Module-1 Assignment-1 1

Assignment 1: Paper - Literature Review - Operations Management

DBA-628

National Louis University

Dr. David San Filippo

Team Saturn

Kartik Krishnan II Min Goo Kang II Shaleen Chikara       

Jan 15, 2023

Module-1 Assignment-1 2

Introduction

Integrating new technology into an organization's existing products is an increasingly

prevalent obstacle. Developing and leveraging expanded functionality by incorporating new

technologies into one's goods has the potential to provide substantial commercial benefits.

However, we need to learn more about managing the technology integration process,

primarily when the new technology is obtained from outside sources. Moreover, although

several researchers have identified specific integration processes, more is needed to employ

them successfully in various contexts. Because technology integration is a management

problem that influences the business's overall performance, this study aims to identify the

mechanisms that enable the integration process and specify the conditions under which each

instrument should be used. This information will be essential to managers responsible for

technology integration, as it will provide direction on managing the process in their unique

environments. The data also contributes to the literature by combining elements featured in

numerous articles and demonstrating how they cohere in varied settings. This strategy for

developing theories offers a foundation for further testing and improvement.

Frequently, new technologies are complex and may need significant training.

Consequently, you might anticipate some opposition from potential users. Before selecting

specific technology in business, engaging with employees and identifying potential issues

will facilitate a smoother transition. Those impacted must comprehend how the change will

ultimately benefit them. The key to garnering approval from those whose jobs will be

affected by the new technology is to transparently convey the difficulties it solves. A well-

crafted introduction resulting from a joint effort has the highest probability of success.

Investigation
Module-1 Assignment-1 3

Before introducing new technology, publicly identify the problems, it will solve and

possible remedies. People are involved in the project due to an inquiry that finds new

technological solutions and identifies organizational issues. Interviewing stakeholders or

requesting their feedback aids in gaining acceptance of the need for change. Publicizing the

most significant ideas and how they were implemented into the technological solution fosters

a widespread sense of ownership, promoting the new technology's implementation.

Planning

The investigative phase prepares the organization for the concept of technology

transformation, while the collaborative planning phase wins acceptance for the specifics.

Focusing on minimizing disturbance to employees' work and adjusting current processes and

work practices wherever feasible is crucial to gaining their approval. Involving the

individuals who execute the job in the planning phase enhances the plans since the employees

know the most efficient approach to complete specific tasks. Involving all involved parties, or

at least representative ones, yields conclusions that can be effectively implemented.

Implementation

Implementation frequently affects the success of an effort. Specialists may be required

to install and configure new technology, but wherever feasible, including those using it helps

them comprehend its operation. Ideally, training is included in some implementation duties.

Employees who configure their systems are better equipped to maintain them operationally

and maximize efficiency. When stakeholders are involved in the implementation process,

they might detect unforeseen difficulties and devise solutions. Collaboration is an efficient

method for getting adoption of new technologies.

Evaluation
Module-1 Assignment-1 4

An organization's final stage for implementing new technology is to evaluate its

performance once implemented. There may be genuine difficulties with how the technology

functions, or particular users may perceive problems. An examination uncovers both sorts of

issues. You may remedy actual difficulties using the collaborative approach employed during

the first introduction of the technology, and you can address perceived problems by providing

explanations to dispel erroneous views. This collaborative effort to solve organizational

issues, address individual concerns, and successfully incorporate new technologies into the

organization's work encourages employees and enhances the performance of the business.

Operations management strategies

Modern operations management tactics and trends have been extensively studied.

Servitization of manufacturing, E-operations, outsourcing, leanness and agility, and

performance measurement are new trends, according to (Dey et al., 2013).

In 1989, Vandermerwe and Rada pioneered commercial Servitization. It is a new and

successful marketing approach for big, profitable firms. Servitization affects manufacturing

and operations management and product design and development. Standardizing components

using tools and regulations helps companies save design expenses. Lampel and Mintzberg

(1996) distinguished between customizing and assembling items. Thus, manufacturing

organizations must balance Servitization with standardization (Grant, 2010; Argyres &

Bigelow, 2010).

