Francesco Ciabuschi

Siemens ShareNet: Knowledge management in practice

Knowledge sharing across organisational and national borders is of increasing importance for large multinational companies. This case study looks at how the German electronics and engineering giant Siemens introduced its pilot ShareNet knowledge-sharing system as part of efforts to evolve into a knowledge-based company. As Siemens found, the behavioural issues involved in developing a knowledge management network are challenging. Siemens ShareNet: knowledge management in practice

On IT systems and knowledge sharing in MNCs: a lesson from Siemens AG

This explorative case study aims at shedding light on the utilization of a specific Intranet-based knowledge-sharing platform, the ShareNet. This system is part of a €1bn investment campaign to transform Siemens into an e-driven company, and it is an important example of system enabling knowledge sharing between local subsidiaries within large multinationals. By investigating how such company-wide system is structured and employed a theoretical model and three propositions about IT contribution to intra-firm knowledge sharing are formulated. Findings lead to the conclusion that, on one hand, IT systems represent an efficient mechanism for knowledge duplication through imitation between units with similar capabilities and, on the other, as a trigger for direct interaction resulting in knowledge development through joint problem solving between units having complementary capabilities.

Knowledge ambiguity, innovation and subsidiary performance

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to focus on the effect that knowledge-ambiguous innovations have on the subsidiary performance of multinational corporations (MNCs). Specifically, the paper s ...

What do we know about manufacturing reshoring

The aim of this paper is to analyze and classify research that has been conducted on manufacturing reshoring, i.e. the decision to bring back to the home country production activities earlier offshored, independently of the governance mode (insourcing vs outsourcing). Consequently, the paper also aims at providing avenues for future research and to highlight the distinct value of studying manufacturing reshoring either per se or in combination with other constructs of the international business tradition.,A set of 57 carefully selected articles on manufacturing reshoring published in international journals or books indexed on Scopus in the past 10 years was systematically analyzed based on the “5Ws and 1H” (who-what-where-when-why and how) set of questions.,The authors’ work shows a certain convergence among authors regarding what reshoring is and what its key features and motivations are. In contrast, other related aspects, such as the decision-making and implementation processes, are comparatively less understood.,As manufacturing reshoring is a “recent” topic, for some of its aspects, only exploratory research is available to date, limiting the authors’ possibility to either characterize it in a more exhaustive way or highlight well-established patterns.,The paper demonstrates that studying reshoring will indeed contribute to expanding our understanding of internationalization processes and strategies in general and of production internationalization specifically. While past studies have argued that the learning derived from international experience would permit firms to overcome their unfamiliarity with new business environments, reshoring might show that this outcome is not necessarily certain. Rather, firms might not be able to overcome obstacles because of internationalization or they might realize that attempting to do so is not desirable, e.g. because of excessive risk or changes in the firm’s strategic priorities.,From a societal point of view, the present research underlines that reshoring can be part of that re-industrialization policy that many Western countries include in their economic agenda – yet, its impact on employment should not be overestimated, as often relocation is only in regard to some product lines. At the same time, there might be an intimate relationship between reshoring and the various forms of technological innovations applied to manufacturing – which has become popularly labeled as “Industry 4.0”.,Literature reviews proposed until now usually paid almost exclusive attention to motivations driving this phenomenon. This paper offers a broader and more comprehensive examination of the extant knowledge of manufacturing reshoring and identifies the main unresolved issues and knowledge gaps, which future research should investigate.

To the G20: incentivising antibacterial research and development

www.thelancet.com/infection Published online July 6, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30404-8 1 The antibiotic pipeline is insufficient. For example, only about five truly novel antibiotic classes are in clinical development for critical or high unmet public health needs defined by WHO. Given attrition rates, only two of these antibiotic classes are likely to receive regulatory approval during the next 7 years. The earlier, preclinicalphase pipeline is hard to assess, but might include more than a dozen novel antibiotics. However, their chances of success are even more remote than those currently in development, and are probably more than a decade away from being approved. Meanwhile, resistance rates to the world’s current stock of antibiotics are rising, not only threatening the ability to treat infections, but also jeopardising the ability of modern health-care to safely treat cancer and undertake many surgeries. Deliberate and coordinated action is needed now to ensure continuous availability of effective antibiotics. In 2016, the G20 committed to “unlock research and development into new and existing antimicrobials from a G20 value-added perspective”. DRIVE-AB, a 3-year research project financed by the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), is close to concluding its work on incentives and policies to stimulate innovation, sustainable use, and equitable availability of novel antibiotics to meet unmet public health needs. In this Comment, we summarise some of DRIVE-AB’s findings that are pertinent to the G20 commitments, including a market entry reward (MER). DRIVE-AB’s complete findings will be published and presented at the DRIVE-AB conference in Brussels on Sept 5–6, 2017. These include detailed findings and recommendations regarding new economic models, the societal value of antibiotics, forecasting the development of resistance, and responsible use measures. Incentives to stimulate antibacterial innovation can be grouped into two types: push incentives that pay for the research and development (R&D), and pull incentives that reward an outcome such as regulatory approval. Substantial investments are already occurring to push innovation, including grant financing—eg, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, IMI, Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance, the Horizon 2020 research programme, and most recently the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator and the Global Antibiotic R&D Partnership, which acts as a virtual developer. These efforts are laudable, necessary, and must continue. They ensure that the pipeline is directed at public health needs. Yet the success of these initiatives in bringing novel antibiotics to market depends on continued private investment. Our stakeholder analyses identify that the willingness of companies and other private investors to invest in antibacterial R&D is primarily driven by anticipated market rewards—ie, the pull incentives. The traditional pull incentive is revenues from unitbased sales. Yet for new antibiotics, revenues alone might not be sufficient to encourage companies to invest in the development of new antibiotics. In clinical practice, novel antibiotics should be reserved for use against bacteria that are resistant to existing antibiotics. If infection prevention efforts are successful, such infections might be relatively rare, so sales volumes will be low. Therefore, new pull incentives are needed that effectively reward innovation and reduce revenues derived from sales volume—a so-called delinked model. Without an effective pull incentive, private sector investment will continue to decline, and the few remaining companies will leave antibacterial R&D, further diminishing innovation. To the G20: incentivising antibacterial research and development

