Mariann Jelinek

Introduction to the Special Issue: Organization Studies as a Science for Design: Creating Collaborative Artifacts and Research

Organization research has recently started to reach beyond the antagonisms of positivism versus its postmodernist and critical counterparts, which have dominated the discourse in organization studies over the last 20 years. A promising approach instead involves positioning organization studies as a science for design. While the natural sciences seek description, explanation or prediction of what is, design scientists ask what could be, seeking betterment of the human condition. Inspired by Simon’s (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial, an organization science for design seriously addresses the need for scholars and managers alike for better organizational forms and processes. Organization design science is still very early in its development: different, even conflicting theories about organization design and development abound; laboratories for organizational experiments are largely absent; and little knowledge on management and organization is systematically codified — too much remains anecdotal and dependent on context. As a result, the current state of a science for organization design is fragmented and immature. Previous academic research on organization design focussed primarily on questions of theoretical relevance. A science-for-design perspective differs from previous treatments of organization design in two ways. First, it can bridge the worlds of theoretical and practical significance. Without theory, organizational practice is uninformed; without practice, organization theory is moribund. Second, the enormous diversity in organization research and theory is merely confusing without an adequate epistemology, particularly in view of the need to connect to practice. A design science approach can facilitate an integrative framework that acknowledges the unique role and contribution of key epistemological traditions in organization studies (including positivism, constructivism and pragmatism). The call for papers for this Special Issue invited submissions from scholars who view organization and management research as a pluralist discipline that draws on (at least) two key modes of engaging in research: science and design. According to Simon (1969), science views existing organizational systems as empirical objects from an outsider perspective, while design envisions systems that do not yet exist — either completely new systems or new states of existing systems. Science raises the question ‘is this proposition valid or true?’, while article title

Toward Entrepreneurial Organizations: Meeting Ambiguity with Engagement

Entrepreneurial activities fit poorly with traditional organizational approaches–-the rules, procedures and structure to delimit members’ response that seek to constrain behavior to a predetermined program. Nevertheless, in response to increasing competition, organizations have emerged to support broad entrepreneurial activity. Three interrelated elements appear necessary to support organizational entrepreneurship: pervasive sharing of managerial tasks and responsibilities, mindful alertness to anomalies, and ambiguity absorption by means of mutual support and information sharing. These elements render organizations more flexible, but also increase ambiguity, requiring further action incompatible with traditional organizational approaches. Entrepreneurship is not only inconsistent with traditional organizations, but with traditional organization theory. To effectively analyze entrepreneurial organizations requires a shift from the static, deterministic paradigm of traditional organization and theory to a cognitive paradigm which focuses on individual sensemaking and collective decision processes, and on the organizational context that shapes and influences them. This article outlines basic elements of an emerging cognitive paradigm to describe organizational entrepreneurship in theoretical and pragmatic terms, contrasting with traditional theory and practice. Benefits and hazards of entrepreneurial approaches are discussed. The Implications for research and management practice are also suggested.

Micro-Institutional Affordances and Strategies of Radical Innovation

Institutional theory emphasizes the institutional constraints that render radical innovations illegitimate, but fails to explain how such innovations might succeed. Adopting a micro-institutional perspective, this paper addresses why and how embedded agency may overcome legitimacy crises within established systems. Drawing on a sample of 20 legitimacy problems identified in five radical innovation trajectories at two mature companies, we develop an empirically grounded theory of the institutional work through which proponents legitimize radical innovations within established firms. This theory describes a variety of micro-institutional affordances that enable different strategic responses to legitimacy crises. We thus extend institutional theory by explaining embedded agents’ use of a range of options to pursue radical innovation, providing a robust explanation of both institutional stability and radical change.

