Search results

The author posits that the management model of an organization determines what kind of business models can be pursued within that organization and that successful 21st century management models are very different from those that succeeded in the 20th century.

The author compares and contrasts successful 21st century management models with models that succeeded in the 20th century.

Success in the digital age requires a 21st century management model and mindset based on an obsession with delivering value to customers.

The management model incorporates the key ‘written and unwritten rules’ of the firm. The success of digital innovation can be threatened by 20th Century management assumptions that thwart Agile initiatives.

Article explains how Agile mindsets and practices are essential to the 21st century management model, and how they potentiate the firm’s focus on creating customers.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and conceptualize the topic of Model‐based management (MBM) in organizations.

The relevance of different types of models for management is elaborated, and a research agenda for this new topic is proposed.

An analysis of the concept, role and function of models in the context of management and organization, as well as an outline for a new understanding of both the concept and role of models for management, grounded in system science is found.

Ultimately, MBM can enhance the intelligence, adaptiveness and viability of organizations of any kind: private, public, non‐profit, large or small.

Taking models as the pivot of a research project on general management is unconventional. The gain promised by such an innovative scope derives from its high potential: both theory and practice can benefit from the envisaged research. Theoretically speaking, advances in management and organization science can be achieved, while on the practical side, the insights gained will caution managers and leaders against succumbing to the traps of complexity, while radically improving their managerial effectiveness.

With the diversification of modelling activities encouraged by versatile modelling tools, handling their datasets has become a formidable problem. A further impetus stems from the emergence of the real‐time forecasting culture, transforming data embedded in computer programs of one‐off modelling activities of the 1970s‐1980s into dataset assets, an important feature of modelling since the 1990s, where modelling has emerged as a practice with a pivotal role to data transactions. The scope for data is now vast but in legacy data management practices datasets are fragmented, not transparent outside their native software systems, and normally “monolithic”. Emerging initiatives on published interfaces will make datasets transparent outside their native systems but will not solve the fragmentation and monolithic problems. These problems signify a lack of science base in data management and as such it is necessary to unravel inherent generic structures in data. This paper outlines root causes for these problems and presents a tentative solution referred to as “systemic data management”, which is capable of solving the above problems through the assemblage of packaged data. Categorisation is presented as a packaging methodology and the various sources contributing to the generic structure of data are outlined, e.g. modelling techniques, modelling problems, application areas and application problems. The opportunities offered by systemic data management include: promoting transparency among datasets of different software systems; exploiting inherent synergies within data; and treating data as assets with a long‐term view on reuse of these assets in an integrated capability.

A new management ‘system’ has been developed which is so comprehensive and integrated that it provides a new direction in management thinking. On the basis of real‐life experiences at the ‘sharp end’ of management rather than theoretical research, it argues that business failures are not so much the fault of managers but a result of the entire system of management. The new approach that it recommends is so fundamentally different that I have named it ‘Second Generation Management’. Rather than ‘force‐fitting’ functional management systems into business plans with little synergy or linkage between them, Second Generation Management first identifies the comprehensive needs of the business. Using ‘shared models of management’, it develops a cadre of skilled managers to provide direction, co‐ordination and support so that the business operates as ‘one brain’. This system of Second Generation Management has already been quietly and successfully implemented by a variety of companies on both sides of the Atlantic.

This paper proposes a multicriteria model for risk management to identify and assess risks associated with an integrated management system (IMS). The main benefit of the proposed model is its systemic and logical visualization, which may facilitate the understanding of this proposal’s practical application.

The research design consists of four stages: (1) conduct a literature review to establish risk management models in IMS; (2) collect data concerning risk management models in IMS from a large multinational automotive company; (3) propose a multicriteria model to define and assess risks as well as prioritize mitigation actions and (4) apply the proposed multicriteria model to the data collected in case-based research to evaluate the practical viability of the model to contribute to methods traditionally used.

The results showed that the proposed risk management model contributes to more reliable decision-making in an IMS. The application of the proposed model identified 85 risks in the total processes of the IMS, 31 of which were classified as high risk; thus, priority actions to be taken were defined. The risk classification and prioritization facilitated the implementation of measures to mitigate or eliminate risks, as pointed out by the company managers.

