Managing between science and industry: An historical analysis of the Philips Research and Development Department's management

Journal of Management History

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 122-134

  Boersma, Kees ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Business ethics; Corporate social responsibility; History; United States of America

Indexed keywords

EID: 72449161211     PISSN: 17511348     EISSN: 17587751     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/17511340710735546     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alvesson, M. (1995), Management of Knowledge-intensive Companies, De Gruyter, Berlin.
2. Blanken, I. (1999), The History of Philips Electronics N.V. Volume III. The Development of N.V. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken into a Major Electrical Group, European Library, Zaltbommel.
3. Blanken, I. (2002), Geschiedenis van Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Deel V: Een Industriële Wereldfederatie, Europese Bibliotheek, Zaltbommel.
4. Boersma, K. (2002), Inventing Structures for Industrial Research. A History of the Philips Nat.Lab. 1914-1946, Aksant Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
5. Boersma, K. (2003a), “Tensions within an industrial research laboratory. The case of the X-ray Department of the Philips Research Laboratory between the two world wars”, Enterprise and Society, Vol. 4, pp. 65-98.
6. Boersma, K. (2003b), “Structural ways to embed a research laboratory into the company. A comparison between the Research Departments of Philips and General Electric”, History and Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
7. Bush, V. (1945), Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
8. Carlson, B. (1991), Innovation as a Social Process. Elihu Thomson and the Rise of General Electric, 1870-1900, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9. Casimir, H. (1983), Haphazard Reality, Half a Century of Science, Harper &Row, New York, NY.
10. Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
11. Clark, K.B., Hayes, R.H. and Lorenz, C. (1985), The Uneasy Alliance, Managing the Productivity-technology Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
12. Courpasson, D. (2000), “Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21/1, pp. 141-61.
13. Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1999), The New Corporate Cultures. Revitalizing the Workplace after Downsizing, Mergers, and Reengineering, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
14. Dennis, M. (1987), “Accounting for research: new histories of corporate laboratories and the social history of American science”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 17, pp. 479-518.
15. Dennis, M. (1997), “Historiography of science: an American perspective”, in Ed. Krige, J. and Ed. Pestre, D. (Eds), Science in the Twentieth Century, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
16. Deutch, C.H. (2002), “G.E. research returns to roots”, New York Times, 26 December.
17. De Vries, M. (1999), “Transforming inventions into innovations as a major concern of the Philips Research Laboratories management: a historical perspective”, in Ed. Inzelt, A. and Ed. Hilton, J. (Eds), Technology Transfer: From Invention to Innovation, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
18. De Vries, M. and Boersma, K. (2005), 80 Years of Research at the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium (1914-1994), Pallas Publications, Amsterdam.
19. Faulkner, W. and Senker, J. (1995), Knowledge Frontiers, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
20. Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (1997), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Pinter, London.
21. Graham, M. (1985), “Corporate research and development. The latest transformation”, Technology in Society, Vol. 7, pp. 179-95.
22. Graham, M. (1986), RCA & The VideoDisc: The Business of Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Heerding, A. (1986), The History of N.V. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken Volume I. The Origin of the Dutch Incandescent Lamp Industry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Heerding, A. (1988), The History of N.V. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken Volume II. A Company of Many Parts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Hounshell, D. (1996), “The evolution of industrial research in the United States”, in Ed. Rosenbloom, R. and Ed. Spencer, W. (Eds), Engines of Innovation. US Industrial Research at the End of an Era, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
26. Hounshell, D. and Smith, J. Jr. (1989), Science and Corporate Strategy Du Pont R&D, 1902-1980, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
28. Kranakis, E. (1992), “Hybrid careers and the interaction of science and technology”, in Ed. Kroes, P. and Ed. Bakker, M. (Eds), Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age. New Perspectives on the Science-Technology Relationship, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
29. Martin, J. (1992), Cultures in Organizations. Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
30. Mokyr, J. (1990), The Lever of Riches, Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
31. Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. (1989), Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
32. Nelson, R. (1996), The Sources of Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
33. Pannenborg, A.E. (1972), Mijn opvattingen over de taak van de research-organisatie, Philips, Eindhoven, August 11.
34. Pannenborg, A.E. (1975), “Technology push versus market pull, the designer's dilemma”, Electronics and Power, Vol. 21, pp. 563-6.
35. Reich, L. (1983), “Irving langmuir and the pursuit of science and technology in the corporate environment”, Technology and Culture, Vol. 24, pp. 199-221.
36. Reich, L. (1985), Making of American Industrial Research. Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. Rosenberg, N. (1990), “Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?”, Research Policy, No. 19, pp. 165-74.
38. Rowlinson, M. and Procter, S. (1999), “Organizational culture and business history”, Organization Studies, Vol. 20/3, pp. 369-96.
39. Sarlemijn, A. (red) (1984), Tussen Academie en Industrie. Casimirs visie op wetenschap en research-management, Meulenhoff Informatief, Amsterdam.
40. Schroeder, R. and Swedberg, R. (2002), “Weberian perspectives on science, technology and the economy”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 383-401.
41. Schumpeter, J. (1943), Socialism, Capitalism and Democracy, Allen & Unwin, London.
42. Varma, R. (2000), “Changing research cultures in US industry”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 395-416.
43. Von Hippel, E. (1994), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
44. Whitehead, A.N. (1953), Science and the Modern World, The Free Press, New York, NY.
45. Wise, G. (1985), Willis R. Whitney, General Electric and the Origin of US Industrial Research, Colombia University Press, New York, NY.
46. Wise, G. (1997), “New role for professional scientists in industry: industrial research at General Electric, 1900-1916”, in Ed. Cutcliffe, S. and Ed. Reynolds, T. (Eds), Technology & American History. A Historical Anthology from Technology and Culture, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
47. Zabusky, S.E. and Barley, S. (1997), “‘You can't be a stone if you're cement' reevaluating the emic identities of scientists in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 361-404.