Canadian Manager Perceptions of the US Exchange Listings: Recent Evidence

This study reports recent evidence of Canadian manager perceptions of the benefits and costs of listing in US markets, their attitudes toward listing in the US market, and their opinions regarding the importance of using alternative reporting and disclosure requirements, such as Canadian GAAP or international standards, in lieu of US GAAP for US listings. Manager perceptions of firms listing in the US ("listers") are compared to those of firms that have not listed in the US ("nonlisters") as well as to listers' perceptions collected prior to the implementation of the Multijurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS). Our results do not unambiguously support expectations that implementation of the MJDS would result in cost savings for Canadian listers. We find strong similarities in the perceived benefits of listing as previously reported, but in a significantly higher proportion of our post–MJDS sample. Responses from listers and nonlisters reflect differences between the two populations. Listers appeared concerned with US GAAP reconciliations and disclosure requirements while non–listers are more concerned with the overall difficulty of listing, the costs of listing, and US litigation. Most strongly, however, nonlisters perceive it as unnecessary to list in the US market. Contrary to expectations, we find that US accounting disclosure and reporting requirements are not perceived to be barriers to US market entry for Canadian firms, but instead appear to be post–entry irritants. Finally, we also find evidence that perceptions of nonlisters differ between those firms that list on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and those that list on the Toronto Stock exchange. This suggests that future studies may require finer partitions than on a national basis.     

Is local sourcing out of fashion in the globalization era? Evidence from Italian mechanical industry

The paper concerns a study on the changes affecting leading cluster companies' supplier relationships. In particular, the paper aims at investigating under which conditions and how industrial cluster companies rely on local suppliers in the current context of international competitive pressure and easier access to international supply sources. The research methodology is qualitative and based on a long-term longitudinal research of three case studies of Italian industrial cluster companies that are leading firms in specific niches of the mechanical industry. Two main questions are debated: under which conditions have industrial cluster companies relied on local suppliers? What has been the evolution of relationships between industrial cluster companies and their local suppliers? The empirical analysis shows that local suppliers have been playing strategic roles in different ways in distinct historical phases, contributing actively in terms of knowledge and competence development, production flexibility, delivery performance and cost efficiency.     

Choosing between single and multiple sourcing based on supplier default risk: A real options approach

The selection of a given purchasing strategy is a central activity in risky environments. Single sourcing, a powerful approach in a stable environment, can amplify a firm's exposure to risk (e.g., supplier's default) in the presence of uncertainty. Multiple sourcing, however, presents higher costs due to the management of more than one supplier. A correct evaluation from a risk management perspective is needed. This paper proposes the Real Options approach for valuing the probabilistic benefits of multiple sourcing in managing the supplier default risk (to be compared with the related higher costs). A computational model, based on the Monte Carlo simulation, was developed. The results show the (probabilistic) advantages of adopting the multiple sourcing strategy in risky environments for a specific case. The proposed sensitivity analysis is aimed at identifying the impact of the most important transactional parameters on the differential benefits of the two sourcing strategies. Thus, the model and its managerial implications represent a valid support for the decision-making process in the presence of uncertainty.     

PERSPECTIVE: Establishing an NPD Best Practices Framework

Achieving NPD best practices is a top‐of‐mind issue for many new product development (NPD) managers and is often an overarching implicit, if not explicit, goal. The question is what does one mean when talking about NPD best practices? And how does a manager move toward achieving these? This article proposes a best practices framework as a starting point for much‐needed discussion on this topic. Originally presented during the 2004 Product Development Management Association (PDMA) Research Conference in Chicago, the article and the authors' presentation spurred a significant, expansive discussion that included all conference attendees. Given the interest generated, the decision was made to move forward on a series of rejoinders on the topic of NPD best practice, using the Kahn, Barczak, and Moss framework as a focal launching point for these rejoinders. A total of five rejoinders were received and accompany the best practices framework in this issue of JPIM. Each rejoinder brings out a distinct issue because each of the five authors has a unique perspective. The first rejoinder is written by Dr. Marjorie Adams‐Bigelow, director of the PDMA's Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS), PDMA Foundation. Based on her findings during the CPAS study, Adams comments on the proposed framework, suggesting limitations in scope. She particularly points out discrepancies between the proposed framework and the framework offered by PDMA's emerging body of knowledge. Dr. Elko Kleinschmidt, professor of marketing and international business at McMaster University, wrote the second rejoinder. Based on his extensive research with Robert G. Cooper on NPD practices, he points out that best practices really raise more questions than answers. Thomas Kuczmarski, president of Kuczmarski and Associates, is the author of the third rejoinder. Kuczmarski highlights that company mindset and metrics are critical elements needing keen attention. Where do these fit—or should they—in the proposed framework? The fourth rejoinder is written by Richard Notargiacomo, consultant for the integrated product delivery process at Eastman Kodak Company. Notargiacomo compares the proposed framework to a best practices framework Kodak has used for new product commercialization and management since 1998. The distinction of the Kodak framework is the inclusion of a product maturity model component. Dr. Lois Peters, associate professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), is the author of the fifth rejoinder. She brings out issues of radical innovation, a natural focal issue of RPI's radical innovation project (RRIP). It is highlighted that radical innovation may require unique, distinctive process characteristics a single framework cannot illustrate. Multiple layers of frameworks may be more appropriate, each corresponding to a level of innovation desired. The overall hope is that the discourse on best practices in this issue of JPIM generates more discussion and debate. Ultimately, the hope is that such discourse will lead to subsequent continued study to help discern what NPD best practice means for our discipline.     

The MultiJurisdictional Disclosure System: Model for Future Cooperation?

This study investigates whether the MultiJurisdictional Disclosure System (MJDS) was successful in meeting its stated objectives, namely, facilitating cross-border offerings and reporting by Canadian firms. The MJDS is a bilateral agreement implemented in July 1991 between Canadian and US market regulators. It is hypothesized that facilitating crossborder offerings via the MJDS will lead to an increase in the number of US listings by Canadian firms and reduced costs of US listing for extant Canadian listers. Data evaluated include changes in US exchange listings from 1987 to 1995 and questionnaires to two subgroups of Canadian firms: (1) the population of Canadian firms listing their securities in US and Canadian markets and (2) a sample of Canadian firms listing only on Canadian exchanges. We conclude that for most Canadian firms, the MJDS provides no significant benefit. Further, few firms reported that the MJDS affected their decision to list in the United States. Our results suggest that the MJDS has not, overall, provided the benefits originally envisioned under it, and we question whether it is an appropriate model for future cooperation between national regulatory groups.