Suchergebnisse

The design of work has been and will continue to be a central problem challenging organization theory and practice. The system of arrangements and procedures for doing work affects all workers every day throughout the world. Work is changing dramatically. In an increasingly global and knowledge-intensive economy, work design is no longer contained within an organization; it often transcends the boundaries of organizations and countries. These changes call for a renewed research focus on work design. Building on configuration and complexity perspectives, we propose a framework for studying work design. We argue that three issues require attention to advance the knowledge of work design: (1) defining the boundaries of work systems, (2) examining how the system is nested in a hierarchy within and between organizations, and (3) determining interactions between the elements of a work system. We propose a method of frontier analysis for identifying equifinal designs—the set of equally effective work designs for different combinations of inputs (situations or contexts) and outputs (performance criteria). When work designs are examined longitudinally, these methods permit an examination of adaptation processes on changing fitness landscapes, suggesting how work systems may increase, decrease, or sustain their relative performance over time.

Studies of organizational processes can yield observations in the form of event time series that can be analyzed to determine whether they reflect periodic, chaotic, white noise, or pink noise dynamic patterns. These different patterns each imply different underlying generative mechanisms and hence, different process theories. In this paper we present a model that describes how these four dynamical patterns are different from one another. Specifically, a causal system can be characterized by its dimensionality, and by the nature of interaction between causal factors. Low dimensional causal systems yield periodic and chaotic dynamics, while high dimensional causal systems yield white and pink noise dynamics. Periodic and white noise dynamics stem from systems where causal factors act independently, or in a linear fashion, while chaotic and pink noise systems stem from systems where causal factors act interdependently, in a nonlinear fashion. Thus, given a diagnosis of an observed event time series, we can hypothesize a particular story, or causal process theory, that might explain in organization-specific terms why such dynamics came about. In doing so, we also propose that the observation of chaotic organizational dynamics may often signify the presence of control and/or cooperation, rather than a lack of it, as implied by the vernacular use of the term. We conclude by challenging organizational researchers to define new models that capture such observed behavior.

This paper examines whether the developmental process of two biomedical innovations followed either (1) an orderly periodic progression of stages or phases, (2) a random sequence of chance "blind" events, or (3) a seemingly random process of chaotic events. Various diagnostics are applied to distinguish periodic, chaotic, and random patterns in time series data on innovation development events. We find that the actions and outcomes experienced by innovation teams exhibit a chaotic pattern during the initial period of innovation development, and an orderly periodic pattern during the ending development period: however, exogenous context events exhibit a random pattern during both the beginning and ending periods of innovation development. These research findings, if substantiated in other studies, significantly alter prior views of innovation and learning processes. The two most commonly-used explanations of the innovation process, that it follows either an orderly periodic sequence of stages or a random sequence of "blind" events, are not valid where chaos is found. Chaos tells us that the innovation process consists of a nonlinear dynamical system, which is neither orderly and predictable nor stochastic and random. The findings of chaos also expand existing definitions of organizational learning. Learning in chaotic conditions can be viewed as an expanding and diverging process of discovery. Learning during more stable and periodic conditions is viewed as a narrowing and converging process of testing. Timing of transitions from chaos to periodic patterns may explain whether decision or action rationality prevails. Hence, the difference between behavioral learning theorists and cognitive learning theorists may be just a matter of time.

This paper describes the methods being used by the Minnesota Innovation Research Program to develop and test a process theory of innovation which explains how and why innovations develop over time and what developmental paths may lead to success and failure for different kinds of innovations. After a background description of the longitudinal field research, this paper focuses on the methods being used to examine processes of innovation development. These methods pertain to the selection of cases and concepts, observing change, coding and analyzing event data to identify process patterns, and developing theories to explain observed innovation processes. We believe these methods are applicable to other studies that examine a range of temporal processes, including organizational startup, growth, decline, and adaptation.