E-operations are another critical challenge for everyday operations. Interesting studies

have examined how an ERP system might fail to personalize products and operations. ERPs

and their modules are challenging to employ for highly customized products and services.

Daryl found a discussion in the academic literature over whether Lean and ERP are the same

or separate technologies.
Module-1 Assignment-1 5

Supply chain relationship building is discussed to be one of the significant aspects of

business operations. Other writers studied supply chain coordination. Global supplier

selection and management speed are becoming competitive advantages (Bharadwaj et al.,

2013). Business orchestration principles, developed from web-resources management, affect

supply chain planning. It is argued that industrial organizations require a robust supply chain

strategy, and this method occasionally contradicts detailed ratings and control-based linkages

and models. CSR plans for supply chain development should be tightly related to a

performance monitoring system rather than merely following the legislation.

Today, lean and agile systems are popular for minimizing lead time and waste

Manufacturers prioritize time and value. Lean and agile principles are used in product design

and manufacturing to reduce waste. Most Lean initiatives for product design have focused on

tools and procedures, and poor product development may be a suitable operation technique.

After 20 years of Lean applications, Letens et al. (2011) argue that we must learn more about

Lean for product creation. Lean and agile solutions only eliminate some design waste. They

favor Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) and product "robustness" or Lean integration with other

systems. Thus, Lean-efficacy agile's in product design and manufacturing still needs to be

tested. Finally, current operations management must integrate CSR policies, notably

environmental ones, into the organization. The firms should observe CSR requirements and

monitor their performance.

The operational strategy prioritizes society and the environment.

Operations management has focused on operations strategy since the 1980s, when

cost, delivery, flexibility, and quality became competitive factors (Hayes & Wheelwright,

1984). Researchers suggest prioritizing today's environmental and social sustainability.

Environmental sustainability is more explicitly described as using natural resources sparingly

Module-1 Assignment-1 6

or substituting for them, emitting minimal emissions, and avoiding ecosystem-harming

behaviors (Kleindorfer et al., 2005). "Social sustainability" actively supports health, equality,

and democracy to improve life inside and beyond the firm, and it also means actively

preserving and developing talents and abilities for future generations.

Social and environmental sustainability is becoming a competitive advantage for

corporations. Operations affect a company's bottom line, workers, the environment, and

society. Thus, processes competing on environmental and social sustainability examine the

role of these new priorities in absolute terms. Still, few look at their relative position

compared to traditional preferences and their effects on conventional operations strategies.

Companies need help to achieve this broad view (Mirvis, 2011), emphasizing Unilever's

multiple stages of integrating sustainability measures into its core activities. To accomplish

this, the company has to overcome several challenges, connect business and operational

plans, and execute holistic strategies inside functional strategies.

Operations tactics and configuration model approach

Operations management literature has long addressed incorporating competitive

considerations into operational strategy, and configuration models are often used to study

functional priority relationships. The operations management research area inherited this

technique from organization theory and strategy research, which had similar purposes.

Organizational configuration models are "any multidimensional constellation of conceptually

different aspects that commonly occur together" (Meyer et al., 1993, p. 1175). Configuration

models' multidimensionality makes them helpful in representing complex variable

interactions.

Typologies, conceptually derived categories of ideal types, each of which represents a

specific combination of organizational attributes, and taxonomies, which are often derived
Module-1 Assignment-1 7

from empirical evidence and classify businesses into mutually exclusive and exhaustive

groups according to specific rules, are the two main categories used to categorize

configuration models (Meyer et al., 1993). According to operations management literature,

taxonomy enhances discussion, research, and education by accurately describing operations

strategies. Taxonomies reveal the operations function's view of the competitive landscape by

identifying manufacturers with similar traits. The operations management taxonomy research

stream shows that ranking competitive priorities is a suitable grouping criterion that indicates

the "strategic intent" of operations and provides a basis for testing whether business strategy

and operations strategy choices are consistent with this intent.

