Search results

FOUNDATION THE Francis Mond Professorship of Aeronautical Engineering was established at Cambridge University in 1919 and was certainly the first chair in aeronautical engineering in this country. The initial holder of this Chair was B. M. Jones (now Sir B. Mclvill Jones), who had worked at the R.A.E. and other establishments during the First World War. Professor Melvill Jones, on arriving at Cambridge, found that in fact the University was not able to finance his research or supply him with laboratory space and had to rely upon the Air Ministry for funds and apparatus. This resulted in the main research activity of the department being directed towards flight experiments using R.A.F. aircraft flying from Duxford. Due to their interest in aeronautics, however, the Engineering Laboratory at Cambridge did supply Professor Melvill Jones with space, and in 1921 an optional paper was set in Aeronautics in the Mechanical Sciences Tripos.

Sharing services increasingly extends beyond intraorganizational concentration of service delivery. Organizations have started to promote cooperation across their boundaries to deal with strategic tensions in their value ecosystem, moving beyond traditional outsourcing. This chapter addresses two research questions geared to the challenge of interorganizational shared services (ISS): why would organizations want to get and remain involved in ISS? And: what are the implications of ISS for (inter)organizational value creation?

The conceptual chapter reviews literature pertaining to ISS from public, commercial, and nongovernmental sectors. ISS is understood as a multistakeholder organizational innovation. In order to analyze ISS and conduct empirical research, we developed a taxonomy and research framework.

The chapter shows how ISS can be positioned in value chains, distinguishing vertical, horizontal, and hybrid ISS. It outlines ISS implications for developing business models, structures, and relationships. Success factors and barriers are presented that epitomize the dynamic interplay of organizational autonomy and interorganizational dependence.

The research framework offers conceptual ideas for theoretical and empirical work. Researchers involved in ISS studies may adopt strategic, strategic innovation, and organizational innovation perspectives.

ISS phases are distinguished to focus innovation management — initiation, enactment, and evaluation. Furthermore, insights are provided into processes and interventions aimed at making ISS a success for participating organizations.

Cross-sectoral perspective on ISS; taxonomy of ISS; research framework built on organization and strategic management literature.

This chapter reviews the literature on servitization to understand whether and how mergers and acquisitions (M&As) have been dealt with and what the portrayed consequences are of servitization through M&As. Servitization refers to how manufacturing firms extend and remodel their offerings to focus on value in use rather than product transfer. The rationale of the chapter follows from how business model innovation or business modeling has been predicted as the next M&A wave, while the focus on servitization has been pronounced in research and practice as a means for manufacturing firms to refocus operations during the past decade. The chapter concludes that while the servitization literature is vibrant, the mode of reaching service competence and renewing business is not well explored in the literature. In line with the predicted next M&A wave, servitization through M&As would thereby create an interesting path for future research.

This study explores whether machinery firms with a ‘hidden champions’ profile leverage Industry 4.0 practices to roll out smart services; whether this allows them to get a firm grip on their installed base; and whether it allows them to expand their international (service) business. The research is conducted based on exploratory, multiple-case study methods.

The author finds that the implementation of smart services can improve a machine tool builder’s hold on its installed base and expand the scope of its international (service) business. However, the study also finds that the ability to capitalise on this potential depends on a series of moderating variables. The study also concludes that there is a risk that smart services do not unlock a strong willingness-to-pay among potential customers.

It, therefore, calls into question several conventional wisdoms, such as the possibilities that Industry 4.0 offers for suppliers operating in business-to-business markets, and the receptiveness to smart services by buyers in such markets. Finally, it highlights the specific liabilities faced by hidden champions with regard to expanding their smart services business.

The chapter provides practical insights into the hurdles that industrial suppliers must overcome in their attempts to achieve uptake of smart services by customers, particularly within a cross-border context.

This chapter discusses what the working practices and professionalism of sports lecturers can tell us about the challenges of professionalism in further education (FE). This chapter draws on Jake's doctoral research in which he interviewed five sports lecturers working in FE colleges in England, about their identities and practices. In this chapter, Jake talks about his own experiences as a sports lecturer in FE and how his increasing disillusionment with his role led him to undertake doctoral research in this field. We explore constructions of professionalism within FE, and we show that through a process Jake identified and labelled as ‘competitive mediation’, the sports lecturers he interviewed used their experiences as elite sports people to navigate the highly performative environments in which they were working. The positives and negatives of using this strategy for them, their learners and wider society are explored in this chapter. We suggest that although Jake's research focused specifically on sports lecturers in FE settings, his insights can be applied more widely, we reflect on the importance of considering the impact our own diverse lived experiences may have on our sense of professionalism as researchers and practitioners.

Many organizations are embarking upon knowledge management initiatives to enhance their competitiveness. While there has been a significant amount of multidisciplinary research in this area, the evidence from surveys of practitioners indicate that a large proportion of company projects focus on the implementation of technology‐based solutions without consideration of the structural and contextual issues. Many academic authors have presented a variety of different models for knowledge management but have often failed to relate these to the requirements of practitioners. This paper presents a model of knowledge management derived from a synthesis of current literature. The model emphasizes the need for knowledge evaluation within a knowledge management approach and describes, using a case study, how this might be achieved.

Presents the results of empirical research into issues faced by 25 companies undertaking business process re‐engineering (BPR) programmes. The research team sought to understand the BPR phenomenon through visits to 21 leading practitioners and four in‐depth case studies. The research indicated that six key issues affect the way in which BPR programmes are carried out, namely the nature of the change proposed (radical or incremental), the performance measures applied during the programme, the impact of information technology, the impact of human factors, the presence or absence of a process architecture and the link between BPR and strategy. The outcome of this research has implications for both practitioners and researchers. Where practitioners are concerned, the conventional, step‐by‐step BPR methodology should be amended to take into account these six issues more fully. For researchers there is a need for substantial research into good practice in BPR in each of the six areas.

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, several prominent feminist legal scholars made a case for “difference feminism.” Inspired by psychologist Carol Gilligan’s classic text, In a Different Voice, these scholars argued that social relationships, caring, and the emotions should be recognized as important to jurisprudence and legal regulation. Today, difference feminism is no longer a dominant movement within legal scholarship, but reformers are bringing “mindfulness,” “emotional intelligence,” and attention to relationships into law and business – a development dubbed “therapy culture” by its critics. This essay describes some of the manifestations of therapy culture in law and argues for more feminist engagement.