The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, by Clayton M. Christensen. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.Leading the Revolution, by Gary Hamel. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant, by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms

Andersen, Poul Houman; Strandskov, Jesper

doi:10.5465/amr.2008.32465791

Cited by 51 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Under this type of arrangement, there is a risk that individual employees are inhibited from exercising discretion needed for daily work. 34 Local health departments appear to counter this risk with a pattern of markedly lower centralization and density in the strongest ties networks (except for the outlier LHD 7, for which we have an explanation). Fewer employee links with the core for day-to-day communication suggest distributed allocation of decision authority, which can optimize performance in complex multiple-task environments, such as LHDs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

A Comparative Study of 11 Local Health Department Organizational Networks

Merrill

Keeling

Carley

2010

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Although the nation’s local health departments (LHDs) share a common mission, variability in administrative structures is a barrier to identifying common, optimal management strategies. There is a gap in understanding what unifying features LHDs share as organizations that could be leveraged systematically for achieving high performance. Objective To explore sources of commonality and variability in a range of LHDs by comparing intraorganizational networks. Intervention We used organizational network analysis to document relationships between employees, tasks, knowledge, and resources within LHDs, which may exist regardless of formal administrative structure. Setting A national sample of 11 LHDs from seven states that differed in size, geographic location, and governance. Participants Relational network data were collected via an on-line survey of all employees in 11 LHDs. A total of 1 062 out of 1 239 employees responded (84% response rate). Outcome Measures Network measurements were compared using coefficient of variation. Measurements were correlated with scores from the National Public Health Performance Assessment and with LHD demographics. Rankings of tasks, knowledge, and resources were correlated across pairs of LHDs. Results We found that 11 LHDs exhibited compound organizational structures in which centralized hierarchies were coupled with distributed networks at the point of service. Local health departments were distinguished from random networks by a pattern of high centralization and clustering. Network measurements were positively associated with performance for 3 of 10 essential services (r > 0.65). Patterns in the measurements suggest how LHDs adapt to the population served. Conclusions Shared network patterns across LHDs suggest where common organizational management strategies are feasible. This evidence supports national efforts to promote uniform standards for service delivery to diverse populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

A Comparative Study of 11 Local Health Department Organizational Networks

Merrill

Keeling

Carley

2010

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first and foremost requirement for a collaborative decision-making process is the existence of unifying goals that require collective effort and commitment from all departments within the organization, including senior management [52]. For this reason, Morgan Stanley decided to introduce peer-evaluation, even in their senior management committees.…”

Section: Framework To Overcome the Challenges And Promote A Customer-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Tom DeLong, senior executive at the time: “Operating Committee members who normally did not share the important knowledge of their divisions realized that at the end of the year they would be evaluating one another. All of a sudden they began to share more information, knowing the consequences at year-end for their evaluations if they didn’t” [52]. For the drug commercialization process, this implies that even though the overarching governance body consists of individuals from different functions, it should maintain a clear and strong focus on the end customer’s needs [53].…”

Section: Framework To Overcome the Challenges And Promote A Customer-mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Science is Not Enough: A Framework Towards More Customer-Focused Drug Development

Oraiopoulos

Dunlop

2017

Adv Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to identify the key barriers to a customer-focused drug development process and develop a comprehensive framework to overcome them.MethodsThe paper draws on existing literature, both academic and practitioner, across a range of disciplines (innovation management, marketing, organizational behavior, behavioral economics, health economics, industry reports). On the basis of this extensive review, a conceptual framework is developed that offers concrete suggestions on how organizations can overcome the barriers and enable a more customer-focused development process.ResultsThe barriers to collaboration are organized into three distinct categories (economic, behavioral, organizational), and within each category, a one-to-one mapping between barriers and solutions is developed.ConclusionThe framework is specifically designed with the objective of offering actionable and practical advice to executives who face these challenges in their organizations. The paper provides a unique theoretical contribution by synthesizing findings from several academic disciplines with concrete examples from the pharmaceutical industry.FundingMundipharma International Limited.

show abstract

“…In this context, the 2CUL collaboration is better understood as a means to a strategically valued end, neither the raison d'être of the relationship nor the end in itself, for the goal of collaboration is always better performance leading to improved service. 18 Interestingly, in the evolution of its goal from integration to alliance, the TSI project has positioned 2CUL to leverage its similarities in institutional culture rather than forcibly realign its cultural differences, both of which project staff now understand considerably better as a result of the early work of the project (i.e., the preparation for integration). Moreover, it was through TSI's failure as technical services integration that 2CUL has been able to finesse its differences and focus on its shared interests.…”

Section: An Affinity In Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finale and Future: The 2CUL Technical Services Strategic Alliance

Harcourt¹,

LeBlanc²

2017

LRTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Notes on OperationsThe Columbia and Cornell University Libraries' partnership (2CUL) A key component of the broad-based collaboration between the Columbia and Cornell University Libraries, known as 2CUL, was to have been the integration of the central technical services operations of both institutions.2 This project, initially called 2CUL Technical Services Integration (TSI) and funded by a generous three-year grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, aimed to create a single, unified, and deeply collaborative operation that would support the broader goals of 2CUL by means of 1. a reconception of the institutions' separate library operations to achieve integration across both campuses by realigning staff responsibilities, workflows, and reporting lines; and 2. a transformation of the vision, priorities, and values of both libraries' technical services to support the overall institutional goals for 2CUL and to view institutional collaboration as fundamental to regular library operations. 3The libraries anticipated that the savings in staff time and effort in the integrated technical services divisions would create additional capacity for new or previously unrealized projects and initiatives. The 2CUL TSI steering committee devoted the first year of TSI planning to creating an administrative infrastructure and encouraging staff buy-in to support the integration. They appointed ten working groups consisting of middle managers and other key staff to represent major functional areas of the two libraries' technical services operations. They charged these functional working groups to compile inventories of each unit's staff, expertise, policies, practices, and workflows; to exchange information regarding reporting and decision-making structures and The authors wish to thank the 2CUL Project Directors, Xin Li (Cornell) and Robert Wolven (Columbia), and fellow TSI JSMIN members, Adam Chandler (Cornell) and Robert Rendall (Columbia), for their input on a draft version of this article. They would also like to thank those (too numerous to mention here) who participated directly in the TSI project for their support and contributions to the work described in the following pages.

show abstract

Cited by 51 publications

References 3 publications

A Comparative Study of 11 Local Health Department Organizational Networks

A Comparative Study of 11 Local Health Department Organizational Networks

When Science is Not Enough: A Framework Towards More Customer-Focused Drug Development

Finale and Future: The 2CUL Technical Services Strategic Alliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About