Sustainability of Competitive Advantage

Shintaku, Junjiro

doi:10.7880/abas.4.1

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for product performance, following Lancaster's (1966) analytical model, several researchers have performed the evolutionary path analysis and equilibrium analysis with product performance frontiers (Foster, 1986;Sahal, 1981;Shintaku, 2005). This approach is effective for high-tech products that can demonstrate their performance by means of a few objective indicators and show rapid performance improvements.…”

Section: Measurement Of Product Development Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Measurement in Product Development Research

Kuwashima

Fujimoto

2013

ABAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews product development research with focus on performance indicators. The following are the four primary indicators of product development performance: (1) degree of success, (2) survival, (3) product competitiveness, and (4) development productivity and development lead-time. From 1960 to 1980, when the field of product development research was established, most studies adopted indicator (1). In contrast, after 1990, indicator (4) became mainstream. The trigger for this transition was the comparative study of international product development projects in the automobile industry by Harvard University's Kim Clark and Takahiro Fujimoto (Clark & Fujimoto, 1991). They proposed the groundbreaking empirical research method of statistically analyzing organizational structure, process, and strategies that influence the three product development performance indicators: development productivity, development lead-time, and total product quality.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Of Product Development Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Measurement in Product Development Research

Kuwashima

Fujimoto

2013

ABAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been attempts to pursue this issue and introduce a dynamic perspective to strategic theory. Shintaku (2005) and Fujimoto (2012) are excellent empirical studies on Japanese companies as the source of sustainable competitive advantage. 3 Teece et al (1997), Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), and Winter (2003) Zollo and Winter (2002) studied routines and organizational learning focusing on the keyword "capability."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Capability as Fashion

Fukuzawa

2015

ABAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning in the latter half of the 1990s through the early 2000s, research on dynamic capability (DC) emerged. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) were famous for being quoted even while only having a working paper, which was subsequently published. They were followed by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000). Then, researchers such as Zollo and Winter (2002) studied routines and organizational learning with a focus on the keyword "capability." These three influential papers cited the following concepts as elements that comprise DC: 1) the level of environmental change; 2) organizational processes or routines; 3) resource configuration; 4) the role of managers (for example, decision making with regard to resource investment); and 5) learning mechanisms. Later, many researchers adopted a resource-based view (RBV) and presented their studies as incorporating DC if they contained the keywords "change," "competitive advantage," or "capability" even though they were merely descriptions of static resource states and discussions of their changes. By casually labeling research on R&D, acquisitions, or alliances as DC theory, these later studies a) caused ambiguity and confusion with regard to what "dynamic" means and b) lost sight of the essence of DC theory with various solutions concerning whether the concept can be explained with the stable characteristic of capability.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, others argue that technological development should be pursued separately in cases where there is drastic change or where the integration of technology is not encouraged in the existing market or by its customers, given the uncertainties associated with a drastic technological change (Yasumoto, 2006). Furthermore, cost and quality considerations are also important during the introduction of new technologies (e.g., Ichikohji, (Shintaku, 2005) or a rupture in the trajectory of technological progress (Takahashi, Shintaku, & Ohkawa, 2007. 11 Brusoni et al (2001) use a matrix developed by Orton and Weick (1990) to explain the shift from tightly-coupled organizational forms to loosely-coupled forms or from loosely-coupled forms to a decoupled form.…”

Section: Evolution Of Engine Core and Control Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological Change from Analog to Digital

Mukai

2014

ABAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt (2001) posited that the digitization of aircraft engine control systems in the early 1980s caused loose organizational coupling. During this period, the number of control parameters indeed increased significantly with the introduction of full authority digital engine control (FADEC). However, during the period categorized by Brusoni et al. (2001) as the hydromechanical (analog) generation, digital technologies such as analog electronic and supervisory controls were gradually introduced. Moreover, with regard to technological changes in aircraft turbofan engines and control systems, technological improvements in engine power systems were evident in the 1960s and 1970s in terms of the bypass ratio, overall pressure ratio, and turbine inlet temperature. Although engine power systems witnessed negligible technological innovation in the 1980s, control systems improved as the number of control parameters increased due to the advent of FADEC. Subsequently, in the 1990s, great technological strides were made in engine power systems. Hence, technological changes in engine power systems and control systems always occurred alternately. Brusoni et al.'s claim that the decline in organizational coupling was due to the even rate of technological change in engines and control a) Manufacturing Management Research Center, Graduate School of Economics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan, mukai@mmrc.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp A version of this paper was presented at the ABAS Conference 2013 Autumn (Mukai, 2013)

show abstract

Sustainability of Competitive Advantage

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Performance Measurement in Product Development Research

Performance Measurement in Product Development Research

Dynamic Capability as Fashion

Technological Change from Analog to Digital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About