Search Results

This chapter examines Asia, where the greatest diversity of state experiences occurred. It considers the experiences of India by focusing on the politics of a multinational firm, Unilever, that predate sovereign independence and continue in the current privatization program involving firms such as Modern Food. The chapter also examines the marketization program of the Chinese government with a consideration of the international listing of Huaneng Power, International. Thailand and South Korea are included, with case studies of Thai Airways and the Samsung chaebol, respectively.

One reason why Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea appear to have industrialized rapidly is that they have invested relatively heavily in education. A well‐educated work force, both white‐ and blue‐collar, is a general property of late industrialization, distinguishing it from earlier industrial change, and premised on the learning of production processes and procedures that are characteristic of more advanced economies. Thus, formal education of the workforce and the apprenticeship of firms to foreign technical assistants (rather than the apprenticeship of workers in particular crafts) lie at the heart of late industrial expansion. This chapter, therefore, is devoted to both formal education and foreign technical assistance, and ends with a firm‐level illustration of interaction between the two. Learning is explored in the second manufacturing affiliate of the Samsung Group, the Cheil Wood Company, founded in 1954.

The concluding chapter examines the nature of professional practice as it has matured over the last 20 years. The chapter shows in detail how design evolved from the shaping of objects to become an essential part of the strategies of some of the world’s most influential companies and organizations. We examine the contributions to this process of labs such as the Interval Research Corporation, the established consultancies and their second- and third-generation successors, companies ranging from Apple and Adobe to Google and Facebook, and in the context of specific category-defining products including the Amazon Kindle, the Nest Learning Thermostat, and the Tesla Model S. The chapter concludes with a review of the extension of design practice into the realm of social enterprise and the application of design methodologies to issues of poverty, health, and civil rights.

Sixty years on since the Korean residences first settled in post-colonial Japan, the contemporary Japanese perspective eventually seems to be accounting for the Koreans in a different light. A short appraisal of the present situation would infer that it would do considerable injustice to reality to insist on the relentless and recalcitrant nature of the Japanese dislike of Korea and Koreans. While the current indicators of social acceptance are derived from the substantial sway of Zainichi elements over the mainstream reel culture of Japan, the initial stages of Japanese exposure to Korean culture came by the way of interbreeding—the Japanese tourism boom to Korea in the 1960s was much characterized by sex-tourism—and via the culinary route. While the elders still consider the Korean nation as developing/poor, Japanese youths are more likely to evoke the manifest wealth of Seoul and the dynamic nature of Samsung.

This chapter begins with the examination of Japan’s rise to prominence in the semiconductor industry in the 1980s, and discusses the products involved that helped Japanese firms rise to market dominance, as well as the strategies involved. One main product was the dynamic random-access memory chips. The chapter then introduces the manner through which the United States responded to the challenge initiated by the Japanese. One program that raised the yield of US firms was Motorola’s Six Sigma quality program. Third, the chapter explores the turnaround when US industry overtook its Japanese rivals, how their strategies worked, and how the Korean producer Samsung took the top spot in high-volume memory chips. The main lesson which it puts forth is that national competitive advantage is often fleeting, and countries must therefore constantly compete for that top spot in order to cope with the rapidly evolving industry.

This chapter introduces a framework focused on managerial commitments—such as investments in specialized resources or the choice of strategic frames—that channel behavior within an organization. These commitments are necessary for initial success, but tend to harden over time and lock an organization into inertia, even when the risks of continuing on a historical trajectory are well understood. Commitments lock companies into active inertia, where they respond to even the most disruptive changes by accelerating activities that worked in the past. Commitments are not only a constraint, they are also a powerful tool to drive transformation. By understanding the dynamics of commitments and actively managing them over time, executives can lead systematic change even in established organizations. This chapter compares two Korean chaebol—Samsung and Daewoo—to illustrate the commitment framework, and concludes with six practical lessons for leading large-scale change.

You may well have gone to university. If so, would you do it all over again? I expect so. One survey of recent graduates found 96 per cent of them would do it again. If you haven’t gone but are thinking about going to university you should almost certainly go for it. You won’t regret it. It may well turn out to be one of the most rewarding and transforming experiences of your life. But what is it that makes more and more of us go to university when the media are full of stories of graduates who are unemployed and the usual clichés that too many people go to university? And why are record numbers of young people going even after the changes in student finance, which I helped to bring in, mean that graduates are likely to be paying back more over their working lives? Just look at the newspaper headlines: . . . Thousands of new graduates out of work, figures show. Expansion of the university sector has destroyed its status. UK graduates are wasting degrees in lower-skilled jobs. Today’s university students are being sold a lie. . . . Is College Worth It? is a very fair question, and the American book with that title answers with a clear ‘No’ for many people, many courses, and many institutions. The conventional wisdom is that going to university is often an expensive waste of time. But for most students the truth is the opposite. For most young people it is a deeply rewarding, life-changing experience. And it matters particularly if you come from a poor background because then it really could transform your chances in life. I meet parents who think that too many people go to university but definitely want their own child to go—it is the other parents’ kids who aren’t supposed to go. But the other parents might not see it that way. A survey of mothers of children born in the year 2000 showed that even for the mothers with the lowest qualifications 96 per cent wanted their child to go to university.

Among various determining factors, strong business leadership played a crucial role in Korea’s economic rise. This is perhaps best exemplified by the cases of Park Tae-jun, Lee Byung-chul, and Chung Ju-yung, the founders of POSCO, Samsung, and Hyundai, respectively. Each of the entrepreneurs faced tremendous disadvantages at the onset, but through excellent leadership and decision-making, they were able to grow their companies into the global brands they are today. The case studies provide meaningful lessons for businessmen and policymakers who wish to build competitive advantages in their fields despite their late entry in the market. Most important, these three leaders serve as good examples to prove the validity of the ABCD model by showing how a late starter without significant resources and capabilities can gain competitiveness among strong companies from advanced countries.

The ABCD model is validated by the case studies of three of Korea’s most successful firms—POSCO, Samsung Electronics, and Hyundai Motor. Each of these major conglomerates was established in the beginning of Korea’s developmental period and played a crucial role in the national development of Korea. The business operations and history of the three firms are described to show how each applied the four factors of the ABCDs to create competitive advantages out of their earlier disadvantages. General lessons are then derived from the three case studies to provide guidelines for firms that wish to develop competitive advantages in a similar fashion.

Community designs are, by definition, supranational. Therefore, every dispute concerning a Community design (registered or unregistered) will have an ‘international’ element to it. Thus, questions of jurisdiction—which court or tribunal should hear the dispute—will arise in every case. Some of these questions will be easily answered, but some are more difficult. Well-resourced parties may try to take advantage of the rules to seek to obtain a more favourable result.