Double Diamond - Revision history

Paulreed at 20:39, 9 January 2013

2013-01-09T20:39:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 9 January 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There is now a body of literature which is critical of [[author::Porter]]’s model.O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance for the study of small open peripheral economies. Those critiques concerning the role of multinational enterprises ([[~~MNE's~~]]), and those which propose that Porter’s diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or “multiple diamond” model. As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced host economies (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and, as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to cultural differences between foreign firms and local business partners.		There is now a body of literature which is critical of [[author::Porter]]’s model.O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance for the study of small open peripheral economies. Those critiques concerning the role of multinational enterprises ([[MNEs]]), and those which propose that Porter’s diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or “multiple diamond” model. As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced host economies (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and, as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to cultural differences between foreign firms and local business partners.

	Although Porter when referring to developing countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally serve to “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis on 2.		Although Porter when referring to developing countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally serve to “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis on 2.

Paulreed at 20:39, 9 January 2013

2013-01-09T20:39:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 9 January 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There is now a body of literature which is critical of [[author::Porter]]’s model.O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance for the study of small open peripheral economies. Those critiques concerning the role of multinational enterprises ([[MNE]]'s), and those which propose that Porter’s diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or “multiple diamond” model. As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced host economies (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and, as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to cultural differences between foreign firms and local business partners.		There is now a body of literature which is critical of [[author::Porter]]’s model.O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance for the study of small open peripheral economies. Those critiques concerning the role of multinational enterprises ([[MNE's]]), and those which propose that Porter’s diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or “multiple diamond” model. As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced host economies (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and, as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to cultural differences between foreign firms and local business partners.

	Although Porter when referring to developing countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally serve to “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis on 2.		Although Porter when referring to developing countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally serve to “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis on 2.

Paulreed at 20:38, 9 January 2013

2013-01-09T20:38:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 9 January 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	[[Category:Strategy]]		[[Category:Strategy]]
	[[Category:~~Articles~~ Needing Improvement]]		[[Category:Pages Needing Improvement]]

Paulreed at 20:37, 9 January 2013

2013-01-09T20:37:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 9 January 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	[[Category:Strategy]]		[[Category:Strategy]]
	[[Articles Needing Improvement]]		[[Category:Articles Needing Improvement]]

Paulreed at 20:37, 9 January 2013

2013-01-09T20:37:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 9 January 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There is now a body of literature which is critical of ~~Porter’s~~ model.~~2O’Donnell~~(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance ~~forthe~~ study of small open peripheral economies~~, namely, those~~ critiques ~~concerningthe~~ role of multinational enterprises (~~MNEs~~), and those which propose ~~thatPorter’s~~ diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or ~~“multiplediamond”~~ model.As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced ~~hosteconomies~~ (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and,as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to ~~culturaldifferences~~ between foreign firms and local business partners ~~(Porter, 1990,pp. 89, 103, 106, 679)~~. Although Porter ~~(1990, p.679), in a passage~~ referring ~~todeveloping~~ countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally ~~serveto~~ “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis ~~on2~~.Clancy et al. (1998) include an outline of critiques of Porter, while Pentinnen (1994) ~~providesa~~ more detailed survey of such critiques.		There is now a body of literature which is critical of [[author::Porter]]’s model.O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance for the study of small open peripheral economies. Those critiques concerning the role of multinational enterprises ([[MNE]]'s), and those which propose that Porter’s diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or “multiple diamond” model. As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced host economies (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and, as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to cultural differences between foreign firms and local business partners.

			Although Porter when referring to developing countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally serve to “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis on 2.

			Clancy et al. (1998) include an outline of critiques of Porter, while Pentinnen (1994) provides a more detailed survey of such critiques.

	See also [[Porter's Diamond of National Advantage]]		See also [[Porter's Diamond of National Advantage]]

	[[Category:Strategy]]		[[Category:Strategy]]
			[[Articles Needing Improvement]]

Paulreed: Created page with "There is now a body of literature which is critical of Porter’s model.2O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance forthe study of sm..."

2010-12-22T02:04:21Z

Created page with "There is now a body of literature which is critical of Porter’s model.2O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance forthe study of sm..."

New page

There is now a body of literature which is critical of Porter’s model.2O’Donnell(1997) suggests that two types of critique could be of particular relevance forthe study of small open peripheral economies, namely, those critiques concerningthe role of multinational enterprises (MNEs), and those which propose thatPorter’s diamond model be reformulated as a “double diamond” or “multiplediamond” model.As regards MNEs, Porter has been criticised for largely excluding foreign-owned MNEs as contributors to the competitive advantage of advanced hosteconomies (unless they “become part of the host country diamond”). Accordingto Porter, many MNE subsidiaries lack key managerial and R&D functions and,as a result, the information flow and technical interchange between such foreign-owned subsidiaries and their local business partners will be limited. Further-more, the free and open flow of information might be impeded due to culturaldifferences between foreign firms and local business partners (Porter, 1990,pp. 89, 103, 106, 679). Although Porter (1990, p.679), in a passage referring todeveloping countries, acknowledges that foreign MNEs can occasionally serveto “seed” a cluster, the main thrust of his theory puts the major emphasis on2.Clancy et al. (1998) include an outline of critiques of Porter, while Pentinnen (1994) providesa more detailed survey of such critiques.

See also [[Porter's Diamond of National Advantage]]

[[Category:Strategy]]