Abstract
Through comparative analyses of a number of in-depth case studies in different specialized areas (business and management, art and architecture) discussed in this book, the present chapter offers further new theoretical implications while verifying propositions and hypotheses discussed in Chap. 2, The Five Types of Ma Thinking and Five Architect Capabilities: Theoretical Concepts. In so doing, the discussion points to the importance of “dynamic recursive practice activities between formal and informal organizations” and “the realization of a complex adaptive system through Ma thinking” for realizing innovation and achieving notable success in creative activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The role of leadership in distributed leadership (Nonaka and Toyama 2002; Kodama 2003) spans entire organizations and entails distribution of various formations. In distributed leadership, two or more people on each team share the roles, responsibilities, activities and functions of leadership. Also, leadership depends on the quality of a group, and in the concept of distributed leadership, where a series of roles must also be played by the group. In contrast, centralized leadership (Kodama 2003) means positions, processes and activities controlled by a centralized authority. Centralized leadership entails formulations of a business vision and official strategic targets, and it plays the role of initiating overall direction in regard to the business vision and strategic targets instilled in a range of organizational units. Von Krogh et al. (2012) summarize the characteristics of centralized and distributed leadership in knowledge creation as comprising six elements: 1) form of collaboration, 2) beliefs, 3) process, 4) authority in decision making, 5) skills and 6) development.
- 2.
In CAS, large-scale projects and companies in many cases are believed to have a fractal structure rather than a pyramid-like hierarchical structure. In other words, if any one part of the fractal structure were removed and expanded, it would take on the same form as the whole. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the level of decision-making and expertise should be the same at every level of scale (Christian 2011).
References
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. (1999). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: The Free Press.
Barnard, C. I. (1968). The Functions of the Executive (Vol. 11). Harvard University Press.
Berque, A. (1982). Vivre l’espace au Japon. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus. In Small Words and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Burrows, P. (2004). The Seed of Apple’s Innovation. businessweek.com (12 October). Retrieved March 24, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf20041012_4018_db083.htm?chan=gl
Christian, B. (2011). The Most Human Human. New York: Penguin Books.
Dougherty, D. (1996). Organizing for Innovation. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 424–439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84–110.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. London: Little, Brown and Company.
Gill, R. (2006). Theory and Practice of Leadership. London: Sage.
Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a Learning Organization: The Strategic Building Blocks. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(1), 15–22.
Hasegawa, K. (2009). Thought of Wa (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tyuo Kouron Publishing.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kodama, M. (2003). Strategic Innovation in Traditional Big Business. Organization Studies, 24(2), 235–268.
Kodama, M. (2004). Strategic Community-Based Theory of Firms: Case Study of Dialectical Management at NTT DoCoMo. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(6), 603–634.
Kodama, M. (2005). Knowledge Creation through Networked Strategic Communities: Case Studies in New Product Development. Long Range Planning, 38(1), 27–49.
Kodama, M. (2007). Project-Based Organization in the Knowledge-Based Society. London: Imperial College Press.
Kodama, M. (2009). Innovation Networks in the Knowledge-Based Firm. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kodama, M. (2011). Knowledge Integration Dynamics: Developing Strategic Innovation Capability. Singapore: World Scientific.
Lewis, M., Dehler, G., & Green, S. (2002). Product Development Tensions: Exploring Contrasting Styles of Project Management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 546–564.
Mandelbrot, B. (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: Freeman.
March, J. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
McDonough, F. E., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding Up New Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Development, 8(2), 203–211.
Morel, B., & Ramanujam, R. (1999). Through the Looking Glass of Complexity: The Dynamics of Organizations as Adaptive and Evolving Systems. Organization Science, 10(3), 278–293.
Nishiguchi, T., & Beaudet, A. (2000). Fractal Design: Self-organizing Links in Supply Chain Management. In G. Von Krogh, I. Nonaka, & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value (pp. 199–230). London: Macmillan.
Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A., & Kohlbacher, K. (2014). Dynamic Fractal Organizations for Promoting Knowledge-Based Transformation. European Management Journal, 32(1), 137–146.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2002). A Firm as a Dialectical Being: Towards a Dynamic Theory of a Firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(5), 995–1009.
Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.
Scott, W. G. (1961). Organization Theory: An Overview and an Appraisal. Journal of the Academy of Management, 4(1), 7–26.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a Typological Theory of Project Management. Research Policy, 25(4), 607–632.
Stacey, R. (1995). The Science of Complexity: An Alternative Perspective for Strategic Change Process. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.
von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Review and Framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240–277.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wren, D. A. (1987). Management History: Issues and Ideas for Teaching and Research. Journal of Management, 13(2), 339–350.
Zeami. (1987). Hanakagami (in Japanese). Shincho Nihon Koten Shusei: Zeami Geijyutsu Ronshu, 4, 117–161.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kodama, M. (2017). Comparative Case Studies and New Implications. In: Kodama, M. (eds) Ma Theory and the Creative Management of Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59194-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59194-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59354-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59194-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)