This article presents an overview of research on innovations and organizations in order to suggest future research directions. Within recent years a considerable amount of research has been conducted on the topic of innovation in organizations. We are critical of past research on innovation in organizations, and call for a focus on process research in future investigations of this topic. We call for moving from a stage-by-stage conception of the innovation process to a dynamic, continuous conception in which the variables involved in innovation are sequenced and analyzed through time.

This research examines and compares patterns of coordination among clusters of organizations which are all members of a larger network of human service agencies. The blockmodeling procedure developed by Breiger et al. was used to analyze the data collected, and three tightly connected clusters of agencies werefound to exist in the network. By evaluating the reasons why organizations reported being involved with others, it was found that the three interorganizational clusters existed for three predominantly different reasons: resource transactions, direct services, and planning and coordination. The three clusters were then compared on a number of dimensions of interorganizational coordination, and it was found there were significantly different patterns of relationships among these clusters of agencies while no significant differences among the clusters were found on perceived effectiveness and the degree of impact of the relationships. A theoretical explanation for the observed results is developed. The major conclusion is that it is important to determine the different reasons for interorganizational relationships if one is to understand the various patterns of coordination among clusters of organizations within interorganizational networks.

The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior provides clear, concise and informative definitions and explanations of key concepts and issues: Clear definitioned entries on current and emerging trends in organizational behavior; over 400 entries by 180 leading authorities; cross references supply a network of "gateways" into specialist areas.

Introduction : managing knowledge integration across boundaries / Fredrik Tell, Christian Berggren, Stefano Brusoni, and Andrew Van de Ven -- Part I. Conceptual underpinnings. Managing across knowledge boundaries / Fredrik Tell -- Effective management of collective design processes : knowledge profiles and the sequential ordering of tasks / Steven Postrel -- Relating knowledge integration and absorptive capacity : knowledge boundaries and reflective agency in path-dependent processes / Christian Berggren, Jörg Sydow, and Fredrik Tell -- Bridging the individual-to-organization divide : a knowledge creation approach / Lars Lindkvist and Marie Bengtsson -- Part II. Boundary-crossing knowledge integration in context. Open innovation : managing knowledge integration across multiple boundaries / Lars Bengtsson, Nicolette Lakemond, Keld Laursen, and Fredrik Tell -- Division of labour, supplier relationships, and knowledge integration / Federica Ceci and Andrea Prencipe -- Knowledge, uncertainty, and the boundaries of the firm : evidence from a study of Formula One racing constructors, 1950-2000 / Fabrizio Castellucci and Gianluca Carnabuci -- Struggling with knowledge boundaries and stickiness : case studies of innovating firms in an emerging economy / Solmaz Filiz Karabag and Christian Berggren -- How boundary organizations facilitate collaboration across diverse communities / Markus Perkmann -- Talking through objects : the sociopolitical dynamics embodied in boundary objects in architectural work / Dmitrijs Kravcenko and Jacky Swan -- Bridging scientists and informal R&D collaborations : implications for firm-level knowledge integration and patent performance / Annapoornima M. Subramanian, Kwanghui Lim, and Pek-hooi Soh -- Knowledge integration at work : individual project competence in agile projects / Karin Bredin, Cecilia Enberg, Camilla Niss, and Jonas Söderlund -- Retrieval of knowledge across team boundaries : role of transactive memory systems in a restructuring global organization / Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa and Yongsuk Kim -- Boundary spanning, boundary objects, and innovation / Andrew Van de Ven and Shaker A. Zahra

This paper develops and tests a multilevel organizational contingency theory for designing headquarters–subsidiary relations. We use frontier analysis to overcome problems that have hampered advancements in organizational contingency theory in general and headquarters–subsidiary relationships in particular. Based on a longitudinal study of a large medical group practice of 32 local community clinics, we compute the relative distance of clinics from a best-performance frontier, determine what proportions of changes in clinic performance are due to factors that are endogenous or exogenous to the clinics, and examine the organizational factors that may explain these performance changes. We find that uniform headquarters policies have differing effects on the performance of subsidiary units, benefiting some and hindering others through no fault of their own. We also find significant performance volatility with different types of unit designs, suggesting the need to examine the risks of changing organization designs.