ASQ Research Discussion - Volume 1, Number 6
ASQ Research Listserver
Volume 1, Number 6, September 22, 1995
Current subscribers: 320
General listserver guidelines:
- Postings and subscription requests: ASQ@UMICH.EDU.
- Please reply to the moderators, rather than to all subscribers.
In this issue
- Moderators' comment
- Item: Taxi Rank Co-Relations, from cebon@hermes.eawag.ch (Peter Cebon)
- Discussion: Social context of entrepreneurship
- a. Nidhi Srinivas <SRINIVAS@Management.McGill.Ca>
- b. Marshall W. Meyer" <meyer@xman.wharton.upenn.edu>
- c. szaheer@csom.umn.edu
- d. Alex Stewart, ODSTW@ttacs.ttu.edu
1. Moderators' comment
Sorry about the =20's that were at the end of the lines of v1n5. We will try to avoid them in the future. Please let us know if you get garbled messages.
2. Item: Taxi Rank Co-Relations, from cebon@hermes.eawag.ch (Peter Cebon)
In his recent review essay "Wanted, a good theory of network organization" (ASQ 40 (1995) 345-349), Gerald Salancik states that:
"A taxi business, for instance, might evolve a dispatcher system to manage its relationships with customers and relations among drivers, who, left to their own devices, might bump into one another trying to reach the same client while leaving other clients stranded. Clients, in defense, might call several taxis at once, creating further conflicts between drivers. Moving to a dispatching system solves the original problem of uncoordinated interactions, but such a change creates new interests and new patterns of interaction. Over time the dispatching system might begin dominating the flows of cabs to people on the basis of its interests in answering calls quickly by sending the nearest cab. Yet the interests of the drivers at times might be better served by waiting a few moments for a favored client. So, the drivers and clients work out informal arrangements for managing their conflicts. Over time, clients, drivers, and dispatchers are all adjusting their relations to coordinate their interests...."
Later in the essay he states that "it is rarer for researchers to inquire about whether alternative structures of interdependence would produce the same outcomes while distributing power in different ways."
Given these two quotes, I thought that some readers might be interested in hearing about what I did on my Summer vacation in 1992. I'm not yet at a stage of my career when one informally gathered data point constitutes the basis for a paper, and, if I ever reach such a stage, I hope to have moved on from recollections of my experiences of Summer jobs. Furthermore, anyone who has ever paid for a Swiss taxi-ride knows I'm in no position to continue the research at the moment. Notwithstanding, I am sharing the following because I believe it constitutes an interesting research opportunity for someone who would like to take up Professor Salancik's challenge.
We went to Rochester (NY) to examine some issues surrounding technology adoption in industrial settings. We would go there for a few days a week, and would need to be transported from the airport to and from our hotel, from the hotel to and from the company locations, and between company locations. We traveled, on the first few trips, by taxi. The interesting thing was that the taxis we used did not use a dispatcher. Instead, each driver carried a cellular phone. Each driver would take his own calls. If he had more work than he could handle, he would simply call another cab. Each driver would have a preferred calling list, which was based principally (and not surprisingly) on family/friendship relations and reciprocation behavior. Reciprocation glued the system together. For example our principal driver gave most of his overflow work to his son-in-law, but had about four additional people on his list, whom he would call as needed. Presumably customers were added into the network by soliciting at the Airport, as were we. This way, the network of drivers was kept in a stream of high paying long-distance fares, often with several hours of notice before each call. Furthermore, they managed to avoid the undesireable customers whom one might find on street corners. (Our drivers avoided the middle of town).
Other than providing a good example of the sort of equifinality which Professor Salancik was looking for, this example raised a number of interesting research questions that I pondered at the time, but didn't pursue. Most obviously, the role of technology can't be overlooked. The dispatcher system is contingent on there being nothing better available than a one:many or many:many radio system which excludes the customer. The cellular phone post-dates these radios, and therefore creates new opportunities in two ways. First, the customer can dial into the network. Second, conversations between network members are confidential. However, third, it is not possible to poll all network members at once (which is how dispatching is done) to see who is in the best position to take the call. Notwithstanding, there are other questions:
- Do all of Rochester's taxis now work on this network system, or is there also a set of dispatched operations? How does the work get partitioned between the two systems? Do you get greater efficiency and/or service quality through one system, the other, or a combination? Do the networked drivers have a higher quality of work life because they get to take off the time they would normally spend sitting at the airport or cruising the streets and have reduced uncertainty in their work?
- What are the characteristics of a town needed to support such a system, in terms of geographical and community size? Compare, for example, Rochester to Manhattan, where there are huge numbers of independents without dispatching. Alternatively, Boston has a mix of medium-sized companies and independents, but monopolies are prevented by a law which prevents cabs operating across city lines. (Greater Boston comprises about 20 cities.) Finally, in Melbourne, like many cities, two or three dispatcher-oriented companies have a virtual oligopoly on the business. That is, is such a system geographically as well as technologically contingent, and if so, how?
- Can these networks effectively lock out competitors by offering higher levels of reliability at the same cost?
- How big are these networks, and how strong are the ties. Were we seeing just one little corner of the county-wide-web, or were our five drivers one self-contained unit in a competitive hackney-space?
