Innovation and learning in high-reliability organizations: A case study of United States and Russian nuclear attack submarines, 1970-2000

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 393-408

  Bierly III, Paul E ^a   Gallagher, Scott ^a   Spender, J C ^b  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

High reliability organizations (HROs); Modularity; Organizational culture; Organizational learning; Platform strategy; Product innovation

Indexed keywords

CHLORINE COMPOUNDS; DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; PLANNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; REAL TIME SYSTEMS; STRATEGIC PLANNING; TECHNOLOGY;

ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATION; CASE STUDIES; CONTROLLING FACTORS; DECISION-MAKING PROCESS; DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS; HIGH-RELIABILITY; HIGH-RELIABILITY ORGANIZATIONS (HROS); INNOVATION STRATEGIES; MODULARITY; NEW DESIGN; NUCLEAR ATTACK SUBMARINES; OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY; ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE; ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING; PERFORMANCE LIMITS; PLATFORM STRATEGY; PRODUCT INNOVATION; RESOURCE LIMITATIONS; TIGHT COUPLING; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES NAVY;

SUBMARINES;

EID: 49149124698     PISSN: 00189391     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2008.922643     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. W. J. Abernathy and J. M. Utterback, "Patterns of industrial innovation," Technol. Rev., vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 40-47, 1978.
2. A. Afuah, Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998.
3. G. T. Allison, Essence of Decision Making: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1971.
4. P. Anderson and M. L. Tushman, "Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change," Adm. Sci. Quart., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 604-633, 1990.
5. W. B. Arthur, "Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events," Econ. J., vol. 99, pp. 116-131, 1989.
6. C. Baden-Fuller, "The implications of the learning curve for firm strategy and public policy," Appl. Econ., vol. 15, pp. 541-551, 1983.
7. C. Y. Baldwin and K. B. Clark, Design Rules, vol. 1, The Power of Modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
8. P. E. Bierly and J.-C. Spender, "Culture and high reliability organizations: The case of the nuclear submarine," J. Manage., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 639-656, 1995.
9. C. M. Christensen, F. F. Suarez, and J. M. Utterback, "Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries," Manag. Sci., vol. 44, pp. 207-220, 1998.
10. "Columbia Accident Investigation Board," vol. 1, Superintendent Doc., U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Aug. 2003.
11. M. A. Cusumano and A. Gawer, "The elements of platform leadership," Sloan Manag. Rev., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 51-58, 2002.
12. F. Duncan, Rickover and the Nuclear Navy: The Discipline of Technology. Annapolis, MD: Naval Inst. Press, 1990.
13. T. J. Eccles and H. S. Marcus, "Integrating design and production: A case study of the naval submarine program," Int. J. Prod. Manag., vol. 28, pp. 107-126, 1992.
14. K. M. Eisenhardt, "Building theories from case study research," Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532-550, 1989.
15. S. K. Ethiraj and D. Levinthal, "Modularity and innovation in complex systems," Manage. Sci., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 159-173, 2004.
16. W. M. Evan and M. Manion, Minding the Machines: Preventing Technological Disasters. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002.
17. J. Farrell and G. Saloner, "Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation," Amer. Econ. Rev., vol. 76, pp. 940-955, 1986.
18. Federation of American Scientists [Online]. Available: http:// www.fas.org (accessed Sep. 2007).
19. Federation of American Scientists. (2003). Project 685 Plavnik, Mike class [Online]. Available: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/ rus/685.htm
20. S. Gallagher, "The complementary role of dominant designs and standards," IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 54, pp. 371-379, 2007.
21. R. M. Henderson and K. B. Clark, "Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms," Adm. Sci. Quart., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 9-30, 1990.
22. C. W. L. Hill, "Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner take all industries," Acad. Manag. Exec., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 7-26, 1997.
23. R. Hutchinson, Jane's Submarines: War Beneath the Waves. London, U.K.: Harper Collins, 2001.
24. M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, "Network externalities, competition, and compatibility," Amer. Econ. Rev., vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 424-440, 1985.
25. E. H. Kessler, P. E. Bierly, and S. Gopalakrishnan, "Vasa syndrome: Insights from a 17th-century new-product disaster," Acad. Manag. Exec., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 80-91, 2001.
26. V. Krishnan and S. Gupta, "Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development," Manag. Sci., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 52-68, 2001.
27. R. N. Langlois, "Modularity in technology and organization," J. Econ. Behav. Org., vol. 49, pp. 19-37, 2002.
28. J. G. March, L. S. Sproull, and M. Tamuz, "Learning from samples of one or fewer," Org. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 1991.
29. M. H. Meyer and D. Dalal, "Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for nonassembled products," J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 19, pp. 277-293, 2002.
30. M. H. Meyer and A. P. Lehnerd, The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership. New York: Free, 1997.
31. J. Mikkola, "Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures," J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 23, pp. 128-146, 2006.
32. Military.com [Online]. Available: http://www.military.com (accessed Sep. 2007).
