Overcoming Contemporary Mythology: An Essay

Over the last 35 years, a free market, laissez faire program has increasingly dominated perceptions as to what constitutes correct economic theory and policy. Most adherents of this program trace its origins to Adam Smith, and claim that its dominant position is the result of superior theory.

The argument here is that Adam Smith is not the theoretical ancestor of modern laissez faire economics, and that there are fundamental differences between Smith’s position on laissez faire and that of conventional neoclassical theory. A difference between “soft” and “hard” laissez faire is made, where Smith represents the former position; neoclassical theory the latter. Further, and more important, it is argued that the current laissez faire program is an outgrowth of a political program instituted in the 1930’s and financially supported in the present era by conservative foundations to promote an ideological framework that permits the development of specific governmental (and non-governmental) actions.     

A dynamic perspective on the impact of process innovation upon competitive strategies

The paper lays the foundation for building a dynamic theory of the impact of process innovation upon competitive strategies. An innovation is tracked over two and a half decades to observe changing patterns in competition resulting from ongoing innovation development, emerging complementary technologies, and expanding use. The study finds that the innovation created competitive opportunities and threats for both firms that adopted it and those that did not.     

Linking learning and effective process implementation to mass customization capability

This study investigates the role of learning and effective process implementation in the development of mass customization capability. Building upon the knowledge-based view of the firm, we argue that internal and external learning are two knowledge-generation routines that contribute to effective process implementation. Effective process implementation, in turn, is a knowledge-based manufacturing capability, which, as a function of internal and external learning, leads to mass customization capability. We employ structural equation modeling to empirically test the effects of learning on mass customization capability, mediated by effective process implementation, using survey data collected from 100 manufacturing plants in 3 industries and 6 countries. Our results provide empirical evidence supporting the proposed model of the effect of internal and external learning on mass customization capability, fully mediated by effective process implementation. This research is one of the first studies to integrate insights from the knowledge-based view of the firm and mass customization. It complements the OM view of mass customization, which to date has largely focused on the technical side, by demonstrating the role of managerial practices and learning in cultivating mass customization capability in a manufacturing environment.     

Attitudes toward outdoor recreation development: An application of social exchange theory

A research project was undertaken within a multi‐county region in southeastern Ohio to ascertain the attitudes of local residents toward future outdoor recreation development within the area. A systematic random sample of 1493 respondents was drawn from a five‐county region to test a theoretical perspective developed from selected components of social exchange theory. The findings demonstrated that the respondents held very favorable attitudes toward outdoor recreation development. Multivariate analysis of the data revealed that the theoretical model was basically supported. The findings are discussed from both applied and theoretical perspectives.     

Small enterprises as complex adaptive systems: a methodological question?

Complexity science constitutes an emerging post-positivist interdisciplinary field of investigation of dynamical systems in the natural and physical worlds. The central concept of complexity is that interactions between parts of open systems create novel, unpredictable patterns, and that while the history of the system is relevant in understanding its dynamic, the isolation of individual parts of the system (analysis) does not reveal the casual mechanisms in the system. It is suggested that complexity science can inform our methodologies for investigating the social sciences. The paper explores whether complexity science offers ways of theory building that can take account of pluralistic or interdisciplinary research in enterprise dynamics. The authors offer a model of six theorized ontological layers, derived from the canon of research literature within a small enterprise domain, with boundaries at each end. It is suggested that dynamical concepts of agency (adaption, evolution, fitness, interdependence) coupled with the theory of evolutionary autopoietic structures generate a plausible field for the study of enterprise dynamics. A focus on ontological and experimental adequacy is necessary to develop theory within this framework. An appropriate methodology involves iterations between experimental forms of scientific analysis and the grounding of emergent or evolving theories.     

Modeling the act of measurement in the social sciences

Motivated by time-series experimental designs, we develop a model of the act of measurement in the social sciences. Meaningful measurements are represented by operators that obey a non-commutative algebra. Thus, the order in which information is extracted matters. In addition, responses to questions about an attribute depend on whether information about another attribute has previously been extracted. Measurement “forces” the subject to obtain one value of the attribute, the one measured by the observer. An uncertainty principle imposes a fundamental limit on the ability to extract detailed information about two distinct attributes within a short period of time.     

Do New Product Development Managers in Large or High-Market-Share Firms Perceive Marketing-R&D Interface Principles Differently?

In the quest for successful innovation, the importance of the R&Dlmarketing interface is virtually unquestioned. For many organizations, however, effective integration of technical and marketing functions is difficult, if not impossible. Despite seemingly widespread understanding of fundamental new product principles, some companies still manage to gain a larger share of the market than their competitors. This raises the question of whether managers in more successful companies have special insights into R&D'/'marketing interface principles that give them an edge over their competitors. To gain a better understanding of managers' perceptions of new product principles defined in the academic literature, Ted Haggblom, Roger J. Calantone, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto conducted a survey of 687 nonacademic members of the Product Development and Management Association. The basis for the survey was a set of 78 product management principles compiled from a search of more than 500 books and articles from various disciplines. From this survey, 14 of the 78 principles were selected as relevant to the study reported in this article. The principles discussed in this article involve such issues as resistance to change, short-term orientation, communication and trust between marketing and technical people, the effect of centralized decision-making on innovation, the importance of open communication flows, senior management's role in the R&D I marketing interface, and the necessity of a product champion. The primary quesstion addressed in this study is whether managers from successful companies perceive these principles differently from managers of less successful firms. The study provides partial support for the proposition that managers' perceptions of these new product principles depend on their company's success. In other words, the survey results suggest that managers in companies with higher market shares tend to agree more strongly with these principles than their counterparts in less successful firms. The study also explores the relationship between firm size and agreement with these principles of new product success. Specifically, the study assesses whether the perceptions of managers from smaller, more entrepreneurial companies differ from those of managers in larger companies. Although managers from small and large firms may view these principles from different perspectives, there were no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of managers from small and large firms.