Industry-University IP Relations: Integrating Perspectives and Policy Solutions

Despite a long and productive U.S. history, industry-university (I-U) relations have become increasingly testy around intellectual property (IP). The Bayh-Dole Act is cited the driver for sharply increased university patenting, less fundamental research focus, and disinterest in traditional missions, although there is little data to corroborate these conclusions. A National Science Foundation (NSF)-sponsored workshop points to I-U relationship issues in the context of the path a new technology must follow from lab to market. We propose some critical variables affecting I-U IP relationships; describe areas of agreement and contention between the parties, drawing also on secondary data and the broader literature of I-U relations; and offer IP policy observations of interest to universities, researchers and technology transfer managers, their industry counterparts, and government. We end with propositions for further research

The Competitive Advantage of Nations.

the competitive advantage of nations the we chose a sample of industries for each nation that other nations represent a variety of population sizes represented the most important groups of competitive government policies toward industry social philoso industries in the economy the industries studied ac phies geographical sizes and locations, porter s competitive advantage of nations porter s 1990 competitive advantage of nations was heralded on publication as a book which could build a bridge between the theoretical literatures in strategic management and international economics and provide the basis for improved national policies on competitiveness, michael porter s competitive advantage and business history advantage 9 and the competitive advantage of nations 10 porter s farst book competitive strategy published in 1980 is an exhaustive look at strategy his context is the world of the late 1970s but the structure that he sets out is a very useful vehicle for the business historian the essence of formulating competitive strategy is relating a company to its environment 11 p 3, the porter s theory of competitive advantage starting from these premises porter identifies a system of determinants which is the basis for getting competitive advantages by the nations 2 the system of determinants the theory is based on the system of determinants called by porter diamond which consists of, competitive advantage of nations book by michael e now beyond its eleventh printing and translated into twelve languages michael porter s the competitive advantage of nations has changed completely our conception of how prosperity is created and sustained in the modern global economy porter s groundbreaking study of international competitiveness has shaped national policy in countries around the world, the competitive advantage of nations ideas and advice to investigate why nations gain competitive advantage in particular industries and the implications for company strategy and national economies i conducted a four year study of ten important, the competitive advantage of nations states and regions this presentation draws on ideas from professor porter s articles and books in particular the competitive advantage of nations the free press 1990 building the microeconomic foundations of competitiveness in the global competitiveness report world economic forum clusters and the new competitive agenda for companies and governments in on competition harvard business school press 2008 and ongoing research on clusters and competitiveness, pdf competitive advantage revisited michael porter on competitive advantage revisited michael porter on strategy and competitiveness article pdf available in journal of management inquiry 16 3 256 273 september 2007 with 10 927 reads, the competitive advantage of nations by michael e porter the competitive advantage of nations porter s concept of clusters or groups of interconnected firms suppliers related industries and institutions that arise in particular locations has become a new way for companies and governments to think about economies assess the competitive advantage of locations and set public policy, competitive advantage of nations michael e porter competitive advantage of nations michael e porter on amazon com free shipping on qualifying offers now beyond its eleventh printing and translated into twelve languages michael porter s i the competitive advantage of nations i has changed completely our conception of how prosperity is created and sustained in the modern global economy, competitive advantage university at albany there are two basic types of competitive advantage cost leadership and differentiation this book describes how a firm can gain a cost advantage or how it can differentiate itself it describes how the choice of competitive scope or the range of a firm s activities can play a powerful role in determining competitive advantage