Taxonomy findings must be evaluated and repeated. Many studies show that

operations plan configuration models are stable. Most studies identify the following

configuration models: a price-oriented configuration model that competes primarily on price,

followed by quality and delivery to a lesser extent (e.g., caretakers, low cost, price-based

strategies); a market-oriented configuration model that competes on design flexibility and

innovation or after-sales service (e.g., marketer). Most studies identify the following

configuration types, while certain nations and size groups have unique configuration models.

Modern complex enterprises primarily rely on effective stochastic models for the

creation, analysis, and execution of proactive risk management and crisis management

programs. A stochastic model is created. Additionally, suitable criteria are provided for

evaluating the characteristic function associated with the model and expressing the stated

model as a random sum of random contractions. Using the model explains how to define,

investigate, and implement risk frequency and severity reduction actions (Artikis, 2015).

Furthermore, the created stochastic model and the cindynics conceptual framework are used

to examine a complex system going through a crisis brought on by a substantial risk.

Module-1 Assignment-1 8

The formulation of a stochastic model using discrete random variables, independent

random variables, independent random variables with a favorable distribution, independent

random variables with distribution-taking values in the standard unit interval, and

independent random variables with a Bernoulli distribution. The definition of adequate

criteria for characterizing the described stochastic model as an extension of the concept of

arbitrary sum and evaluating the accompanying characteristic function is also included in the

study's theoretical contribution. The practical contribution of the study comprises

interpretations in defining, evaluating, selecting, and applying the risk frequency and risk

severity reduction operations of the constructed stochastic model (Artikis, 2015). The paper's

main practical contribution is addressing these procedures to help complex systems and

organizations think strategically and make decisions in risk and crises.

Historically, business operations have been viewed as a management tool that permits

corporate structure organization and ensures commerce flow (Simmons et al., 2013).

However, the persistence of an original business model in the face of commercializing a

disruptive technology or invention imposes several restrictions on corporate operations. In

this sense, the new business structures or the reconfiguration of existing systems give new

methods for managing the supplied value characteristics, emphasizing matching the unique

consumer needs. Thus, it is evident that, due to the ongoing changes in the market, innovation

in business models has become a crucial aspect of company plans (Pereira et al., 2015).

Review

We have seen in this literature study that technology integration processes still need to

be clarified. The integration process's components and relationships could be more

straightforward. Furthermore, such integration methods must be applied in various scenarios.

The evaluation focuses on these two main points: technology integration strategies and their

proper settings. The research covers product integration, namely software technology with
Module-1 Assignment-1 9

traditional mechanical items. This is becoming more frequent in many industries. George and

Wang (2002) predicted that electronics and software would account for more than one-third

of the overall cost of autos, while Adamsson (2007) highlighted that 90% of new automotive

capabilities are electronic and software-based. Integration/difference Integration processes

lead to Lawrence and Lorsch's (1967) notions of integration and differentiation, which

provide the review's conceptual underpinning.

Lawrence and Lorsch defined integration as the degree of collaboration across

organizational departments and units that must work together to meet environmental

demands. They defined differentiation as differences in cognitive and emotional orientations

among managers in different functional departments, manifested in specialized language,

different systems of meaning, alternative thought worlds, and time orientation. Woodward's

(1965) production system typology is based on technical complexity and Chandler's (1962)

observations about how strategic decisions shape organization structure. Chandler (1962, p.

196) noted that when such choices created new organizational units, integration issues arose

that needed new integrative (or administrative) structures. Lawrence and Lorsch stressed the

importance of balancing differentiation and integration in any organization. Later studies

showed that the greater the differences between goals and tasks, functional departments,

business units, product platforms, managerial levels, organizational processes, and

international markets, the harder it is to achieve effective integration (Dougherty, 2001;

Sheremata, 2000).

Tech integration success factors Stock and Tatikonda (2000, 2004, 2008) propose and

empirically validate an information processing theory-based conceptual framework for

external technology integration (ETI). ETI is acquiring and integrating external technology,

which must be managed intentionally to account for the technology's nature. Stock and

Tatikonda claim that earlier research does not adequately address the thorough
Module-1 Assignment-1 10

characterization of the type of technology to be transferred and specific project-level

organizational (source-recipient) procedures in technology integration" (Stock & Tatikonda,

2004, p. 645). Technology uncertainty (i.e., a lack of understanding about obtaining and using

it) influences technology integration, according to Stock and Tatikonda (2004).

