Doctor of Philosophy, University of Toledo, 2011, Manufacturing and Technology Management

Several operations management researchers have considered the role of knowledge integration (KI) activities in coping with uncertain environments and improving organizational performance. The previous research focused on investigating and defining KI conceptually and ignored the need to investigate and define KI operationally. Therefore, there are doubts about how to develop effective KI capability and implement it at the organizational level. This study provides detailed explanations and guidelines for researchers and practitioners about KI, its antecedents and consequences. This research meets the needs of manufacturing management practitioners and researchers by providing an operational definition of how to integrate internal and external knowledge to manage environmental uncertainty and enhance a firm's overall performance. This research is built on an integrated perspective of operations management and knowledge management using a number of theories that include Knowledge Based View (KBV), Dynamic Capability (DC), and Contingency Theory (CT). This integrated perspective helps clarify how the implementation of internal integration and external integration practices can lead to effective development of knowledge integration capability. This study offers an in-depth understanding of knowledge integration (KI) capability and its related activities. Hypotheses of this research are developed on the relationships among the antecedents of KI (internal integration and external integration), knowledge integration capability, and the consequences of KI capability (mass customization, operational performance and the firm‘s performance). The study provides five significant contributions to manufacturing management research. First, it explores the antecedents (or the facilitators) that an organization should implement before developing a successful KI capability. Second, it provides an operational definition of KI that was not available in the manufacturing literature. (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Mark Vonderembse PhD (Committee Co-Chair); T.S Ragu-Nathan PhD (Committee Co-Chair); Stephen Callaway PhD (Committee Member); Iryna Pentina PhD (Committee Member); Mohammad Elahinia PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: Business Administration; Management

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2020, Human Ecology: Human Development and Family Science

The present study investigated three major family process constructs—family differentiation, parental attachment, and authoritative parenting—to compare their unique or shared effects on identity development for emerging adults. Despite empirical support for their various impacts on developmental and health outcomes, these family processes have rarely, if ever, been investigated simultaneously. The present study builds on the foundation laid by previous works suggesting significant conceptual overlaps between theoretical constructs across often isolated bodies of literature in family science. Data was collected from a sample of 239 emerging adults who completed an online survey that included measures of differentiation, attachment, and authoritativeness, with separate scales for parental of figures. Identity integration and demographic variables were also measured. The full-scale measures of the three family process variables correlated strongly with coefficients of .76, .82, and .87, suggesting a high likelihood of a common variable being measured. SEM data analyses supported that the three family process variables fit best when modeled onto a single latent factor. Consistent patterns across comparative analyses of variance reflected a shared bi-dimensionality of the variables measured. When examined as continuous variables or along bidimensional classifications, the compelling family processes of high family differentiation, secure attachment, and authoritative parenting are conceptualizations of a practically identical set interactional patterns. Family processes across literatures should be further explored together to better understand the unique insights and the shared, corroborative findings between them.

Committee: Stephen Gavazzi PhD. (Advisor); Kelly Purtell PhD. (Committee Co-Chair); Suzanne Bartle-Haring PhD. (Committee Member); Lower-Hoppe Leeann PhD. (Other) Subjects: Behavioral Sciences; Cognitive Psychology; Counseling Education; Counseling Psychology; Families and Family Life; Mental Health; Personal Relationships; Psychology