Organosis and Growth of Firms, Sectors and Countries
Chapter 8: Conclusions, Limitations, Implications
8.1 INTRODUCTION The last six chapters have provided evidence of the importance and the role of OIs in shaping industrial and economic growth.1 In particular, the evidence was directed towards the following points. First, in order to complement the existing theories of economic growth, OIs must be explicitly included in the production process. Second, OIs are distinct from TIs and must be separately analysed when exploring their impact on economic growth. Third, OIs can be grouped into three main interdependent axes with emphasis on the main axis, namely the JIT/QC cum Fordism axis (which is extensively covered in this study). Thus, the meaning of OIs used in the present volume is primarily related to what takes place inside the ﬁrm and encompasses not only its organizational form (for example, M-form) but also its organizational system as described by the four processes of ﬁrm operations (PROSIBB). Fourth, the main axis JIT/QC cum Fordism can be further explored by introducing the four fundamental processes of ﬁrm operations (PROSIBB) and especially the process of movements and its related kinetic costs; thus the process of growth is ultimately a function of the four PROSIBB and, in particular, the POM. Thus, the ‘waste’ described by Williamson (1994) and its link with transaction costs is not sufﬁcient to explain why ﬁrms differ in terms of growth and performance. Some authors (for instance, Tersine, 2004) have explicitly made the concept of waste the centre of their research. ‘Waste’ has also been the object of analysis of...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.