Search results

The purpose of this paper is to address the qualitative synthesis and use of existing management research to inform management practice.

Three methods of qualitative synthesis, each with contrasting methodologies, are presented and their potential contribution in the management field explored.

Professional practice could be improved if practitioners had better access to the products of a large body of management research. Evidence‐based reviews of the literature in the management field could form a crucial bridge between research and practice. The task of reviewing and synthesising qualitative studies comprises a key challenge.

The key issues in conducting qualitative synthesis are highlighted and the barriers and enablers to the application of the product of qualitative synthesis in practice are discussed.

The paper stimulates debate about what counts as an effective synthesis of qualitative research and highlights the growing array of approaches. In so doing the paper presents new models for the production of evidence‐based reviews.

Introducing new technology to the processes of design, production, assembly and management in manufacturing offers enormous opportunities — greater flexibility and quality; reduced costs, inventory and lead‐times. But it often doesn't work out like that — a report commissioned by Ingersoll Engineers showed that 50% of Advanced Manufacturing Technology applications were judged unsuccessful by the firms involved.

Implementation is a key process in the effective development of Advanced Manufacturing Systems. Specifically, implementation should not be confused with installation of the technology for it involves change in companies on a much wider front than mere technological change. Change has to be pursued, not only in terms of technology, but also in terms of the associated organisational and business dimensions. Failure to do this can severely limit the impact and success of the application to the business in question. These three dimensions constitute conceptually different aspects of the technological innovation process, and in developing a normative implementation methodology for Advanced Manufacturing Systems drawn partly from extensive empirical work in manufacturing companies, it is useful to represent these as three orthogonal dimensions from which at least eight logical positions can be explored. An argument is presented therefore for the development of a strategy containing all three dimensions considered in the order: business first, technology and organisation afterwards, which aims to bring about radical change on a wide variety of fronts to support the effective implementation of Advanced Manufacturing Systems.

The article argues that many of the difficulties encountered in exploiting computer‐integrated technologies result from their being implemented as part of an attempt to change from a mass production to a flexible manufacturing paradigm. It is further argued that this also requires changes in the organisational paradigm in order to create a social system capable of supporting flexible manufacturing. Results of a study of 28 companies and 46 applications of computer‐integrated technologies are reported showing that there are widespread changes in organisation at the levels of work, management and inter‐organisational relationships. The empirical findings support the argument of a paradigm shift and detail the organisational dimensions on which this is taking place.

When manufacturing companies introduce advanced manufacturing technologies, it is crucial for success that management accept and identify the structural and cultural changes that accompany technical innovation.

Managing long‐term infrastructural assets, such as real estate, buildings and equipment, is becoming more topical at the strategic level. Such assets are reported to comprise 25 per cent or more of corporate assets and occupancy costs represent 40‐50 per cent of net operating incomes and are often the third most expensive item (behind labour costs and IT). Managers with little experience of the strategic management of long‐term assets (SMoLTA) often find this a challenging agenda. This paper reports exploratory research on how managers are addressing the SMoLTA and is drawn from the views of senior managers in 25 organisations of varying sizes from the public and private sectors. In addition, the paper uses data from research on management practices in four case companies that have excellent reputations in this field, synthesising the findings into algorithmic form. This algorithm is developed and presented as a tentative framework which aims to help facilitate managers in aligning corporate and infrastructure strategy.

The division between academic knowledge and its relevance for practice is an enduring problem across many fields. Nowhere is this division more pronounced, and resolution of its negative features more required, than in academic management research and its relationship to management practice, for the advent of the knowledge revolution requires that organizations capitalize on all available assets including knowledge assets when improving performance either by increasing efficiencies or ensuring mission delivery in the medium term. How companies might achieve this has become a key question. This paper reports the “co‐production” model of knowledge creation and transfer through a novel case of this in practice. It outlines how academics and managers can work together using a “systematic review” of the science base to synthesize management knowledge and ensure its transfer. In doing so it offers management academics and practitioners a new model for the production and application of knowledge.

Uses theory and empirical data to develop further the understanding of the strategic regeneration of manufacturing companies. Reviews literature relevant to the areas of management and manufacturing strategy and organisational learning, identifying the importance of taking “resource based” views of strategy as a point of departure for aiding understanding of the process of manufacturing regeneration. Argues that regeneration can be understood from a change management perspective as a redefinition of tacit and explicit organisational routines. Reports the further development of earlier work and uses one exemplar case to describe and help begin understanding the complex process of strategic regeneration using an ecological, perceptual/cognitive, and structural analytical framework. Finally, draws some tentative conclusions on the nature and process of strategic regeneration and regenerative strategy, and notes the value and potential of taking a perspective based on the notion of “organisational routines” in attempting to understand this complex phenomenon.

Reports on research resulting from a three year EPSRC funded project into teamworking in manufacturing companies. Investigates archetypal forms of teamworking rather than focusing upon narrow or discrete sets of issues. Explores the dynamic capabilities of teamworking, firstly by considering changes in the manufacturing environment with its legacy of ‘old’ organisational forms and functions to contemporary environments where quality, flexibility and continuous improvement are key features, and secondly by discussing a detailed case history of one of the project’s collaborating companies. Identifies archetypal approaches to teamworking and explores benefits of a strategic organisational perspective. Argues that much of the teamworking literature fails to adopt either an organisational or strategic perspective, and hence is unable to acknowledge the complexity of such interventions. Reviews the implications of this more organisational approach for research design and investigation by means of a detailed case study, and explores the development of a strategic methodology for the effective introduction and development of teamworking into manufacturing companies.

Teamworking is proving to be a popular method of organising to exploit new technology and respond to the demands of globalisation, but having tried it, many companies are finding that effective implementation is not as easy as they first thought. New research in the Change Management Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University has identified why this is the case. Although thought by many to be a general panacea, research has identified three quite different approaches to teamworking each with different purposes, payoffs, forms, structures, strengths and weaknesses. The authors offer an outline of a prototype methodology to help managers, in their roles as architects and designers of company organisation, think through and engineer requisite teamwork arrangements.