Co-Creation of Value Generated by a Self-motivated “Ba”—A Case Study of the Yokohama Smart Community

  • Nobuyuki Tokoro
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Business book series (BRIEFSBUSINESS)


In this chapter, I will analyze initiatives of the Yokohama Smart Community , which is currently conducting demonstration experiments of a smart city project aimed at achieving a low-carbon society . Promoting the development of an energy system “learned from a view of life found in nature,” the Yokohama Smart Community formed a consortium comprised of participating companies, universities and local government to put into practice a range of innovative initiatives. A characteristic feature of this consortium is the absence of a specific leader. This is because the Yokohama Smart Community is not a consortium formed by a particular leader to promote a specific initiative to be implemented under that individual’s or organization’s leadership. Moreover, while the local government of the city of Yokohama is involved, it is purely in an advisory capacity, so the Yokohama Smart Community does not have the character of a government-led project. Therefore, the participating members voluntarily take part in the consortium as they wish without being subject to any explicit or implicit restrictions or constraints of another organization, and they are free to withdraw at any time.


Energy System Smart City Thermal Insulation Material Fukuoka City Sustainable Energy System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bower, J.L., & Gilbert, C.G. (eds.). (2007). From Resource Allocation to Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burgelman, R. A. (1994). Fading memories; A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carley, M., & Christie, I. (1992). Managing Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2000). In Good Company; How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance Advantage; The Art of Creating Value through Partnering. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Drucker, P. F. (1995). The network society. Wall Street Journal. March 29, 12.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. (2002). Knowledge-based view; A new theory of strategy? In A. M. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management (pp. 139–164). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hamel, G. (1998). Strategy innovation and quest for value. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  13. Inkpen, A. C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 39(1), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Itami, H. (1999). Management of “Ba”; A New Management Paradigm. Tokyo: NTT Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kanter, R. (1994). Collaborative advantage; Successful partnerships manage the relationship, not just the deal. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96–108.Google Scholar
  16. Kodama, M. (2007). Knowledge Innovation; Strategic Management as Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Kodama, M. (2010). Boundary Management; Developing Business Architectures for Innovation. Heidelberg, Dortrecht, London, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In J. Galegher, R. E. Krant, C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork; Social and Technical Bases of Collaborative Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 111–146.Google Scholar
  19. Mintzberg, H. (1973). Strategy-making in three models. California Management Review, 16(2), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school; Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing Flow; A Process Theory of the Knowledge-Based Firm. London: Palgrave macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Quinn, J. B. (1978). Strategic Change; Logical Incrementalism (pp. 7–21). Fall: Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
  26. Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for Change; Logical Incrementalism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Irwin.Google Scholar
  27. Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets; The new economy markets for know-how and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teece, D. J. (2000). Managing Intellectual Capital; Organizational Strategic and Policy Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities; The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tomala, F., & Senechal, O. (2004). Innovation management; A synthesis of academic and industrial points of view. International Journal of Project Management, 22(4), 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yokohama Smart Community. (2013). Yokohama Smart Community Seminar. Tokyo: Koubun-sha.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Commerce and Graduate School of Business AdministrationNihon UniversitySetagaya-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations