“Lock-in” vs. “critical masses” — Industrial change under network externalities

Where increasing returns to adoption play a role in the diffusion of a new technology, technological “lock-in” is now often claimed to occur. However, this result, and the modeling approach that produces it, are problematic. Further innovations could never have a chance of disseminating, if “lock-in” had occurred in the diffusion process of earlier innovations. Yet, in reality, industrial change does not come to a halt. The paper offers a discussion of the apparent paradox. From an alternative modeling approach conditions are derived under which a newly introduced technology can successfully disseminate in the market despite existing network externalities.     

严要求 勤检查 促整改 保安全

府谷县地处陕西省阳北端陕、晋、蒙三省（区）接壤地带，位于世界八大煤田之一的神府煤田腹地。全县总面积3229平方公司，含煤面积1359平方公里。     

Time‐use and well‐being impacts of travel‐to‐work and travel‐for‐work

This article contributes to our understanding of the complex patterns of travel‐to‐work and travel‐for‐work which increasingly characterise highly skilled employment, using 2015 data from a UK Midlands study comprising an online survey and follow‐up interviews. Travel‐to‐work essentially lengthens the working day, and is difficult to use productively, especially when commuting by car. Travel‐for‐work, by contrast, results in intense schedules especially when requiring overnight stays. Ownership of travel‐for‐work is ambiguous: it is employer driven, and travel time is often spent productively using mobile technologies, but is rarely rewarded with TOIL. While general dissatisfaction is reported with the commute, negative effects of travel‐for‐work (family, health, reduced leisure time) are mediated by positive impacts including experience of new working cultures, and infrequency of travel. Four factors appear central to the differing well‐being impacts: (1) frequency of travel; (2) ability to plan travel; (3) productive use of travel time, and; (4) reciprocal benefits of travel.     

When Public Utilities <Emphasis Type="Italic">Like</Emphasis> to Talk on Facebook

As the leading social media tool, Facebook is increasingly becoming an important channel for two-sided stakeholder communication in the energy sector. Even though public utilities more and more all relying on such virtual communication, little is known regarding the communication-related factors and their interdependencies. This study aims to reduce this research gap by analysing correlations between a public utility’s specifications, communication interactivity, the resources spent and the outcome of the Facebook conversation. In 2016, an online questionnaire was sent to German, Austrian and Swiss utility companies. The empirical data of the 139 utilities that responded fully support relationships between the communication interactivity and the invested resources as well as the outcomes of a communication. In this way, the results provide new insights for scholars and practitioners into the Facebook conversations of public entities.     

Designing <Emphasis Type="Italic">interaction</Emphasis>: How do interaction design students address interaction?

Interaction design is usually described as being concerned with interactions with and through artifacts but independent of a specific implementation. Design work has been characterized as a conversation between the designer and the situation and this conversation poses a particular challenge for interaction design as interactions can be elusive and difficult to describe. Moreover, current trends in interaction design introduce physical materials to a higher degree resulting in even more complex design situations. There is a lack of knowledge about how interaction designers, and especially students, address the very phenomenon of interaction. This study contributes by describing how interaction design students attempt to address aspects of interaction and by presenting an in-depth analysis in the context of an interactionary-type design exercise. The quantitative and qualitative findings showed that (1) the design students brought up aspects of interactivity and dynamics through talk and gestures but (2) a comprehensive design idea about interaction did not guide the design work and they were to a little degree engaged in planning sequences of interactions or interaction on a longer time scale, (3) using physical materials disrupted interaction design, and, (4) there was a lack of continuity when addressing interaction compared to how proposals about artifacts were pursued. As interaction is the core of interaction design, the findings are discussed in terms of how the immaterial design materials may “talk back” to designers. Practical strategies for how the observed phenomena could be constructively addressed within interaction design education are suggested.     

PLATFORM COMPETITION WITH ‘MUST‐HAVE’ COMPONENTS*

In platform‐component systems with indirect network effects, some ‘must‐have’ components are so popular with consumers that they create large, discrete indirect network effects when they become available on a platform. For example, ESPN is a must‐have component of cable TV platforms. This paper examines how platform market structures determine exclusive versus non‐exclusive contracts between platforms and components. It shows that a component provider is more likely to sign exclusive contracts with a single platform if its popularity is high, the platform market share difference is large, and cross‐platform indirect network effects are low.     

CAD—The‘Taylorisation’of drawing office work?

CAD has been described as a'Trojan horse'through which drawing office work will be deskilled. This article rebuts the crude Tayloris-ation thesis which underlines such views and offers an alternative analysis of the effects of CAD .     

Perspective: The Stage‐Gate® Idea‐to‐Launch Process—Update,What's New,and NexGen Systems*

Stage‐Gate has become a popular system for driving new products to market, and the benefits of using such a robust idea‐to‐launch system have been well documented. However, there are many misconceptions and challenges in using Stage‐Gate. First, Stage‐Gate is briefly outlined, noting how the system should work and the structure of both stages and gates. Next, some of the misconceptions about Stage‐Gate—it is not a linear process, nor is it a rigid system—are debunked, and explanations of what Stage‐Gate is and is not are provided. The challenges faced in employing Stage‐Gate are identified, including governance issues, overbureaucratizing the process, and misapplying cost‐cutting systems such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing to product innovation. Solutions are offered, including better governance methods such as “gates with teeth,” clearly defined gatekeepers, and gatekeeper rules of engagement, as well as ways to deal with bureaucracy, including leaner gates. Next‐generation versions of Stage‐Gate are introduced, notably a scalable system (to handle many different types and sizes of projects), as well as even more flexible and adaptable versions of Stage‐Gate achieved via spiral development and simultaneous execution. Additionally, Stage‐Gate now incorporates better decision‐making practices including scorecards, success criteria, self‐managed gates, electronic and virtual gates, and integration with portfolio management. Improved accountability and continuous improvement are now built into Stage‐Gate via a rigorous postlaunch review. Finally, progressive companies are reinventing Stage‐Gate for use with “open innovation,” whereas others are applying the principles of value stream analysis to yield a leaner version of Stage‐Gate.