They split this into three connected components:

(1) the novelty of the technology to the receiving firm

(2) its complexity

(3) its tacitness and degree of physical embodiment, codification, and completion.

They also consider the source-recipient relationship's inter-organizational interaction.

This is subdivided into three dimensions:

(1) the methods, magnitude, and frequency of communication and the nature of the

information exchanged

(2) coordination of the process of interactions and decision-making between source

and recipient

(3) the willingness of the partners to cooperate in the pursuit of mutually compatible

interests instead of acting opportunistically (Stock & Tatikonda,2004).

Technology integration works best when technology uncertainty and inter-

organizational interaction match. Thus, high levels of technological uncertainty require more

inter-organizational contact, while recipient organizations that comprehend the new

technology require less (Stock & Tatikonda, 2004). Stock and Tatikonda (2008) add three

contextual elements. First is the receiving firm's technology integration experience (distinct

from its experience of integrating technology). The other factors are user engagement in the

ETI process and project criticality. Their empirical research supported the two hypotheses

that user engagement and project criticality positively affect project performance but not the

notion that prior expertise with technology integration does. This suggested a new element,
Module-1 Assignment-1 11

the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between consecutive integration tasks. Thus, the firm

will not learn from prior experience if each ETI project is unique. Other research has used

technical uncertainty in technology integration, such as technological novelty.

In this vein, Karlsson and Love (2005) found differences in the obstacles to

integration between inexperienced and experienced firms. Still, they also found that the

strategic role of the new technology had a significant bearing on which blocks were most

salient and, by implication, which integration mechanisms. Established organizations

prioritize new technologies. Technology novelty can be a "two-edged sword" because, on the

one hand, if a firm has had prior experience with the specific technology, that can be a

positive benefit in building upon previous learning; on the other hand, the earlier experience

can generate organizational inertia towards change, mainly when the new technology renders

obsolete the expertise it is replacing rather than building upon know-how already embodied

in the core product (Anderson & Tushman, 1990).

Thus, legacy systems may be good or bad: firm investments in past generations of

technology may prevent the adoption of later, more radical, or complicated alternatives (Ettlie

et al., 2005). As Anderson and Tushman note, if firms must forsake current know-how and

learn a new skill base due to the arrival of new technology, they are likely to defend their

outdated technology staunchly. "Old orders never vanish quietly" (Ettlie et al., 2005, p. 611).

Verganti and Buganza (2005) examine a service-related aspect of this issue. Path dependency

in design decisions might limit innovation later in the service lifecycle. The choice of

software operating systems or databases, which are seldom reversible, has long-term

ramifications for product architecture and development. MacCormack et al. (2001) note that

experience can contribute to inertia and rigidity in problem solutions in unpredictable and

dynamic situations where technology-specific knowledge can quickly become obsolete. This
Module-1 Assignment-1 12

last point summarises the main point of these two papers by MacCormack et al. (2001) and

Verganti and Buganza (2005).

In environments where technology and market requirements change rapidly, building

flexibility for the integration stage and the entire development process is essential, including

after the product or service launch. Flexible development projects can accommodate new

technology, client expectations, or both for a longer time. Flexible procedures are better for

unpredictable and dynamic contexts than sequential stage-gate approaches (Iansiti &

MacCormack, 1997). Flexibility implies that growth phases overlap and become iterative,

expressing a learning and adaptation mindset (Tushmanand O'Reilly, 1997). This means that

the design specification is not finalized before the technology integration phase begins,

giving the firm more flexibility and reducing the danger of "being locked into an incorrect

definition and delivering a product that is unappealing to the consumer and unprofitable to

the firm" (Bhattacharya et al., 1998, p. 51). However, especially in risk-averse firms, getting

an exact design specification might take so long that downstream integration is delayed.

MacCormack et al. (2001) present three ways to create a flexible process to accommodate

new information over a more specific development cycle.