Exploring the Obstacles to Implementing Economic Mechanisms to Stimulate Antibiotic Research and Development A Multi-Actor and System-Level Analysis

This Article examines the potential stakeholder-related obstacles hindering the implementation of mechanisms to re-ignite the development of novel antibiotics. Proposed economic models and incentives to drive such development include: Public Funding of Research and Development (“R&D”), Tax Incentives, Milestone Prizes, End Payments, Intellectual Property (“IP”) and Exclusivity Extensions, Pricing and Reimbursement Incentives, Product Development Partnerships (“PDPs”), and the Options Market for Antibiotics model. Drawing on personal experience and understanding of the antibiotic field, as well as stakeholder consultation and numerous expert meetings within the DRIVE-AB project and Uppsala Health Summit 2015, the Authors identify obstacles attributable to the following actors: Universities and Research Institutes, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (“SMEs”), Large Pharmaceutical Companies, Marketing Approval Regulators, Payors, Healthcare Providers, National Healthcare Authorities, Patients, and Supranational Institutions. The analysis also proposes a characterization and ranking of the difficulty associated with implementing the reviewed mechanisms. Public Funding of R&D, Pricing and Reimbursement Incentives, and PDPs are mechanisms expected to meet highly systemic barriers (i.e., obstacles across the entire antibiotic value chain), imposing greater implementation challenges in that they require convincing and involving several motivationally diverse actors in order to have much effect.

Value Generation in the Multinational Corporation

PurposeAs markets become increasingly competitive, it is important for multinational corporations to generate value. Both headquarters and subsidiaries are responsible for contributing to value gen ...

Innovation Processes at unit level: A Study of Headquarters involvement, Innovation Impact, Transfer Performance and Adoption Success

Innovation Processes at unit level: A Study of Headquarters involvement, Innovation Impact, Transfer Performance and Adoption Success

Manufacturing Reshoring Explained: An Interpretative Framework of Ten Years of Research

The aim of this paper is to analyze and classify research that has been conducted on manufacturing reshoring, i.e., the decision to bring back to the home country production activities earlier offshored, independently of the governance mode (insourcing vs. outsourcing). Literature reviews proposed until now usually paid almost exclusive attention to motivations driving this phenomenon. This paper offers a broader and more comprehensive examination of the extant knowledge of manufactiring reshoring and identifies the main unresolved issues and knowledge gaps, which future research should investigate. Moreover, the purpose of the paper is to provide avenues for future research and highlight the distinct value of studying manufacturing reshoring either per se or in combination with other constructs of the international business tradition. A set of 49 carefully selected articles on manufacturing reshoring published in international journals or books indexed on Scopus in the last 10 years is systematically analyzed based on the “5 Ws and 1H” (Who-What-Where-When-Why and How) set of questions. Our work shows a certain convergence among authors regarding what reshoring is, what its key features and motivations are. In contrast, other related aspects, such as the decision making and implementation processes, are comparatively less understood.

Chapter 11 Effects of Subsidiary Autonomy on Innovation Development and Transfer Intensities

Purpose – To explore the influence of autonomy on subsidiaries’ development and transfer intensities and their interrelationship. Methodology/approach – We develop a theoretical model that we test on a sample of 85 innovation projects developed in 63 subsidiaries in 14 countries. The data were collected by personal interviews and analysed using the Partial Least Squares technique. Findings – Autonomy is an important driver of subsidiaries’ innovation intensity although, surprisingly, we find no influence on transfer intensity. We confirm the positive relationship between subsidiary innovativeness and its role as provider of new competence to sister units within the multinational enterprise (MNE).