Then the employee must be considered well-being not only the obligations required course with a variety of workloads, as well as with employees who do not only demand their rights but the work and responsibilities as employees are not resolved. But there are still companies who are less concerned employees so that employees become demotivated, lazy, and not impressed either his work. So they assume that no matter how hard they work the company does not care about them, let alone to provide welfare or employee benefits and just compensation for them.

To prevent unwanted actions of employees by firms, corporate management tasks that must meet the demands of the welfare of employees by providing a fair and wise, it was all done for the creation of employee welfare and corporate welfare.

The importance of employees welfare is to retain employees in order not to move to another company, improve motivation and morale, and increase employee loyalty to the company. to retain these employees should be given to the welfare / full compensation / fringe benefits.

Welfare provided a very meaningful and useful to meet the physical and mental needs of employees and their families. The work done to maintain and improve physical and mental condition of employees to increase morale is through employee benefits programs compiled based on legal regulations, with fairness and feasibility as well as guided by the ability of the company.

Below are main objectives of employee welfare benefits:
1). To increase employee loyalty and attachment to the company
2). Provide peace and fulfillment needs for employees and their families
3). Motivating morale, discipline and employee productivity
4). Lowering the level of absenteeism and employee turnover
5). Create an environment and a good working atmosphere and comfortable
6). Help smooth implementation of the work to achieve goals
7). Maintain and improve the quality of employee health
8). Streamline procurement employees
9). Assist the implementation of government programs
10). Reduce accidents and damage to company equipment
11). Improving the social status of employees and their families.

Employees are the most important resource for the company, as for it, employees need to be managed in order to stay productive. However, the management of employees is not easy, because they have thoughts, feelings, status, desire and heterogeneous backgrounds. Therefore, companies should be able to encourage them to remain productive in the tasks and responsibilities of each is to give something that raises employee satisfaction within themselves.

Those are organizations such as universities, venture capital, consulting engineering firms, consumer advocacy groups, NGOs, service operators, and so forth. In fact, the list of societal actors which engage directly in knowledge production or exploitation is an empirical question, and as such an open question.

The first point is thus about the necessity of considering active and diverse actors as both enabling and sometimes constraining the capability of an economy to engage in innovating, learning, and experimenting. In particular, this perspective stresses two areas for further research. One area is why the firms experiment with the development of knowledge, opportunities, and organizational forms, to survive and succeed in a changing environment.

Another area is how much novelty, destruction, and renewal of organizational forms takes place, when seen through the lenses of particular technologies, time periods, and type of response. Questions include:
. How and why do firms, universities, and governments sometimes substitute for each other, in terms of developing new scientific and technical knowledge for business contexts?
. Within the history of particular actors, what causes points of radical destruction like bankruptcy as well as processes of incremental renewal like gradual renewal of product markets?
. Under what conditions do different types of organization drive such transformatory economic change through internal processes and under what conditions are they more reactive to external stimuli?
. ‘How much’ new and old are involved when actors choose to reorient their strategies? Do the degrees of novelty, destruction, and renewal differ, when they decide to do so through endogenously driven processes, as compared to when, they find themselves ‘forced’ to do so to survive?

The second point stresses that uncertainty is integral to innovating, learning, and experimenting. Uncertainty as opposed to risk was defined by Frank Knight, and this is a concept relevant for modern literature, as exemplified in the discussions by Loasby. The philosopher of science Campbell explains that uncertainty can be understood if the further development of knowledge is viewed as blind generation.

Blind generation means that although actors generate alternatives to fit their interpretations of environmental conditions, they cannot know in advance which alternatives will turn out to be well adapted. As such, actors generate novelty in the dark, or with only an approximate understanding of selection pressures. This type of thinking has been developed in various ways.

Having chosen a firm or industry, the researcher wants to know in which dimensions the firm ‘exit’ or had access to ‘new’ or ‘old’ activities, knowledge, and resources in order to innovate in technological domains. For example, the question might be ‘which types, and why, of knowledge can be reused within the firm and lead to better firm performance, including higher firm growth?’

Obviously, to answer such a question, there are many types of issues that need to be resolved, including definitions of concepts. One relevant definition here may be to state that old knowledge, which is used in a new technical domain or product application may be considered to be knowledge reuse. This may be analysed or measured through whether the same individuals (skilled labor) worked on several projects or at the firm level, by indicators of market and technological diversification.

