Perspectives on the Productivity Dilemma--论文代写范文

生产力的困境,短期效益和长期适应是不相容的。困境源于常规化的内在动力，组织惯例是一种知识指导。当组织解决问题,然后获取知识,可以重用来解决类似的问题。下面的essay代写范文进行叙述。

Abstract
  The authors of this paper presented an All-academy session at the 2008 Academy of Management annual meeting in Anaheim, California. We were excited by the dynamic nature of the debate and felt that it related closely to critical issues in the areas of operations management, strategy, product development and international business. We thus invited the authors to write an article offering their individual and joint views on the productivity dilemma. We trust you will find it to be stimulating and thought provoking. 

 Introduction 
  David James Brunner, Bradley R. Staats, and Michael L. Tushman For more than a century, operations researchers have recognized that organizations can increase efficiency by adhering strictly to proven process templates, thereby rendering operations more stable and predictable (e.g., Taylor, 1911; Deming, 1986). For several decades, researchers have also recognized that these efficiency gains can impose heavy costs (Abernathy, 1978; March, 1991). The capabilities that enable consistent execution can also hinder learning and innovation, leaving organizations rigid and inflexible. 

  Many once-successful organizations collapse when they prove unable to adapt to environmental shifts. By optimizing their processes for maximum efficiency in the short term, organizations become brittle. In the Productivity Dilemma, Abernathy (1978) conjectured that short-term efficiency and longterm adaptability are inherently incompatible. Abernathy’s dilemma results from inherent dynamics of routinization. Organizational routines are a form of knowledge that guides organizational activity (Nelson and Winter, 1982). When organizations solve problems, they acquire knowledge that can be reused to solve similar problems in the future. This knowledge captures the essence of what worked (or did not work) in the past, enabling organizations to take short-cuts and avoid deadends, thereby abridging the problem-solving process (March and Simon, 1993). 

  The more such accumulated knowledge guides organizational activities, the more routinized—i.e., stable, predictable and repetitive—those activities become. Routinization enables organizations to exploit their accumulated knowledge, increasing effi- ciency. At the same time, routinization creates a risk: when organizations are guided by old knowledge, they do not create new knowledge. If the environment has changed, the locations of shortcuts and dead-ends may have shifted and more attractive destinations may have appeared or become accessible. To adapt to environmental changes, organizations must seek out new knowledge. 

  The choice between applying old knowledge and seeking new knowledge is often characterized as a choice between exploitation and exploration (March, 1991; Gupta et al., 2006). Exploitation leverages existing knowledge and capabilities, resulting in stable and efficient performance. Exploration creates new knowledge, enabling organizations to innovate and adapt to changing conditions (March and Simon, 1993). The distinction between exploitation and exploration is complicated by the hierarchical structure of organizational routines. Routines are assembled from modular subroutines, and often ‘‘adaptation takes place through a recombination of lower-level programs that are already in existence’’ (March and Simon, 1993, p. 171). Thus exploration at a given level may involve exploitation at lower levels (i.e., the application of existing subroutines). 

  Conversely, if change takes place only within subroutines, then low-level exploration can co-exist with high-level exploitation. For example, an assembly process might exploit a high-level task sequence, while exploring within individual process steps. Exploitation occurs when repeated instances of a process consistently follow a template stored in organizational memory; exploration occurs when such behavioral regularities are not present (March and Simon, 1993). Maintaining a balance between exploitation and exploration turns out to be very difficult. In many contexts, payoffs from exploitation are earlier, more certain, and easier to achieve; consequently, organizations tend to favor exploitation over exploration (Levinthal and March, 1993). Left unchecked, this tendency can choke off learning, leaving organizations vulnerable to environmental change. 

  Hence the importance of ambidexterity, the ability to sustain both exploration and exploitation (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). Various techniques have been proposed for achieving ambidexterity, such as differentiated exploratory subunits and meta-routines that modify underlying processes (Teece et al., 1997; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997; Adler et al., 1999; Winter, 2003). Ambidexterity requires operational processes that combine high levels of efficiency with the flexibility to evolve and improve over time. Thus, the perspectives of operations management are essential to understanding the mechanics of ambidexterity. Moreover, theories of ambidexterity raise important questions for operations management. This article synthesizes several recent perspectives on the dynamics of ambidexterity and the productivity dilemma. （essay代写)

  Tushman and Benner describe the mechanics and implications of the conflict between exploitation and exploration, while Winter proposes that structured and systematic innovation may render them complementary. Brunner and Staats posit that mature organizations can sustain exploration by selectively and strategically perturbing their own processes. Drawing on examples from Toyota, MacDuffie argues that the first step in achieving ambidexterity may lie in reframing tradeoffs so as to bypass dichotomies. Osono and Takeuchi describe how Toyota uses contradictory expansive and integrative forces to prevent the organization from becoming excessively stable and mature. Adler distinguishes between the dual roles of bureaucracy as a technology of coordination and a social relation of exploitation, and argues that bureaucracies designed to extract profits from the production process may hinder exploration. The conclusion integrates the perspectives and identifies emerging themes.（essay代写)

  51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。
  51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多essay代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供essay代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。

标签：论文代写  Productivity Dilemma  代写  留学生作业代写