Firms must invest more in product architecture design to balance product performance

and process flexibility. Thus, the product architecture must accept additional features loosely

connected or modularly to minimize system modifications. Bhattacharya et al. (1998) add

that the development team's flexibility is also essential since it allows more time for

integration by anticipating and absorbing specification changes. Second, firms must adopt an

architecture that integrates the primary components early to get early input on how the

product operates as a system. Finally, firms should establish teams that can "form and direct

effective experimentation techniques to overcome the project uncertainties that occur" using
Module-1 Assignment-1 13

their historical expertise with earlier generations of technology (Bhattacharya et al., 1998, p.

137).

Augustine et al. (2005) explain that volatile situations demand fewer formal controls

and mechanical management to achieve a flexible or agile process. They recommend six

practices for achieving agility throughout the development process:

(1) having organic teams of seven to nine members

(2) communicating a clear statement of project purpose to all participants, allowing

them to act more autonomously

(3) Provide simple rules that avoid restricting team members' creativity

(4) facilitating the free and open exchange of information about plans, progress,

objectives, and organization

(5) adopting a lighter technology.

This review has shown that managing the acquisition and incorporation of technology

involves interdependencies and interactions between markets and customers, technologies

and products, organizational systems and processes, managerial styles and employee

involvement, and source-recipient relationships and their attitudes toward cooperation. Grote

et al. (2009) found additional factors affecting technology integration in multidivisional

enterprises. Integration strategies improve the organization's social structure (Kleinbaum &

Tushman, 2007) and develop informal networks between employees from different

departments, encouraging collaboration, especially across departmental and functional

boundaries.

Grote et al. found that non-financial and symbolic incentives also matter (Ellingsen &

Johannesson,2007). Boundary-spanning persons or technology integrators improve inter-

group communication (Richter et al., 2006), develop inter-organizational links, and integrate

external information regarding technology and consumer expectations. Like many

Module-1 Assignment-1 14

organizational transformation projects, technology integration is sometimes hampered by

impediments (Brown & Duguid,1992). We have already discussed competence-enhancing

and competence-destroying technologies and their effects. The latter tend to create social and

political dynamics of defense and opposition from individuals whose competencies would be

rendered obsolete (Anderson & Tushman, 1990). We also need a more flexible development

and integration process, but Verganti and Buganza (2005) warn us that earlier design

decisions might cause inertia and resistance to flexibility. Augustine et al. (2005) note that

several senior developers resented the more egalitarian flexible methodology in assessing a

significant development project. Conventional managers have additional stress in such an

elegant setting. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) predicted such friction and conflict nearly four

decades ago. They addressed how to resolve disputes between highly specialized groups and

units. They suggested confrontation and training to resolve conflicts (to learn more about one

another and the reasons for the.

Several studies have gathered the components, but no consensus exists on

incorporating technologies into companies, and the list is likely incomplete. In addition, this

review has identified several contextual dimensions that affect the applicability of technology

integration mechanisms in different contexts:

(1) the level of technology uncertainty, i.e., the recipient firm's knowledge of how to

acquire and implement the technology in question

(2) the extent to which the technology is new to the firm

(3) the complexity of the technology

(4) its tacitness

(5) the criticality of the integration project to the firm

(6) the degree of similarity between successive integration tasks in the recipient firm

(7) if the new technology enhances or destroys competence.

Module-1 Assignment-1 15

(8) product design decisions and how they inhibit future integration;

(9) the degree of fit between technological uncertainty and inter-organizational

interaction

(10) market volatility and market dynamism

(11) the firm's risk aversion

(12) its experience managing technology integration

(13) the strategic importance of the new technology.

Conclusion

Managing the adoption of technological change by employees may take much work

for any firm. Several factors must be effectively addressed to implement a technology

upgrade properly, and staff members' resistance to the change or internal conflicts must be

managed. Examining and planning for employee training, communication, and a multi-

generational workforce is essential when deciding on new technology. These issues may be

resolved with a well-defined implementation strategy, an efficient training plan, and open

communication between employees and management.

