توسعه دوسو توان محصول پیچیده، موردپژوهی نیروگاه غرب کارون
محورهای موضوعی : عمومى
زهرا گمار
1
(مدیریت نوآوری، دانشگاه تهران)
محسن حامدی
2
( دانشکده فنی دانشگاه تهران)
رضا بندریان
3
(پژوهشگاه صنعت نفت)
کلید واژه: توسعه محصول پیچیده, دوسوتوانی, یادگیری, پروژه,
چکیده مقاله :
محصولات پیچیده در همه صنایع فراگیر بوده و در زیرساخت های صنعتی کشورهای توسعه یافته نقشی اساسی ایفا می کنند. مشاهده شکست برخی شرکت‌های مطرح بین المللی در این حوزه، بررسی نمونه های موفق و تحلیل علل موفقیت آنها را ضروری می سازد. این نیاز در شرکت‌های مؤخر فعال در این حوزه به دلیل محدودیتهایی که این شرکت‌ها با آن مواجهند از جمله ساختار درحال توسعه کشورهای خاستگاه و عدم دسترسی به شبکه های پیشرو اهمیتی مضاعف پیدا می‌‌کند. تحقیق حاضر که با رویکرد کیفی انجام شده است به تحلیل توسعه موفق محصولات پیچیده در صنعت برق بر اساس الگوی دوسوتوانی می پردازد. نتایج حاصل از این تحقیق نشان می دهد که شرکتی موخر توانسته است پس از اکتساب برون زای فناوری، با اجرای طیفی از پروژه های مکرر منظور کاربرد اقتصاد تکرار و بازترکیب حاصل از توسعه و به کار‌گیری مکانیزمهای توسعه درون زا پروژه‌های پیشرو را به منظور دستیابی به پایه فناوری جدید و تأمین فناوری‌های پیچیده مورد نیاز خود با اتکا به دوسوتوانی طراحی، تأمین و اجرا کند. مکانیزمهای به کارگرفته شده شامل توسعه ماژولار محصولات پیچیده، تعمیق دانش با بهره برداری و تدوین دانش درونی شده با تمرکز بر تأمین نیازهای پایش شده بازار هستند. این تجربه موفق در تحویل دستاوردهای پروژه، کارکرد دوسوتوانی را در عرصه مدیریت پروژه ها نیز به نمایش می‌گذارد. رویکرد ترکیبی دوسوتوانی در عرصه توسعه فناوری و محصول و مدیریت پروژه‌های پیچیده کاربردهای قابل توجهی برای سایر صنایع دیگر داشته و از سوی دیگر لزوم گسترش پژوهش‌ها در این عرصه را نشان می‌دهد.
Complex products widespread in all industries, are the infrastructure of the advanced countries. Several examples of the failure of well-known international companies in this area necessitate the need to review successful examples and to analyze and explain the reasons for their success. This need is becoming increasingly important in late-comer companies in the region due to the constraints faced by these companies, including the developing nature of the countries of interest and lack of access to the pioneer networks. The present research is a qualitative case study and aims to explain and analyze the successful development of a complex product in the power industry based on the ambidexterity model. The results show that the late-comer firm, following exogenous licensing of technology, has been able to realize advantages due to exploiting the economics of repetition and recombination by implementing a range of repetitive projects. Development and use of indigenous mechanisms such as development of modular products, deepening of knowledge by exploiting and compiling In-built knowledge to achieve the new technology base has been discussed. Through successful design, deliver and execution a Base Moving project in order to meet the monitored market needs, ambidexterity in complex technology sourcing is achieved. It is shown that the company has become ambidextrous in large scale complex integration (LCSI) projects as well.
