasting, the starting point of supply chain planning, (2) the practices of supply chain risk management and (3) product design, the starting point of supply chain design. The authors' debated and pooled their viewpoints to outline key changes to these areas in response to systemwide disruptions, supported by a narrative literature review of the evolving research, to identify research opportunities.FindingsAll three areas have evolved in response to the changed perspective on supply chain risk instigated by the pandemic and resulting in systemwide disruptions. Forecasting, or prediction generally, is evolving from statistical and time-series methods to human-augmented forecasting supplemented with visual analytics. Risk management has transitioned from enterprise to supply chain risk management to tackling systemic risk. Finally, product design principles have evolved from design-for-manufacturability to design-for-adaptability. All three approaches must work together.Originality/valueThe authors outline the evolution in research directions for forecasting, risk management and product design and present innovative research opportunities for building supply chain resilience against systemwide disruptions.

PurposeLean remains popular in a wide range of private and public sectors and continues to attract a significant amount of research. However, most of this research is not grounded in theory. This paper presents and discusses different expert viewpoints on the role of theory in lean research and practice and provides guidelines for future research.Design/methodology/approachSeven experienced lean authors independently provide their views to the question "is Lean a theory?" before Rachna Shah summarizes the viewpoints and provides a holistic outlook for lean research.FindingsAuthors agree, disagree and sometimes agree to disagree. However, a close look reveals agreement on several key points. The paper concludes that Lean is not a theory but has plenty of theoretical underpinnings. Many lean-related theories provide promising opportunities for future research.Originality/valueAs researchers, we are asked to justify our research drawing on "theory," but what does that mean for a practice-driven phenomenon such as lean? This paper provides answers and directions for future research.