Manufacturing as a service business: CIM in the 21st century

Abstract The long term future impact of CIM upon our society as a whole will be to make a wider variety of products available at reasonable prices combined with high levels of variety, customization, timeliness, newness and quality. CIM changes manufacturing from a physical and mechanical system into an information and knowledge work activity subject to the laws of economy of “scope” as well as “scale”. This means that the factory will no longer be an economic barrier to rapid rates of innovation; and sophisticated, complex and intimate vendor-customer relations. However, in addition to investing in new technology, the firm will need to develop new strategies for each business area and new tactics for marketing; more flexible organizational structures designed to implement strategies based on timeliness, innovation, variety, niche markets and product augmentation; sophisticated policies for human resource management; and very different accounting systems and financial analysis algorithms. The ultimate result of CIM will be new ways for the manufacturing industries to serve society and a new style of competition in the global marketplace. Wage rates will be irrelevant in most industry sectors, as will scale economies. CIM will “level the playing field” but as the technology for achieving flexible, low cost, high quality production becomes available to all competitors the real competitive advantages will shift from production economies to innovation—the skills needed to: identify a market niche and its special needs; to design a “product/service” that will meet that need better than anyone else can meet it and in a way that is hard to copy; to quickly design, produce and distribute the product, to be able to quickly move onto the next product; and to be able to manage the complexity of many different products and many different customers being served from the same facility and at the same time. The benefits to society will come from changes in the nature of manufacturing work as well as the greater variety of reasonably priced products available. Manufacturing firms will have to learn how to recruit, train, mange, evaluate and reward “knowledge workers”, as machines and electronic controls take over the traditional “touch labor” and even most of the plant floor “skilled” labor of the past. Firms will also need to change their concepts of strategic thinking—from a focus on products and markets to a focus on competitive advantage in terms of process technology and systems and the institutional learning that allows the firm to effectively and efficiently utilized advanced technology—in effect an experience curve based upon a succession of non-repetitive (but conceptually similar) events. This will lead to business strategies based upon complexity (rather than the tactics of simplification popular in the 1980s); in terms of short product life cycles, customization, rapid design and production cycles and close coupling with the customer over an extended period of time. From an historical perspective this might be seen as the “deindustrialization” of manufacturing; a situation that can be called “the automation of custom manufacture” where the “client” has an opportunity to participate to at least some degree in the design of the product; and to decide how much “service” in terms of custom features and speed of delivery he is willing to pay for. This new concept of manufacturing as a service will be difficult for competitors to copy—especially if it is a one-time-only custom event. In effect, institutional learning of CIM utilization skills will be the competitive advantage of the firm, the switching cost to customers, and the barrier to entry for competitors.

Toward Systematic Management: Alexander Hamilton Church

Dominated as it is by the powerful personality of Frederick W. Taylor, the history of scientific management thought has neglected important figures like Alexander Hamilton Church. Professor Jelinek shows that whereas Taylors contribution was to move thinking down one “level of abstraction” to concrete shop operations, Church moved it up one level to construct a pattern of observations useful for management planning and evaluation.

Innovation as the strategic driver of sustainability: big data knowledge for profit and survival

Innovation has long been a central strategic focus of firms, and sustainability has recently become such a focus. We posit that innovation-across the value chain, in strategy, and in business models-is the central element of any truly sustainable business. Linking the theoretical models of Market Orientation (MO) and the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV), purposive search directed through a Knowledge Based View (KBV) offers a schematic outline for how and where applications of big data analytics can facilitate innovation for long-term sustainability of the firm-for survival, profit, and dynamic fit with the changing environment.

21st-Century R&D

OVERVIEW: In May 2007, Richard Antcliff challenged IRI members with a presentation asserting the notion that “three tsunamis” were about to break upon R&D managers, demanding urgent response. Technological exponentials, global demographic shifts, and the phenomenon of climate change all posed challenges that promised to transform R&D. How are R&D managers responding to the perfect storm created by those tsunamis? Survey results and interviews of managers at nearly 60 IRI-member companies revealed a range of responses. Open innovation, globally dispersed R&D operations, and an emphasis on collaboration suggest that the R&D lab of the future is far less likely to be “a lab” (especially a single, central corporate lab) than an intricate, dynamic innovation ecosystem. Not only R&D managers, but senior executives and government policy makers as well will have new roles to map in this model for twenty-first-century R&D.

Macro Influences on Multicultural Teams: A Multi-Level View

Multicultural teams (MCTs) and their managers are subject to numerous exogenous forces that profoundly affect how these teams’ members relate, what their difficulties are, and how they interact with task, technology and the larger organization(s) around them. We approach such teams from a multi-level perspective, focusing on global business culture, industry situation, and national political context as macro forces affecting these teams. We explain how these factors affect team functioning through the centripetal and centrifugal forces that they exert on individuals. Our perspective will acknowledge the complex reality of social construction among team members, and offer the view that members’ expectations and their mutual interactions are responsible for shaping each others subsequent cognitions.