1. حسینی، سيد علی؛ محمدی، مهدي، حاجی حسینی، حجت اله؛ (1395)، عوامل حیاتی موفقیت نوآوری در محصولات و سیستمهای پیچیده، فصلنامه مدیریت توسعه فناوری، دوره سوم، شماره 5، صص 159-186
2. حيدري، علي، جعفر پناه، اسماعيل،(1395)، ارائه مدلي براي اهرم سازي يك شايستگي فناورانه( مورد مطالعه: ربات مار مانند)، فصلنامه نوآوري و ارزش آفريني، جلد 5، شماره 9، صص 83-100
3. صفدری رنجبر، م، رحمان سرشت، ح، منطقی، من، قاضی نوری، س، ، ا؛ 1395، پیشران های کسب و ایجاد قابلیت های فناورانه ساخت محصولات و سامانه های پیچیده در بنگاه های متاخر، مطالعه موردی شرکت توربوکمپرسور نفت، فصلنامه مدیریت نوآوری، سال پنجم، شماره 3،صص 1-26
کیامهر، م، 1392، توانمندی های فناورانه عرضه کالاهای سرمایه ای پیچیده در کشورهای در حال توسعه: مطالعه موردی یک شرکت در صنعت برقابی ایران، فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری، سال ششم، شماره 1
5. روسي مختار زاده، نيما، زماني، محمود، گشتاسبي، محمد، بررسي تاثير توانمندي يكپارچه سازي دانش بر نوآوري فناورانه و عملكرد راهبردي(مورد مطالعه: بنگاه هاي توليد كننده دارو در ايران)، فصلنامه نوآوري و ارزش آفريني ، دوره 5، شماره 10
6. Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20 (4), 696-717.
7. Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.
8. Bergek. A, Tell. F, Berggren. C and Watson. J. (2008). Technological capabilities and late shakeouts: Industrial dynamics in the advanced gas turbine industry, 1987- 2002, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 17, Number 2, pp. 335–392
9. Bergek. A, Berggren. C and Tell. F. (2009). Do technology strategies matter? A comparison of two electrical engineering corporations, 1988–1998
electrical engineering corporations, 1988–1998 Technology Analysis & strategic management, Volume 21, 2009 - Issue 4, pp:445-470
10. Bergek. A, Berggren. Christian. C, Magnusson. T and Hobday.M.2013. Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: destruction, disruption or creative accumulation? Research Policy, 42 (6‐7), 1210–1224
11. Blum. M. (2004). Product Development as Dynamic Capability, PHD thesis, University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich
12. Brady, T., Davies, A. (2014), Managing structural and dynamic complexity: a tale of two projects, Project Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4, 21–38
13. Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M.Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 207-218.
14. Davies, A. (1997), ‘The life cycle of a complex product system,’ International Journal of Innovation Management, 1 (3), 229–256.
15. Davies, A. and Brady, T. (2000). ‘Organizational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions’, Research Policy, 29, 931–953.
16. Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005), The business of projects (Managing innovation in complex product systems), Cambridge University Press, New York
17. Davies, A, Brady, T, Prencipe, A, 2011, Innovation in complex product and systems: implication for project-based organizing, Advances in Strategic Management, DOI: 10.1108/S0742-3322(2011)0000028005
18. Davies. A, Brady, T, 2015, Explicating the dynamic of project capabilities, International journal of innovation management, IPMA-01767
19. Davies, A, Dodgson, M, 2016, Dynamic capabilities in complex projects: the case of London Heathrow terminal 5, Project management journal, DOI:10.1002/p.m.
20. Dutton, C., Turner, N., Kelly, L., L., (2014), Learning in a programe context: an exploratory investigation of drivers and constrains, International journal of project management
21. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550
22. Eisenhardt, K.M., & Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121.
23. Grabher, G. ,(2002b), Fragile sector, robust practice: project ecologies in new media’, Environment and Planning A Theme Issue, 34 (11): 1903–2092
24. Guffarth, D., Knappe, M.,(2018), Patterns of Learning in Dynamic Technological System Lifecycles—What Automotive Managers Can Learn from the Aerospace Industry?, Journal of open innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity
25. Hansen, U., E., Lema, R., (2018), the co-evolution of learning mechanisms and technological capabilities: lessons from energy technologies in emerging economies, Technological forecasting and social change
26. He, Z-L., & Wong, P-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481-494.
27. Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization ,Research Policy, 26, 689–710
28. Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems?, Research Policy 29, 871-893
29. Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15 (1), 70-81.
30. Huang, J., W., Li, Y., H., The mediating role of ambidextrous capability in learning orientation and new product performance, Journal of business and industrial marketing, 32/5
31. Kiamehr, M. (2012), PHD thesis, Sussex university
32. Kiamehr, M, Hobday, Hamedi, M. (2015). Latecomer firms' strategies in complex product systems (CoPS): the case of Iran`s thermal electricity generation system, Research policy, 44, 1240-1251
33. Kiamehr, M, Hobday, (2016), Path of technological capability building in complex capital goods: The case of hydro electricity generation in Iran, Technological forecasting & social change,