- Do people take on different roles in the network? For instance, does the person with the most charm spend more time at the Airport so he can funnel work to the others more effectively?
- How does this differ from flexible specialization?
I'm sure there are more questions that could be asked. If anyone wants more details about the mechanics (of the system, not the cars), they are welcome to drop me a note.
Peter Cebon
Telephone: +41 1 823 55 89 EAWAG
Fax: +41 1 823 53 75
Ueberlandstrasse 133
CEBON@EAWAG.CH CH-8600
Duebendorf Switzerland
I can read "bin-hexed" files.
3. Discussion: Social context of entrepreneurship
a. Nidhi Srinivas <SRINIVAS@Management.McGill.Ca>
Regarding the question on research on the social origins of entrepreneurship, there IS a lot written on the origins of entrepreneurs in African countries and in India. As part of a McGill research project on entrepreneurs in South India, I have been studying the social origins of these individuals, specifically the manner in which their community origins intersect with their access to capital, expertise, credibility, and other factors. I am also interested in how such ethnicity can be a *managed resource*, ie mobilized and managed by the entrepreneur to attain his/her business aims.
There is a long tradition of third world studies tracing entrepreneurship to one's connections to the larger community. Three nice reviews of this literature are: "Sociology and entrepreneurship: Concepts and contributions" by Paul Reynolds; "A prospectus on anthropology of entrepreneurship" by Alex Stewart. Both these articles are in *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winter 1991*. A third source is "African capitalism: The struggle for ascendency" by Paul Kennedy; Cambridge University Press, 1988. I'm currently reading an excellent anthropological account of an entrepreneurial community in South India, "Caste and capitalism in colonial India: The Nattukotai Chettiars" by David Rudner, University of California Press, 1994.
I should point out that these works, though grounded in the developing world, have direct implications for studies of entrepreneurship in North America and western Europe. For instance, a topic of rising interest is the prevalence of ethnic domination of certain occupations and businesses in American cities. Most of the newspaper stalls on the New York subway are owned and managed by East Indians. Most pizzerias here in downtown Montreal are owned by Greeks though it seems to be shifting to the Lebanese now... One explanation for this could be the access these individuals have to a larger community resource, one maintained not only by their shared traditions but also their social actions.
Nidhi Srinivas
Faculty of Management
McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
Phone: 514-398-4000 extn 0231;
Fax: 514-398-3876.
3. Discussion: Social context of entrepreneurship
b. Marshall W. Meyer" <meyer@xman.wharton.upenn.edu>
Re Woody's request for stuff on entrepreneurship, he need only look at Ivan Light/Edna Bonacich on ethnic businesses. I haven't followed the work of either closely in the last few years, but I believe there is a book on the LA Korean community as well as Ivan's dissertation, Ethnic Enterprise in America.
Marshall W. Meyer
Department of Management
The Wharton School
email: meyer@wharton.upenn.edu
voice: (215) 898-6992
fax: (215) 898-0401
3. Discussion: Social context of entrepreneurship
c. szaheer@csom.umn.edu
About the social context of entrepreneurship, one piece I can think of is Nitin Nohria's work in his PhD thesis from the Sloan School of Management on new business venturing on Rte 128 in Boston.
3. Discussion: Social context of entrepreneurship
d. Alex Stewart, ODSTW@ttacs.ttu.edu
(forwarded by David Krackhardt, krack+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Is there a thick or a thin literature on entrepreneurship? The answer seems to depend on two variables. First, how broadly do we define "entrepreneurship"? Some individuals prefer narrow defini- tions, but there is little consensus. Gartner's Delphi study on the meaning of the term (J. Bus. Venturing, 1990, 15-28) found, by factor analysis, eight different senses. A common solution to the problem is to say that the term is a broad one, incorporating various issues, and that the researcher ought to specify clearly what the term means for purposes of a given study. Second, how widely will we look in various literatures? It follows from broader definitions (e.g., Howard Stevenson's, that it is the pursuit of opportunities without regard to resources currently controlled) and from the orientation to the term as a broad one, that the field is interdisciplinary. On the face of it, it would be hard to imagine that economists (e.g., the Austrian school), sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and so on, would not have something to say. The problem is one of tracking down the various literatures and subliteratures. In 1991 and 1992, there were two special issues of the journal Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, devoted to approaches to the field from various disciplinary perspectives. Unfortunately, there was no paper on history (e.g., A. H. Cole), but there were papers on psychology (by Kelly Shaver & Linda Scott), Sociology (Paul Reynolds), anthropology (me), and economics (Bruce Kirchhff) in Vol. 16, No. 2, and on OB (Bill Gartner, Barbara Bird & Jennifer Starr), Marketing (Jerry Hills & Buddy Laforge), Finance (David Brophy & Joel Shulman), and Strategy (Bill Sandberg) in Vol. 16, No. 3. Many of us took as part of our mandate the task of introducing readers to the literature in these fields, so that the papers are bibliographic introductions (among other things). Because ASQ itself has published in the area of entrepreneurship broadly defined (e.g., Eisenhardt on speed to market), perhaps some of these authors will feel moved to add their sense to Woody's question.
Alex Stewart
rea of Management
Texas Tech University
ODSTW@COBA1.TTU.EDU or ODSTW@TTACS.TTU.EDU