Numerous topics struck out as deserving of additional study during the investigation

for this work. This was the ideal period to provide training on new technologies and monitor

technological developments after they were utterly deployed. There needed to be more

information on industry best practices for the time of technology training delivery. This is a

crucial factor that firms must consider while managing technological transformation.

According to studies, practical training may influence employee adoption and utilization of

new technology. Monitoring an organization's performance following the implementation of

the technology is an additional study topic. There needed to be more readily available
Module-1 Assignment-1 16

research that gave unambiguous guidance on how and when monitoring should be conducted

to evaluate success.

In conclusion, managing technological change can be challenging. If organizations

plan, communicate, operate disagreement, and monitor all parts of the difference they are

implementing, they will have a greater chance of implementing it effectively.

Module-1 Assignment-1 17

References

Adamsson, N. (2007). "Interdisciplinary integration in complex product development:

managerial implications of embedding software in manufactured goods," doctoral

thesis, Department of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Anderson, P. & Tushman, M.L. (1990). "Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:

a cyclical model of technological change," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35

No. 4, pp. 604–33.

Ansoff, I.M. (1990). Implementing Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, London.

Artikis, P. T. (2016). Deriving advantage over a crisis by incorporating a new class of

stochastic models for risk control operations. Annals of Operations Research, 247(2),

823-831

Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F. and Woodcock, S. (2005). "Agile project

management: steering from the edges," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No. 12,

pp. 85–9.

Barczak, G., Hultink, E.J. and Sultan, F. (2008), "Antecedents and consequences of

information technology usage in NPD: a comparison of Dutch and U.S. companies,"

Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25, pp. 620–31. IJOPM

Bhattacharya, S., Krishnan, V. & Mahajan, V. (1998). "Managing new product definition in

highly dynamic environments," Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 11, pp. 50–64.

Bjorkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W. & Li, L. (2004). "Managing knowledge transfer in

MNCs: the impact of headquarters control mechanisms," Journal of International

Business Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 443–55.

Bradley, D.A. (1997). "The what, why and how of mechatronics," IEEE Journal of

Engineering Science and Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 81–8.

Module-1 Assignment-1 18

Chiarini, A., & Vagnoni, E. (2017). Strategies for modern operations

management. Benchmarking, 24(4), 1065-1081. doi:https://d/8oi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-

2015-0115

Ettlie, J., Perotti, V.J., Joseph, D.A. and Cotteleer, M.J. (2005). "Strategic predictors of

successful enterprise system deployment," International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 953-72.

Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1996). "Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis

of the literature," Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.

191–215.

Grote, M., Herstatt, C. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2009). "When divisions collaborate in the

front end of innovation: evidence from 110 multidivisional firms" paper presented at

the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, August 7-12.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000). "Knowledge flows within multinational

companies," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 473–96.

Lawrence, P.R., and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing

Differentiation and Integration, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). "A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a

London. a single longitudinal site with replicated multiple sites", Organization

Science, Vol. 1

Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2015). Environmental and social sustainability

priorities. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(2),

216–245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2013-0182

Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532–50.

McCutcheon, D.M., & Meredith, J.R. (1993). "Conducting case study research in operations

management," Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11, pp. 239–56.

Module-1 Assignment-1 19

Nambisan, S. and Wilemon, D. (2000). "Software development and new product

development: potentials for cross-domain knowledge sharing," IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 211–20.

Nigel Slack. (2017). The Operations Advantage : A Practical Guide to Making Operations

Work. Kogan Page. Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 65–80.

Persaud, A. (2005). "Enhancing innovative synergistic capability in multinational

corporations: an empirical investigation," Journal of Product Innovation

Management, Vol. 22, pp. 412–29.

Ranft, A.L. and Lord, M.D. (2002). "Acquiring new technologies and capabilities: a

grounded model of acquisition implementation," Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4,

pp. 420-41.

Stock, G.N. and Tatikonda, M.V. (2008). "The joint influence of technology uncertainty and

theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3.

Tushman, M.L. and O'Reilly, C.A. (1997), Winning through Innovation, HBS Press, Boston.