34. Kang, S-C., Snell, S.A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 65- 92.
35. Katila, R., G. Ahuja. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and product introductions. Acad. Management J. 45 1183–1194.,
36. Lavie, D., L. Rosenkopf. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad. Management J. 49 797–818., Li,Y. , Wei, Z, Zhao, Zhang,C., Liu,Y .(2013). ambidextrous organizational learning, environmental munificence and new product performance: Moderating effect of managerial ties in China. Int. J. Production Economics, 146, 95-105
37. Liu, l., Leitner, D. (2012), Simultaneous Pursuit of Innovation and Efficiency in Complex Engineering Projects—A Study of the Antecedents and Impacts of Ambidexterity in Project Teams, Project Management Journal
38. Liu, L., Wang, Sheng. (2012), Achieving ambidexterity in large, complex engineering projects: a case study of the Sutong bridge project, Construction Management and Economics ,30, 399–409
39. Lundin, R. A. and Soderholm, A. (1995). ‘A theory of the temporary organization’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11 (4), 437–455.
40. Magnusson, T., F. Tell, and J. Watson. (2005). From CoPS to Mass production? Capabilities and innovation in power generation equipment manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(1): 1-26.
41. Majid pour, M. (2016), Technological catch-up in complex product systems. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 41: pp. 92-105.
42. March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
43. Mathews, J. A. (2002c). Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm: A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 (4): 467–488.
44. Mulders, D.E.M, (2010), Essays on the nature and dynamics of higher-order organizational capabilities, PHD thesis, University of Technology
45. O’Reilly, Charles A. and Tushman, Michael L. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: past, present and future, Academy of management perspectives, 2013, Vol. 27, Issue 4, Pages 324-338
46. O’Reilly, Charles A. and Tushman, Michael L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185-206.
47. Prencipe, A. (2000). Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: the case of the aircraft engine control system. Research Policy 29: 895-911
48. Safdari Ranjbar, M, Rahmanseresht, H, Manteghi, M, Ghazinoory, 2017, Dynamism of Iran’s Government Policies meantime Formation and Evolution of Gas Turbine Industry as a Complex Product System, International conference on management of technology
49. Ranjbar, M,R, Park,T,Y, Kiamehr. M. (2018). What happened to complex product systems literature over the last two decades: progresses so far and path ahead, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Taylor & Francis Group
50. Rothaermel, F. T., D. L. Deeds. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management J. 25 201–221
51. Rothaermel, F. T., C. W. L. Hill. (2005). Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organ. Sci. 16 52–70
52. Rothaermel, Frank T. and Alexandre, Maria T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20: 759-780.
53. Sidhu, J.S., Commandeur, H.R., & Volberda, H.W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18 (1), 20-38.
54. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (4), 597-624.
55. Tacla, C., L., Figueiredo, P.,N.,(2006), The dynamics of technological learning inside the latecomer firm: evidence from the capital goods industry in Brazil, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 36, Nos. 1/2/3, 2006
56. Tushman, M., L. (2017). Innovation streams and executive leadership, Research- Technology Management, Online journal management: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urtm20
57. Teece DJ. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy 15 (6): 285-305.
58. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
59. Turner N. (2011), the management of ambidexterity, PHD Thesis, university of BATH
60. Turner, N., Maylor, H., Kelly, L., L., Brady, T., Kutsch, E., Carver, S., (2014), Ambidexterity and knowledge strategy in major projects: a framework and illustrative case study, Project management journal, Vol. 45, No.5
61. Turner, N., Maylor, H., Swart, J., (2014). Ambidexterity in projects: an intellectual capital perspective, International Journal of Project Management
62. Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S.A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 221-231
63. Wei, Z., & Igel, B. (2010). Competence to Manage Innovation in Complex Product Systems, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, vol. 2, issue 6, pp: 1741-5098
64. Wang, C., Rafiq.(2012). Ambidextrous Organizational Culture, Contextual Ambidexterity and New Product Innovation: A Comparative Study of UK and Chinese High-tech Firms, British Journal of Management, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
65. Wang, X., R., Liu, L., Sheng, Z.,H.(2009). Ambidextrous management of al large, complex engineering project with significant innovation-case study of the Sutong bridge project, 978-1-4244-3672-9/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
66. Zeng, D., Hu, J., Ouyang, T.,(2017), Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm, Sustainability 2017, 9, 2091; doi:10.3390/su9112091
67. Zollo, M., & Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13 (3), 339-351.
68. Yin,K.R.(2014), Case study research design and methods, SAGE, London
