Suchergebnisse

This paper argues that the Program Planning Model (PPM) provides a normative strategy of collective action for coping with complex problems. The argument is based on seven propositions which explain how the PPM guides complex problem solving in turbulent settings and avoids several basic limitations of alternative models of collfctive problem solving and decision making. The propositions represent new insights and speculative impressions that developed while conducting and reflecting on the longitudinal test of the PPM described in Part I of this paper (Van de Ven, 1980).

This longitudinal research compares the Program Planning Model (PPM) with a conventional (non-PPM) planning model in the context of creating 14 new child care programs in local Texas communities. The programs planned according to the PPM are found to have more efficient services and greater community acceptance during their first year of implementation than the programs that were developed with the conventional planning process. Due to the absence of random assignments, it is not demonstrated that these results are due to planning processes alone. However, evidence is presented that suggests the PPM projects outperformed the non-PPM projects because implementation success correlates with five key dimensions of planning behavior. Implementation success increases with: (1) participation of citizens, experts, and community interest groups; (2) involvement of a policy board representing partisan interests; (3) greater and more equal distribution of planning team effort; (4) process consultation in early planning phases; and (5) fewer deviations from the PPM procedural model in allphases of planning. The implications of this research for theory and practice will be discussed in a companion Part II of this article.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss the theoretical contribution of Li's (2016) "Yin-Yang balancing" approach of paradox management, as well as its future development to guide paradox management research across the east and west contexts.Design/methodology/approachIt begins by recognizing the importance of paradox management research, especially the indigenous epistemological approach as Li (2016) has followed. The authors take "being" and "becoming" ontology toward social reality as the basic premise in this commentary, and summarize the knowledge that the study has contributed to existing literature.FindingsThe "Yin-Yang balancing" approach can extend the knowledge about paradox management phenomena at least from four aspects: the "either/and" frame to view a paradox system, the importance of "seed" or "threshold" in defining moderate rather than extreme groups, duality map as a novel tool for paradox management, and comparison of being and becoming ontology.Originality/valueBased on the comparison of "being" and "becoming" ontological view, the authors suggest to further develop this "Yin-Yang balancing" approach by emphasizing the following issues: eastern culture does not have exclusive ownership of the "becoming" ontology toward the world, elaboration of alternative theoretical explanation to win out the identity approach about organizational existence, the linkage between the "Yin-Yang balancing" epistemological system and process research method, and boundary condition of the "Yin-Yang balancing" approach.

This paper examines processes of trial-and-error learning during the development of a technological innovation by an interorganizational joint venture created expressly for developing and commercializing products from the new technology. We develop a model of adaptive learning, which incorporates elements from laboratory models of learning and applies them to the field research setting. The learning model focuses on relationships between the goals, actions, and outcomes of an innovation team within the joint venture as it develops the innovation over time, and the influences that environmental events and external interventions by resource controllers in parent companies have on the learning process. The model is tested based on a real-time longitudinal study of the development of a biomedical innovation (therapeutic apheresis) from 1983 to 1988. Different patterns of learning were observed in different periods of innovation development. Event time series analyses clearly contradict the learning model during an initial expansion period, but strongly support the model during a subsequent contraction period. Explanations for why these different patterns of organizational learning occurred over time are provided, and focus on a set of organizational structures and practices which are commonly used to manage innovation development, but which inhibit learning.