One of the limitations is the fact that specific knowledge is required to maintain and update the multicriteria decision-making tool used in this study. Another one implies the approach to managing risks under the different ISO standards and sector-specific requirements, since this may require updates and customization of the proposed risk management model.

The implementation of IMS in contemporary business environments can be supported by a robust risk management approach. In addition, it provides the leadership with a holistic view of multiple aspects related to a company and fosters continuous improvement.

The social implications of this study are assessed indirectly. This study contributes to the improvement of company management models.

Traditionally, the methods used for risk management in IMS are usually applied independently of techniques such as failure mode and effect analysis. The model developed in this work enables to manage risks continuously to achieve a systemic view of organizational issues and greater transparency of the processes.

Against the backdrop of the convergence and divergence debate in comparative management studies, this study aims to explore Chinese-style management and proposes the husband-housewife-patriarchy (HHP) model of management, emphasizing the uniqueness of Chinese management practices that are differentiated from Western- and Japanese-oriented paradigms while advocating a progressive and practical approach to understanding and applying these principles [1].

This study combines a “bottom-up” and “top-down” logic of analysis to reexamine the general managerial approaches, with particular attention toward human resource management as a stream within the whole management spectrum across China, the USA, Europe and Japan, reaching a typological representation of the above prototypes, which is coined as the HHP model of management. In doing so, this paper proffers a novel lens for revisiting these models and advancing management innovation in China.

Chinese-style management is characterized by an array of unique approaches diverging from Western and Japanese models. The HHP management model is presented as a new framework for reinterpreting these distinctions and encouraging management innovation within China, highlighting the potential of Chinese management practices in contributing to global management knowledge.

This paper offers novel perspectives on Chinese-style management and introduces the HHP management model, enriching the discourse on comparative management and local innovation in the managerial arena.

The research analyzes good practices in health care “management experimentation models,” which fall within the broader range of the integrative public–private partnerships (PPPs). Introduced by the Italian National Healthcare System in 1991, the “management experimentation models” are based on a public governance system mixed with a private management approach, a patient-centric orientation, a shared financial risk, and payment mechanisms correlated with clinical outcomes, quality, and cost-savings. This model makes public hospitals more competitive and efficient without affecting the principles of universal coverage, solidarity, and equity of access, but requires higher financial responsibility for managers and more flexibility in operations.

In Italy the experience of such experimental models is limited but successful. The study adopts the case study methodology and refers to the international collaboration started in 1997 between two Italian hospitals and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC – Pennsylvania, USA) in the field of organ transplants and biomedical advanced therapies.

The research allows identifying what constitutes good management practices and factors associated with higher clinical performance. Thus, it allows to understand whether and how the management experimentation model can be implemented on a broader basis, both nationwide and internationally. However, the implementation of integrative PPPs requires strategic, cultural, and managerial changes in the way in which a hospital operates; these transformations are not always sustainable.

The recognition of ISMETT’s good management practices is useful for competitive benchmarking among hospitals specialized in organ transplants and for its insights on the strategies concerning the governance reorganization in the hospital setting. Findings can be used in the future for analyzing the cross-country differences in productivity among well-managed public hospitals.

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.

Models of value creation that have been proposed for supporting value-based management are described and analyzed, including the Balanced Scorecard, the Baldrige Quality Award Criteria, the Deming Management Method, the Service-Profit Chain, and the Skandia Intellectual Capital Model. These models are compared, their potential for guiding the identification of value drivers and performance measures for value-based management is assessed, and management issues that must be addressed if such models are to contribute to long-run value creation are explored. These issues include causally linking value drivers to each other and to financial outcomes, the extent to which the models take a dynamic, or whole-system, view of value creation, and whether multiple value drivers should be explicitly weighted and combined to form a “value index.” Finally, the substantial body of research evidence linking intangible value drivers to financial outcomes is reviewed, and some directions for further research are offered.