Skip to main content

Value in Corporate and Government Enterprises

  • Chapter
Lean Enterprise Value

Abstract

Creating value at the level of a corporation, government agency, or other multi-program enterprise has long been a challenge. But when companies such as Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Texas Instruments, and myriad less well-known enterprises are merging or restructuring, and once-familiar names have disappeared altogether, a new sense of urgency grows. How can value best be created at this level? The challenge is large, the stakeholders are many, and this is where multiple value streams come together — each with independent and sometimes conflicting goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. P. R. Carlile and E. S. Rebentisch, ‘Into the Black Box:The KnowledgeTransformation Cycle’, forthcoming in Management Science (2002), Special Issue on ‘Managing Knowledge in Organizations: Creating, Retaining, andTransferring Knowledge’.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See R. J. Art, The TFX Decision: McNamara and the Military (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  3. B. Lucas, E. Shroyer, B. J. Schwartz, and G. Noel, The Wrong Kind of Lean: Over-Commitment and Under-represented Skills onTechnologyTeams’, LAI Working Paper (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Percentages provided by The Aerospace Corporation for commercial communication satellites and byThe Boeing Corporation for Global Positioning System satellites. Presented in A. L Weigel and J. M. Warmkessel, ‘Cross-Industry Characterization of Spacecraft Integration and Test Discrepancies: Transforming Discrepancies into Product Development Improvements’, AIAA Space 2000 Conference, Long Beach, California (September 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  5. System-level testing represents testing on the ‘ready to launch’ spacecraft configuration. For more information, see A. L. Weigel, ‘Spacecraft System-Level Integration and Test Discrepancies: Characterizing Distributions and Costs’, Master’s thesis, MIT (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. H. W. Steare, ‘Space Launch Operations and Capacity Modeling: A System Dynamics Methodology for Advanced Analysis of the U.S. Eastern Range’, Masters thesis, MIT (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Ferris, ‘Characterization of Operator-Reported Discrepancies in Unmanned On-Orbit Space Systems’, Masters thesis, MIT (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  8. These assumptions are generally based on a ‘rational’ view of organizational behavior with respect to forecast accuracy, how staff act, and how resources are allocated. For more discussion of rational system assumptions, see W. R. Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. G. Herweg and K. Pilon, ‘System Dynamics Modeling for the Exploration of Manpower Project Staffing Decisions in the Context of a Multi-Project Enterprise’, Master’s thesis, MIT (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld, T. Kochan, and B. Barrett, The Impact of Instability on Employment’, Labor Aerospace Research Agenda Presentation to LAI Plenary (March 2001). These findings are based on a national random sample of senior leaders in 196 aerospace facilities — most with multiple programs.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See, for instance, R. G. Cooper and E. J. Kleinschmidt, ‘Resource-Allocation in the New Product Process’, Industrial Marketing Management 17: 3 (August 1988), 249–62. See also A. Khurana and S. R. Rosenthal, ‘Integrating the Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development’, Sloan Management Review 38:2 (Winter 1997), 103–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. R Wirthlin, ‘Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation’, Masters thesis, MIT (2000).This study contributed to LAI policy recommendations submitted to the USAF in May 2000 outlining how it could improve its requirements development process.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. Y. Baldwin and K. B. Clark, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity,Vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation (New York Oxford University Press, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See M. A. Cusumano and K. Nobeoka, Thinking Beyond Leon: How Multi-Project Management Is Transforming Product Development at Toyota and Other Companies (New York Free Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Bozdogan, Deyst, Houft, and Lucas (July 1998) — see Note 29, Chapter 8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. For more on the organizational issues associated with the use of architectural strategies, see Cusarnano and Nobeoka (1998). See also M. Beckert, ‘Organizational Characteristics for Successful Product Line Engineering’, Masters thesis, MIT (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Kochan (with input from other members of the Labor Aerospace Research Agenda), ‘A Decade of Learning: IAM/Boeing Joint Programs’, Labor Aerospace Research Agenda Case Study (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. R. Nuffort, ‘Managing Subsystem Commonality’, Master’s thesis, MIT (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. This is because of network externality effects. See M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, ‘Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility’, American Economic Review 75:3 (June 1985), 424–40; M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Extemalities’, Journal of Political Economy 94:4 (August 1986), 822–4 I.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See, for example, K B. Clark’Project Scope and Project Performance:The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development Management Science 35: I0 (October 1989), 1247–63; M. A. Cusumano and A. Takeishi, ‘Supplier Relations and Management A Survey of Japanese-Transplant and U.S. Auto Plants’, Strategic Management Journal 12(1991), 563–88; J. K Liker, R. R Kamath, S. N. Wasti, and M. Nagamachi, ‘Integrating Suppliers into Fast-Cycle Product Development’, in J. K Liker, J. E. Ettlie, and J. C. Campbell (eds), Engineered in fopan: Japonese Technology Management Practices (New York Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 152–9 I; Dyer (1996), 1— 11— see Note 13, Chapter 3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2002 The Lean Enterprise Value Foundation, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murman, E. et al. (2002). Value in Corporate and Government Enterprises. In: Lean Enterprise Value. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403907509_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics