Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Subhash Sharma (1995)
Applied multivariate techniques
Adrian Choo, K. Linderman, R. Schroeder (2007)
Method and Psychological Effects on Learning Behaviors and Knowledge Creation in Quality Improvement ProjectsManag. Sci., 53
Barbara Flynn, Sadao Sakakibara, R. Schroeder, Kimberly Bates, E. Flynn (1990)
Empirical research methods in operations managementJournal of Operations Management, 9
K. Eisenhardt, Jeffrey Martin (2000)
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY?Strategic Management Journal, 21
B. Bowonder, T. Miyake (2000)
Technology management: a knowledge ecology perspectiveInt. J. Technol. Manag., 19
M.J. Tyre, W.J. Orlikowski
Exploiting opportunities for technological improvement in organizations
A. Mukherjee, Michael Lapré, L. Wassenhove (1998)
Knowledge Driven Quality ImprovementManagement Science, 44
S. Zahra, R. Sisodia, Brett Matherne (1999)
Exploiting the dynamic links between competitive and technology strategiesEuropean Management Journal, 17
D. Ford (1988)
Develop your Technology StrategyLong Range Planning, 21
Daniel Levinthal, J. March (1993)
The myopia of learningSouthern Medical Journal, 14
Patricia Averett (2001)
People: The Human Side of Systems TechnologyJournal for Quality and Participation, 24
D. Teece, G. Pisano, A. Shuen (1997)
DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENTStrategic Management Journal, 18
(1998)
Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
James Anderson, D. Gerbing (1988)
STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACHPsychological Bulletin, 103
B. Bruno (2004)
The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociol...
Sally Davenport, C. Campbell-Hunt (2003)
The Dynamics of Technology Strategy: An Exploratory StudyIO: Productivity
Dorothy Leonard-Barton (2000)
The Factory as a Learning Laboratory
K. Weick (2021)
FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONSThe New Economic Sociology
G. Day, D. Reibstein, R. Gunther (2006)
Wharton On Dynamic Competitive Strategy
Shih-Chia Chang, Ru-Jen Lin, Jung-Hui Chen, Li-Hua Huang (2005)
Manufacturing flexibility and manufacturing proactiveness: Empirical evidence from the motherboard industryInd. Manag. Data Syst., 105
Michael Lapré, L. Wassenhove (2001)
Creating and Transferring Knowledge for Productivity Improvement in FactoriesManag. Sci., 47
N. Hatch, D. Mowery (1998)
Process Innovation and Learning by Doing in Semiconductor ManufacturingManagement Science, 44
P.L. Berger, T. Luckmann
The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge
D. Teece (1993)
Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policyResearch Policy, 15
M. Iansiti
How the incumbent can win: managing technological transitions in the semiconductor industry
R. Daft, K. Weick (1984)
Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation SystemsAcademy of Management Review, 9
F. Rothaermel, M. Alexandre (2009)
Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive CapacityOrgan. Sci., 20
P. Bentler (1990)
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological bulletin, 107 2
R. Bohn (1998)
Chapter 17 – Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge
E. Johnsen (1964)
Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s.Ledelse and Erhvervsøkonomi, 28
(1990)
Technology as equivoque
M. Iansiti (2000)
How the Incumbent Can Win: Managing Technological Transitions in the Semiconductor Industry.: Managing Technological Transitions in the Semiconductor Industry., 46
R.E. Bohn
Measuring and managing technological knowledge
Kenneth Boyer, Mark Pagell (2000)
Measurement issues in empirical research: improving measures of operations strategy and advanced manufacturing technologyJournal of Operations Management, 18
T. Vilkamo, T. Keil (2003)
Strategic technology partnering in high-velocity environments: lessons from a case studyTechnovation, 23
T. Lant, S. Mezias (1992)
An Organizational Learning Model of Convergence and ReorientationOrganization Science, 3
Paul Skilton, K. Dooley (2002)
Technological knowledge maturity, innovation and productivityInternational Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22
Hongwu Ouyang (2008)
Resources, absorptive capacity, and technology sourcingInt. J. Technol. Manag., 41
R. Schroeder, Barbara Flynn (2001)
High performance manufacturing : global perspectives
Karen Papke-Shields, M. Malhotra, V. Grover (2002)
Strategic Manufacturing Planning Systems and Their Linkage to Planning System SuccessDecis. Sci., 33
M.J. Gregory, D.R. Probert, D.R. Cowell
Auditing technology management processes
J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tathum, W.C. Black
