Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shrinking ... - Georgetown Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Baker G, Gibbons R, Murphy KJ. 2002. Relational contracts and the theory of the firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(1): 39-84. Baldwin CY, Clark KB. 2003. Where do transactions come from? A perspective from engineering design. Paper presented at the Saint-Gobain Centre for Economic Research 5th Conference, Paris, France. Barney JB. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science 32(10): 1231-1241. Blundell R, Bond S. 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 87(1): 115-143. Bradach JL. 1997. Using the plural governance form in the management of restraurant chains. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(2): 276. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press: New York. Carpenter MA. 2002. The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 23(3): 275-284. Cassiman B, Veugelers R. 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52(1): 68-82. Chandler AD. 1962. Strategy and Structure. MIT Press: Cambridge. Chandler AD. 1990. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Chatain O. 2011. Value creation, competition, and performance in buyer-supplier relationships. Strategic Management Journal 32(1): 76-102. Chatain O, Zemsky P. 2007. Horizontal scope of the firm: organizational trade-offs vs buyersupplier relationships. Management Science 53(4): 550-565. Coase RH. 1937. The nature of the firm. Econometrica 4(16): 386-405. Coase RH. 1988. The nature of the firm: Meaning. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 4(1): 19-32. Cohen D. 1986. Trademark Strategy. Journal of Marketing 50(1): 61-74. Cohen D. 1991. Trademark Strategy Revisited. Journal of Marketing 55(3): 46-59. Conner KR. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management 17(1): 121-154. Dierickx I, Cool K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35(12): 1504-1511. Dutta S, Bergen M, Heide JB, John G. 1995. Understanding Dual Distribution: The Case of Reps and House Accounts. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 11(1): 189-204. Dyer JH. 1997. Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 535-556. Fleischer V. 2010. Regulatory arbitrage. Texas Law Review 89: 227-290. Fox SP. 1998. Intelelctual property managementL From theory to practice. In Profiting from Intellectual Capital. Sullivan P (ed.), Wiley: New York. Ghemawat P. 2001. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review 79(8): 137-147. Gibbons R. 2005. Four formal(izable) theories of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 58: 200-245. Green S. 2012. In-house lawyers increasingly in dual legal/business roles. Corporate Counsel 9 March. Grindley PC, Teece DJ. 1997. Managing intellectual capital: Licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review 39(2): 8-41. 34
Gulati R, Puranam P. 2006. Complementarity and Constraints: Why Firms Both Make and Buy the Same Thing, Working paper. Hambrick DC, Mason PA. 1984. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of Its top managers. academy of Management Review 9(2): 193-206. Harrigan KR. 1986. Matching vertical integration strategies to competitive conditions. Strategic Management Journal 7(6): 535-555. He D, Nickerson JA. 2006. Why do firms make and buy? Efficiency, appropriability and competition in the trucking industry. Strategic Organization 4(1): 43-69. Heide JB. 2003. Plural governance in industrial purchasing. Journal of Marketing 67(4): 18. Heineman BW. 2010. The General Counsel as Lawyer-Statemans, Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance and Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Jacobides MG, Billinger S. 2006. Designing the boundaries of the firm: From "make, buy, or ally" to the dynamic benefits of vertical architecture. Organization Science 17(2): 249-261. Jacobides MG, Winter SG. 2005. The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: Explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal 26: 395- 413. Keck SL. 1997. Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science 8(2): 143-156. Kogut B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383-397. Kogut B, Zander U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science 7(5): 502-518. Krzeminska A, Hoetker G, Mellewigt T. forthcoming. Reconceptualizing plural sourcing. Strategic Management Journal. Langlois RN. 1992. Transaction-cost economics in real time. Industrial and Corporate Change 1(1): 99-127. Langlois RN. 2006. The secret life of mundane transaction costs. Organization Studies 27(9): 1389-1410. Lee H-U, Park J-H. 2008. The influence of top management team international exposure on international alliance formation. Journal of Management Studies 45(5): 961-981. Lee PM, James EH. 2007. She'-e-os: Gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments. Strategic Management Journal 28(3): 227- 241. Lippman SA, Rumelt RP. 2003. A bargaining perspective on resource advantage. Strategic Management Journal 24(11): 1069-1086. Madhok A. 2002. Reassessing the fundamentals and beyond: Ronald Coase, the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm and the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal 23: 535-550. Marchant G, Robinson J. 1999. Is knwoing the tax code all it takes to be a tax expert? On the development of legal expertise. In Tacit Knowledge in Professional Practice. Sternberg RJ, Horvath JA (eds.), Taylor & Francis: New Jersey. Mayer KJ. 2006. Spillovers and governance: An analysis of knowledge and reputational spillovers in information technology. Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 69-84. Menz M. 2012. Functional Top Management Team Members : A Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management 38(1): 45-80. Michel JG, Hambrick DC. 1992. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. The Academy of Management Journal 35(1): 9-37. Milgrom P, Roberts J. 1995. Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting & Economics 19(2/3): 179- 208. 35
Page 1 and 2:
Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shr
Page 4 and 5:
PROGRAM AGENDA & ROOM LOCATIONS The
Page 6 and 7:
Things to do in Washington, D.C. Wa
Page 9 and 10:
The Shrinking Pyramid: Implications
Page 11 and 12:
III
Page 13 and 14:
DRAFT IN PROGRESS—PLEASE DO NOT C
Page 15 and 16:
legal services based upon data aggr
Page 17 and 18:
on a consistent, sustained basis. T
Page 19 and 20:
the marketing concept or market(ing
Page 21 and 22:
Technology and online access democr
Page 23 and 24:
portion of their curated informatio
Page 25 and 26:
in the United States and Britain, a
Page 27 and 28:
whether some activities traditional
Page 29 and 30:
Without the necessary systems or pr
Page 31 and 32:
While net promoter score is not a p
Page 33 and 34:
Today, LegalZoom offers a broad por
Page 35 and 36:
4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11
Page 37 and 38:
Clementi submitted his report in De
Page 39 and 40:
experience, skills and competencies
Page 41 and 42:
away disk drive space. The question
Page 43 and 44:
Riverview’s high-end services are
Page 45 and 46:
need of an overhaul. These “new k
Page 47 and 48:
These are exciting times for those
Page 49 and 50:
The introduction of a new technolog
Page 51 and 52:
Before turning to our main quantita
Page 53 and 54:
H2: Wider document download pattern
Page 55 and 56:
Independent variables Technology us
Page 57 and 58:
Our research reconciles these two d
Page 59 and 60:
REFERENCES Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E
Page 61 and 62:
Table 1: Representative Excerpts fr
Page 63 and 64:
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Var
Page 65:
Table 4: Results of Individual Fixe
Page 68:
There are no materials for this ses
Page 71 and 72:
1 DECONSTRUCTING BIG LAW The Future
Page 73 and 74:
The Stanford Law School Research Pr
Page 75 and 76:
2011 General Counsel with Power
Page 77 and 78:
Executive Summary of Key Findin
Page 79 and 80:
General Counsel with Power? 201
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90: General Counsel with Power? 201
Page 107 and 108: Resource Co-Specialization and Supp
Page 109 and 110: al., 2009), plural sourcing (Bradac
Page 111 and 112: ely more on R&D resources, advertis
Page 113 and 114: and from transferring best practice
Page 115 and 116: specialized tasks such as complex a
Page 117 and 118: also distinct from economies of sco
Page 119 and 120: In case studies of innovating firms
Page 121 and 122: knowledge. This translates into a r
Page 123 and 124: To be included in our sample, we re
Page 125 and 126: Law firms. In order to measure the
Page 127 and 128: More specifically, we estimate a st
Page 129 and 130: of sample means indicate more in-ho
Page 131 and 132: services. The coefficient for selli
Page 133 and 134: study design and accounted explicit
Page 135 and 136: These in-house legal departments ca
Page 137 and 138: usiness benefits only if resource c
Page 139: Dick the Butcher, wishes for lawyer
Page 143 and 144: Sako M. 2013. Professionals between
Page 145 and 146: Table 3. Panel data regression mode
Page 148 and 149: The Shrinking Pyramid: Implications
Page 150 and 151: Limiting the Damage of Lateral Part
show all

Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shrinking ... - Georgetown Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?