IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v3y1992i3p301-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of Organizational Responses to Technological Change in the Production Process

Author

Listed:
  • Marcie J. Tyre

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, E52-564, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

  • Oscar Hauptman

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

This paper examines the effectiveness of organizational problem solving in response to technological change in the production process. First, the paper measures the degree of uncertainty associated with a given technological change by examining (1) the novelty of specific new features and functions, and (2) the required departure from established operating assumptions and organizational relationships. Second, the paper identifies three modes of problem solving that organizations use in dealing with technological change: modification prior to implementation (preparatory search), joint work with external technical experts during production start-up (joint search), and integration of engineering and manufacturing functions engaged in start-up (functional overlap). The effectiveness of these approaches is then tested on a sample of 48 new process introductions undertaken in eight plants by a leading global producer of precision metal components. Results indicate that the measured characteristics of technological change are significant predictors of the difficulties encountered in introducing new process technology. Findings also suggest that intensive problem solving efforts can significantly improve change outcomes, both shortening the period of disruption experienced and increasing the operating gains achieved. In addition, there was some evidence that the three organizational problem solving activities discussed here are not equally effective for responding to all types of process change. Specifically, the higher the level of technical novelty involved, the less useful was overlap between engineering and manufacturing functions. This challenges the general prescription that cross-functional team involvement in major technical projects always should be maximized, regardless of the nature of the change involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcie J. Tyre & Oscar Hauptman, 1992. "Effectiveness of Organizational Responses to Technological Change in the Production Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 301-320, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:3:y:1992:i:3:p:301-320
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.301
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.3.3.301?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vits, Jeroen & Gelders, Ludo & Pintelon, Liliane, 2006. "Production process changes: A dynamic programming approach to manage effective capacity and experience," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 473-481, December.
    2. Cheryl Gaimon & Gülru F. Özkan & Karen Napoleon, 2011. "Dynamic Resource Capabilities: Managing Workforce Knowledge with a Technology Upgrade," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1560-1578, December.
    3. Heine, Michelle Lane & Grover, Varun & Malhotra, Manoj K., 2003. "The relationship between technology and performance: a meta-analysis of technology models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 189-204, June.
    4. Stefan H. Thomke, 1998. "Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 743-762, June.
    5. Lucio Cassia & Tommaso Minola & Stefano Paleari, 2011. "Entrepreneurship, technology and change: a review and proposal for an interpretative framework," Working Papers 1103, Department of Management, Information and Production Engineering, University of Bergamo.
    6. Leone, Maria Isabella & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Natalicchio, Angelo, 2022. "Boundary spanning through external technology acquisition: The moderating role of star scientists and upstream alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Janice E. Carrillo & Cheryl Gaimon, 2004. "Managing Knowledge-Based Resource Capabilities Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1504-1518, November.
    8. Dvir, D. & Lipovetsky, S. & Shenhar, A. & Tishler, A., 1998. "In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 915-935, December.
    9. GuiDeng Say & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2020. "Learning from Digital Failures? The Effectiveness of Firms’ Divestiture and Management Turnover Responses to Data Breaches," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 117-142, June.
    10. Afuah, Allan Nembo. & Utterback, James M., 1941-, 1995. "Dynamic competitive strategies : a technological evolution perspective," Working papers #137-95. Working paper (S, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    11. von Hippel, Eric & Tyre, Marcie J., 1995. "How learning by doing is done: problem identification in novel process equipment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-12, January.
    12. Maryellen R. Kelley & Cynthia R. Cook, 1998. "The Institutional Context and Manufacturing Performance: The Case of the U.S. Defense Industrial Network," NBER Working Papers 6460, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Caron H. St John & Richard W. Pouder & Alan R. Cannon, 2003. "Environmental Uncertainty and Product–Process Life Cycles: A Multi‐level Interpretation of Change Over Time," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 513-541, March.
    14. Cesaroni, Fabrizio, 2010. "Marketing for technologies: S-D Logic and the Open Innovation paradigm," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb100702, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    15. Pérez, Carlos J. & Ponce, Carlos J., 2015. "Disruption costs, learning by doing, and technology adoption," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 64-75.
    16. Tyre, Marcie J. (Marcie Jadine) & Eppinger, Steven D. & Csizinszky, Eva M. H. & Leaders for Manufacturing Program., 1993. "Systematic versus intuitive problem solving on the shop floor : does it matter?," Working papers 3716-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Kelley, Maryellen R. & Arora, Ashish, 1996. "The role of institution-building in US industrial modernization programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 265-279, March.
    18. Jordan Vazquez & Cécile Godé & Jean-Fabrice Lebraty, 2019. "Environnement big data et prise de décision intuitive : le cas de la Police Nationale des Bouches du Rhône," Post-Print halshs-02188451, HAL.
    19. Bayona, Cristina & Garcia-Marco, Teresa & Huerta, Emilio, 2001. "Firms' motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1289-1307, October.
    20. Anita L. Tucker & Ingrid M. Nembhard & Amy C. Edmondson, 2007. "Implementing New Practices: An Empirical Study of Organizational Learning in Hospital Intensive Care Units," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 894-907, June.
    21. Virpi Turkulainen & Morgan L. Swink, 2017. "Supply Chain Personnel as Knowledge Resources for Innovation—A Contingency View," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 53(3), pages 41-59, July.
    22. Bourke, Jane & Roper, Stephen, 2016. "AMT adoption and innovation: An investigation of dynamic and complementary effects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 55, pages 42-55.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:3:y:1992:i:3:p:301-320. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.