33. M. Miozzo and D. Grimshaw, "Modularity and innovation in knowledge-intensive business services: IT outsourcing in Germany and the UK," Res. Policy, vol. 34, pp. 1419-1439, 2005.
34. G. Montgomery, "The Komsomolets disaster," Cent. Intell. Agency, CSI Publ., vol. 38, no. 5, 1995.
35. C. R. Morris and C. H. Ferguson, "How architecture wins technology wars," Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 86-96, 1993.
36. Navy Office of Information [Online]. Available: http://www.chinfo. navy.mil/ (accessed Sep. 2007).
37. T. Nilsen, I. Kudrik, and A. Nikitin, "The Russian northern fleet nuclear submarine accidents," in The Russian Northern Fleet: Sources of Radioactive Contamination. Murmansk, Russia: Bellona Foundation, 1996.
38. C. Perrow, Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
39. N. Polmar and T. B. Allen, Rickover: A Biography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.
40. N. Polmar and K. J. Moore, Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Washington, DC: Brassey's, 2004.
41. N. Polmar and J. Noot, Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies 1718-1990. Annapolis, MD: Naval Inst. Press, 1991.
42. K. H. Roberts, "Managing high reliability systems," Calif. Manag. Rev., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 101-113, 1990.
43. K. H. Roberts and R. Bea, "Must accidents happen? Lessons from high-reliability organizations," Acad. Manag. Exec., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 70-78, 2001.
44. K. H. Roberts and D. M. Rousseau, "Research in nearly failure-free, high-reliability organizations: Having the bubble," IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 132-139, 1989.
45. D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, "Planning product platforms," Sloan Manag. Rev., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 19-31, 1998.
46. E. Romanelli andM. L. Tushman, "Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test," Acad. Manag. J., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1141-1167, 1994.
47. D. Ross, "Learning to dominate," J. Ind. Econ., vol. 34, pp. 337-353, 1986.
48. Russian Navy Weapons Catalog [Online]. Available: http:// www.militarism.navy.ru (accessed Sep. 2007).
49. F. Salvador, "Toward a product system modularity construct: Literature review and reconceptualization," IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 219-240, 2007.
50. R. Sanchez and J. T. Mahoney, "Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design," Strateg. Manag. J. vol. 17, pp. 63-76, 1996.
51. C. Shapiro and H. R. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
52. M. A. Schilling, "Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity," Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 312-334, 2000.
53. M. A. Schilling and K. Steensma, "The use of modular organizational forms: An industry level analysis," Acad. Manag. J., vol. 44, pp. 1149-1169, 2001.
54. D. Schubert, Commanding Officer Naval Research Laboratory. Washington, DC, private communication, Oct. 18, 2005.
55. P. Shrivastava, Bhopal: The Anatomy of a Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986.
56. N. Siggelkow and D. Levinthal, "Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation," Org. Sci., vol. 14, pp. 650-669, 2003.
57. H. A. Simon, Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1947.
58. T. W. Simpson, "Product platform design and customization: Status and promise," Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3-20, 2004.
59. K. K. Sinha and A. H. Van de Ven, "Designing work within and between organizations," Org. Sci., vol. 16, pp. 389-408, 2005.
60. I. Spassky, Five Colors of Time. Rubin, Russia: Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering, 2002.
61. R. Srinivasan, G. L. Lilien, and A. Rangaswamy, "The emergence of dominant designs," J. Mark., vol. 70, pp. 1-17, 2006.
62. W. H. Starbuck and M. Farjoun, Eds., Organization at the Limit: NASA and the Columbia Disaster. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.
63. W. H. Starbuck and F. J. Milliken, "Challenger: Fine-tuning the odds until something breaks," J. Manag. Stud., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 319-340, 1988.
64. N. Staudenmayer, M. Tripsas, and C. L. Tucci, "Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development," J. Prod. Innov. Manag. vol. 22, pp. 303-321, 2005.
65. F. F. Suárez and J. M. Utterback, "Dominant designs and the survival of firms," Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 415-430, 1995.
66. G. Szulanski, "Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm," Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 17, pp. 27-43, 1996.
67. United States Naval Institute [Online]. Available: http://www.usni.org (accessed Sep. 2007).
68. J. M. Utterback, Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
69. D. Vaughn, The Challenger Launch decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1996.
70. D. Vaughn, "System effects: On slippery slopes, repeating negative patterns, and learning from mistakes," in Organization at the Limit: NASA and the Columbia Disaster, W. H. Starbuck and M. Farjoun, Eds. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.
71. K. E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
72. K. E.Weick, "Organizational culture as a source of high reliability," Calif. Manag. Rev., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 112-127, 1987.
73. K. E. Weick, "The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster," J. Manag., vol. 16, pp. 571-593, 1990.
74. K. E. Weick and K. H. Roberts, "Collective mind and organizational reliability: The case of flight operations on an aircraft carrier deck," Adm. Sci. Quart., vol. 38, pp. 357-381, 1993.
75. K. E. Weick, "Making sense of blurred images: Mindful organizing in mission STS-107," in Organization at the Limit: NASA and the Columbia Disaster, W. H. Starbuck and M. Farjoun, Eds. Malden,MA: Blackwell, 2005.
76. A. Wilkins and W. G. Ouchi, "Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance," Adm. Sci. Quart., vol. 28, pp. 468-481, 1983.
77. L. E. Yelle, "The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey," Decis. Sci., vol. 10, pp. 302-328, 1979.