IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v24y2018i3d10.1007_s10588-017-9261-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The paradox of cost minimization and the survival of organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Zvi Winer

    (School of Management, Western Galilee College)

  • Yitzhak Samuel

    (University of Haifa)

Abstract

Organizations that operate in a dynamic environment must take steps to adapt to their changing circumstances; otherwise, they may collapse entirely. Yet, managers may postpone necessary change to minimize costs, while ignoring the risk that this myopic approach entails to the survival of their organizations. This paper proposes a model that considers failure as a stage-wise process of decline, in which the organization’s portfolio of products and the technological processes that it uses to produce them become increasingly misaligned with market conditions. Eventually, if management fails to adapt to the market in time, the gap between the organization and its environment expands to a point of no return, after which organizational collapse is inevitable. The model enables us to run computerized simulations to predict the lifespan of organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Zvi Winer & Yitzhak Samuel, 2018. "The paradox of cost minimization and the survival of organizations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 401-421, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:24:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10588-017-9261-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-017-9261-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-017-9261-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-017-9261-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pinelopi K Goldberg & Amit K Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik & Petia Topalova, 2010. "Multiproduct Firms and Product Turnover in the Developing World: Evidence from India," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 1042-1049, November.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. V. Krishnan & Karl T. Ulrich, 2001. "Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Rajiv K. Sinha & Charles H. Noble, 2008. "The adoption of radical manufacturing technologies and firm survival," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(9), pages 943-962, September.
    5. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2010. "Multiple-Product Firms and Product Switching," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 70-97, March.
    6. Yitzhak Samuel & Chanoch Jacobsen, 1997. "A System Dynamics Model of Planned Organizational Change," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 151-171, September.
    7. Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2002. "Misperceiving Interactions Among Complements and Substitutes: Organizational Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 900-916, July.
    8. Lucas Navarro, 2012. "Plant level evidence on product mix changes in Chilean manufacturing," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 165-195, February.
    9. Sidney G. Winter, 2003. "Understanding dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 991-995, October.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    11. Diego Comin & Bart Hobijn & Emilie Rovito, 2006. "Five Facts You Need to Know About Technology Diffusion," NBER Working Papers 11928, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias, 2008. "A Theoretical Framework for Managing the New Product Development Portfolio: When and How to Use Strategic Buckets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 907-921, May.
    13. Agarwal, Rajshree, 1996. "Technological activity and survival of firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 101-108, July.
    14. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    15. Ishani Tewari & Joshua Wilde, 2019. "Product Scope and Productivity: Evidence from India's Product Reservation Policy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(1), pages 339-362, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. R. Monin & M. Suarez Castillo, 2020. "Product switching, market power and distance to core competency," Documents de Travail de l'Insee - INSEE Working Papers g2020-06, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.
    2. Becker, Dennis, 2014. "Informality among multi-product firms," Working Papers 250009, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    3. Juliana Dias Alves & Mauro Sayar Ferreira, 2016. "Multiproduct firms, firm dynamics, and the productive mix of Brazilian manufacturing firms," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 538, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    4. Roberto Alvarez & Claudio Bravo-Ortega & Lucas Navarro, 2016. "Product mix changes and performance in Chilean plants," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(6), pages 1001-1017.
    5. Alessia Lo Turco & Daniela Maggioni, 2016. "On tariff changes and firm-production evolution: insights from Turkish manufacturing," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 131-164, March.
    6. Ishani Tewari & Joshua Wilde, 2019. "Product Scope and Productivity: Evidence from India's Product Reservation Policy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(1), pages 339-362, July.
    7. Lionel Fontagné & Angelo Secchi & Chiara Tomasi, 2016. "The Fickle Fringe and the Stable Core: Exporters' Product Mix Across Markets," Working Papers hal-01315601, HAL.
    8. Roberto Alvarez & Andrés Zahler, 2014. "Export Mix Changes and Firm Performance: Evidence from Chile," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 85354, Inter-American Development Bank.
    9. Michael Irlacher, 2022. "Multi-product Firms in International Economics," Economics working papers 2022-01, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    10. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    11. Colantone, Italo & Crinò, Rosario, 2014. "New imported inputs, new domestic products," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 147-165.
    12. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Amit Kumar Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik & Petia Topalova, 2010. "Imported Intermediate Inputs and Domestic Product Growth: Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(4), pages 1727-1767.
    13. Marco Cucculelli, 2018. "Firm age and the probability of product innovation. Do CEO tenure and product tenure matter?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 153-179, January.
    14. Andrius Kazukauskas & Carol Newman & Johannes Sauer, 2014. "The impact of decoupled subsidies on productivity in agriculture: a cross-country analysis using microdata," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 327-336, May.
    15. Geoffrey Barrows & Helene Ollivier, 2016. "Emission intensity and firm dynamics: reallocation, product mix, and technology in India," GRI Working Papers 245, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    16. Weber, Martin & Langer, Thomas, 2003. "Does Binding of Feedback Influence Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 4084, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Nguyen Trong Luan & Doan Nguyen Duy Hau & Nguyen Thi Anh Thu, 2022. "The Influence of Green Product Development Performance to Enhance Enterprise Effectiveness and Innovation," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    18. Ukobitz, Desirée Valeria & Faullant, Rita, 2022. "The relative impact of isomorphic pressures on the adoption of radical technology: Evidence from 3D printing," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Schriber, Svante & Löwstedt, Jan, 2015. "Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-68.
    20. Admasu Shiferaw & Degol Hailu, 2016. "Job creation and trade in manufactures: industry-level analysis across countries," IZA Journal of Labor & Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-36, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Change; Survival; Myopic management; Simulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics
    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:comaot:v:24:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10588-017-9261-5. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.