Search results

The customer order decoupling point (CODP) concept addresses the issue of customer engagement in the manufacturing process. This has traditionally been applied to material flows, but has more recently been applied to engineering activities. This later subject becomes of particular importance to companies operating in “engineer-to-order” (ETO) supply chains, where each order is potentially unique. Existing conceptualisations of ETO are too generic for practical purposes, so there is a need to better understand order penetration in the context of engineering activities, especially design. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to address the question “how do customer penetration concepts apply to engineering design activities?”

A collaborative form of inquiry is adopted, whereby academics and practitioners co-operated to develop a conceptual framework. Within this overarching research design, a focus group of senior practitioners and multiple case studies principally from complex civil and structural engineering as well as scientific equipment projects are used to explore the framework.

The framework results in a classification of nine potential engineering subclasses, and insight is given into order penetration points, major uncertainties and enablers via the case studies. Focus group findings indicate that different managerial approaches are needed across subclasses.

The findings give insight for companies that engage directly with customers on a one-to-one basis, outlining the extent of customer penetration in engineering activities, associated operational strategies and choices regarding the co-creation of products with customers. Care should be taken in generalising beyond the sectors addressed in the study.

The paper refines the definition of the ETO concept, and gives a more complete understanding of customer penetration concepts. It provides a comprehensive reconceptualization of the ETO category, supported by exploratory empirical research.

Hewlett-Packard (HP) had a long history of engaging in corporate citizenship, dating back to its founding. By 2009, however, under the leadership of its latest CEO, Mark Hurd, the company had lost its focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Hurd instead focused on undertaking a financial turnaround and overcoming other reputational challenges; he viewed CSR and philanthropic efforts as costs rather than as strategic levers. He instituted widespread cost-cutting measures to get HP back on track, including reducing CSR expenditure. The HP board, however, did not want to let CSR go by the wayside; in fact, it wanted HP to reorganize and restrategize its approach to corporate citizenship.

The case focuses on this strategic transformation from traditional, cost-center CSR to business-aligned social innovation. It outlines the details of the board's approval of the new strategy, and then discusses how HP employees worked to reorganize their CSR activity. The new team, the Office of Global Social Innovation (OGSI), had to devise a pilot project to demonstrate the new approach. The project under consideration was an engagement that would improve the early infant diagnosis process for testing infants for HIV in Kenya—an area virtually unknown to HP. The case asks students to assess the work of the OGSI team thus far, and to put themselves in the shoes of one team member who had to justify the project to HP's leadership.

The case is especially important for demonstrating the most recent shifts across some leading companies regarding how they position CSR, as well as how for-profit leaders can structure partnerships for impact.

After reading and analyzing the case, students will be able to: understand current shifts from traditional corporate social responsibility work to social innovation; understand the challenges facing leading companies as they seek to do well (enhance the company's bottom-line performance) by doing good (making social impact); identify best practices for developing partnerships for impact; articulate a project's social impact and how it aligns with a desirable business impact.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically test for fundamental attribution error (FAE) – the naturally occurring bias of humans to over-attribute business success to celebrity-entrepreneur disposition.

Employing a five-step process, this paper measures and tests for FAE bias in entrepreneurial situations. The methodology includes anecdotal historical evidence; developing a FAE survey instrument; having 101 respondents classify variables; statistically testing and validating the instrument; and then statistically identifying the importance of each factor with a sample 105.

Significant statistical evidence for an active FAE bias was found. People do tend to attribute business success to entrepreneurial dispositions, rather than team behavior and circumstantial outcome factors which can reduce the effectiveness of public policy.

There is minimal research on FAE in entrepreneurship effecting public policy, thus there is a need for research to better understand factors of business outcomes actually based on entrepreneurial dispositions vs team behavior and circumstantial-situational factors.

FAE bias may lead the general public, entrepreneurs, and public policy makers to overemphasize the impact of the entrepreneur’s behavior and especially the dispositional factors of the celebrity-based entrepreneur when assessing causation of firm performance. This would under-emphasize the value of other organizational factors. Misidentification of true cause-effect factors may lead to inappropriate managerial conclusions and introduction of error in public policy decisions.

Although FAE is primarily a psychological literature concept, this is the first study to contribute empirical evidence of the FAE of professionals employed in business as it applies to entrepreneurship and economic outcomes.

The legend of Porsche Chief Executive Peter Schutz pacing the pits at Le Mans with tears in his eyes after a motor racing success is very much the stuff corporate cultures are reared from.

The authors present a case study of how Hewlett‐Packard is changing its culture under the direction of its new chief executive Carly Fiorina. Fiorina says her challenge is “to make sure HP represents the next century rather than the last one.” To prepare for the future, company leaders saw the need to create a “New HP Way.” Under the new way, all HP employees — but especially managers — must be leaders who generate enthusiasm and respond with extra effort to meet customer needs. They must personally accept responsibility and are encouraged to upgrade their skills and capabilities through ongoing training and development.

Although there are many companies in the computer industry which represent excellent examples of success stories, Apple Computers, Hewlett Packard, and Microsoft, were chosen because each pioneered specific areas of the computer industry. For Apple computers it was the move from large main frame computer systems to personal computers; Hewlett Packard led the industry in developing both high quality and low cost ink jet and laser printers; and Microsoft launched their multi‐billion dollar business developing software compatible with Apple and IBM computers. Getting to market first helped each one of these companies establish themselves as a leader in the industry, but as all three companies understand, today's products quickly become obsolete in this constantly changing industry.

While the term “knowledge management” is relatively new, many of the concepts have deep historical roots. Hewlett‐Packard’s strong culture and traditional business practices established an environment that encouraged innovation and the sharing of knowledge throughout the company. However, the reliance on local and informal approaches eventually became a weakness when the company had to deal with rapid growth and increased competitive pressures. The growing gap between the potential and actual value of HP’s collective intellectual assests was reflected in a widely quoted management complaint from the 1980s, “If only HP knew what HP knows.” However, the need for more explicit and deliberate strategies for managing knowledge has only recently become clear, as the disruptive technology of the Internet and the World Wide Web triggered an explosion in the availability of information and knowledge, but did nothing to expand our limited attention capacity.

The importance of story‐telling in organizational life has often been overlooked in contemporary organizational and leadership literature. Throughout history, leaders ‐ political and religious ‐ have used story‐telling as a powerful motivational tool, particularly during times of uncertainty, change and upheaval or in response to crises. This article looks at the role of story‐telling as an integral part of the human experience and at its applications in modern organizational life. The article concludes by suggesting that the art of story‐telling is still, despite recent advances in communication technologies, an essential managerial skill ‐ particularly for leaders of organizations.

Customer relationship management, or CRM, is a new management concept ‐ a new approach ‐ to managing customers. CRM is about the management of technology, processes, information resources, and people needed to create an environment that allows a business to take a 360‐degree view of its customers. CRM environments, by nature, are complex and require organizational change and a new way of thinking about customers ‐ and about a business in general. Creating such an environment requires more than adequate management of the customer relationship or new technologies, it requires new forms of leadership as well. Customer relationship leadership, or CRL, is a new model that leaders can embrace to recreate or readjust their leadership styles in order to foster an atmosphere in their businesses to adopt and practice the principles of CRM. While CRM environments improve business performance, initiatives undertaken in this new management field require sound leadership as well. CRL is a recommended approach to bridge the gap between a CRM vision and its reality.