Multivariate Data Analysis
P. Bentler, D. Bonett (1980)
Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance StructuresPsychological Bulletin, 88
M. Browne, R. Cudeck (1992)
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model FitSociological Methods & Research, 21
Daniel Rose, P. Berger, T. Luckmann (1967)
The Social Construction of RealityThe Modern Language Journal, 51
Dorothy Leonard-Barton, W. Chew, R. Bohn (1991)
Beating Murphy's Law
Hong Liu, P. Barrar (2008)
Performance implications of strategy‐technology connections: an empirical examinationJournal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20
(1996)
Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum
R.M. Grant, R. Krishnan, A.B. Shani, R. Baer
Appropriate manufacturing technology: a strategic approach
C. Hill, F. Rothaermel (2003)
The Performance of Incumbent firms in the Face of Radical Technological InnovationAcademy of Management Review, 28
Lin Ding, W. Velicer, L. Harlow (1995)
Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indicesStructural Equation Modeling, 2
S. Costa, E. Lima (2008)
Advanced manufacturing technology adoption: an integrated approachJournal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20
K.E. Weick
Sensemaking in Organizations
N. Venkatraman
The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence
J. Barney (1991)
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive AdvantageJournal of Management, 17
X. Koufteros (1999)
Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modelingJournal of Operations Management, 17
M. Shubik, R. Cyert, J. March (1964)
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60
R.E. Schumacker, R.G. Lomax
Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling
A. Roth, A. Marucheck, A. Kemp, Dong Trimble (1994)
The Knowledge Factory for accelerated learning practices, 22
W. Bailey, R. Masson, R. Raeside (1998)
Choosing successful technology development partners: a best-practice modelInternational Journal of Technology Management, 15
D. Upton, Bowon Kim (1998)
Alternative methods of learning and process improvement in manufacturingJournal of Operations Management, 16
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a learning‐based technology strategy along three dimensions: proactive technology posture, process adaptation and experimentation, and collaborative technology sourcing; also to investigate their relationships with plant competitiveness (cost, quality, delivery, flexibility, and innovation). Design/methodology/approach – Hypothesized relationships are tested from three perspectives – direct effects perspective, co‐alignment perspective, and mediation perspective – using structural equation modeling with an international dataset. Findings – Results show that although the three dimensions of learning‐based technology strategy are not individually related to plant competitiveness (direct effects perspective), their co‐alignment strongly impacts plant competitiveness (co‐alignment perspective). Furthermore, this co‐alignment creates an environment in which employee suggestion and feedback can help make sense of novel situations, leading to superior plant competitiveness (mediation perspective). Practical implications – Many plants develop some aspects of a learning‐based technology strategy while paying little or no attention to the rest. As the findings of the present study show, such an approach will contribute very little to achieving competitive advantage in the marketplace. More specifically, it is shown that three dimensions of learning‐based technology strategy, when used together, have a significant effect on plant competitiveness. Additionally, it is shown that employee suggestions for improvements drive a learning‐based approach to technology strategy. Therefore, managers should adopt a comprehensive approach to technology strategy using all three dimensions and engage their employees in the process of technology development and improvement. Originality/value – The literature has stressed the need for proactive technology posture, process adaptation and experimentation, and collaborative technology sourcing to gain competitive advantage. However, little is known about their mutual interdependence and their combined impact on plant competitiveness. This paper attempts to fill in this gap in the literature.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management – Emerald Publishing
Published: Dec 21, 2010
Keywords: Plant efficiency; Operations management; Knowledge management; Tacit knowledge; Explicit knowledge; Competitive strategy
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.