Another set of choices is how to operationalize the idea of ‘innovation’. After all, what does ‘innovating’ mean in this case? Many definitions and indicators are possible. Based on existing research praxis such as the Community Innovation Surveys (CIS), the researcher decides that innovation in the firm includes something new with economic value, and may be differentiated in terms of categories such as goods, services, and organization. Innovation may therefore be defined as products, whether goods or services or as process innovations, including technological, and organizational routines.

The basic ontology behind the MLP stems from the sociology of technology, where three interrelated dimensions are important:
(a) socio-technical systems, the tangible elements needed to fulfil societal functions;
(b) social groups who maintain and refine the elements of socio-technical systems; and
(c) rules (understood as regimes) that guide and orient activities of social groups

Reproduction
In this change process there are only dynamics at the regime level, not at the landscape and niche level. The existing socio-technical system and regime form a stable context for (inter)action of social groups. Existing rules are reproduced by the incumbent actors, and elements in the socio-technical system are refined.

The orientation of dominant actors, key technology, and knowledge base do not change fundamentally. There is incremental and cumulative change along trajectories. This is the normal situation at the regime level. As indicated earlier, there are many reasons why existing regimes and systems are stable (e.g. sunk investments, role expectations in networks, standards, contracts, cognitive routines).

This is dynamic stability, meaning that incremental innovations still occur. Incremental innovations in stable regimes are important, because, over time, they can accumulate and result in major performance improvements.

Transformation
In this change process there are interacting dynamics at the regime and landscape level, but litte influence from niches. The basic mechanism is that changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime, leading to reorientation of the direction of innovative activities.

This happens through a change in the regime rules that coordinate actions of regime actors, e.g. changes in technical problem agendas, visions, goals and guiding principles, relative costs and incentive structures, regulations and perceptions of opportunities.

The adjustment and reorientation to external landscape pressure does not happen in a mechanical fashion, but through negotiations, power struggles, and shifting coalitions of actors. Because incumbent regime actors initially tend to downplay the need for transformation, a change in the social network is often important to start a transformation process.

Transition
A transition refers to a shift from one socio-technical system to another. It is not about the reorientation of an existing trajectory, but a shift to a new trajectory. An example is the transition from a transport system based on horse drawn carriages to a transport system based on automobiles.

This transition involved changes in the socio-technical system (e.g. technologies, knowledge base, infrastructure, regulations, user practices, cultural preferences), social groups, and regime rules. In a transition process there are interactions between dynamics at landscape, regime, and niche level. Landscape developments create pressure on the regime, leading to major problems. Regime actors react with adjustments in the system (as in the transformation process), but they are not able to solve the problems.

This creates a window of opportunity for new innovations, developed in niches and carried by a new network of social groups. If a new innovation breaks through and replaces the existing system, this will be accompanied by ‘creative destruction’ and the downfall of (some) incumbent actors. Once a transition has taken place, a new period of dynamic stability and reproduction sets in.

Thus, the dynamics in Chandler’s story are based on particular characteristics common to many technologies of the first half of the twentieth century the presence of substantial economies of scale and capital-intensive production methods but he generally treats technology as a given and pays little attention to the effects of technological change on firm boundaries because he believes that later incremental changes did not undermine the importance of these characteristics.

As a matter of analytical convenience, we begin with a discussion of these stable scenarios, in which technological change is incremental and occurs only within what may be considered the ‘life cycle’ of a particular technology. Our intention is to show how inclusive a firm’s boundaries might be expected to be at a particular point in time.

While many firms tend tohave few distinctive competences, this does not mean that they have tight limits onthe range of resources they possess or that they tend to reduce this range. Distinctive competences are the basis of the process of firm diversification in related products and markets, and therefore may lead to increases in the number of additional (or ‘ancillary’) activities that a firm undertakes as it enters related markets.

Distinctive competences may first of all be described in relation to a firm’s technology. They tend to be embodied in core products, which represent the interface between the firm’s technical and distinctive knowledge and the products it delivers to the market. More broadly, competences can be described in relation to a firm’s value chain.

How do distinctive competences affect organizational boundaries? While the empirical evidence on this issue is ambiguous, it is clear that due to the complexity of resource-based management, managers often find it strategically desirable to internalize competences that are:
(a) key to the present creation of industry value
(b) consistent with the strategy of related diversification they want to put into practice.
(c) useful to build new avenues of value creation for the firm’s competitive future.

Therefore, because a firm needs to protect the integrity of its core competences, and in particular of its distinctive competences, these will be included within the firm’s boundaries.