Search results

Man‐machine interfaces and screen images are integral factors in communicating information. Computer manufacturers, however, have long concentrated on improving the capacity of their computers at the expense of the display design. The features of computer screen images, including the colours used, the effect on the eyes and the clarity of the information layout are examined. Pixel and character‐based displays are assessed and subtractive video explained. The impact of the personal computer has created a demand for consultants in screen design.

The concept of “routines” is used to classify diverse enterprise application systems (EAS) into a framework. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the theoretical underpinnings and EAS falling into each of the framework quadrants. The framework provides a guideline for firms to meet their EAS‐organizational alignment challenges.

The EAS‐organizational alignment framework in this paper is developed through a synthesis of literature. The framework links EAS and organizational routines according to intra‐ and inter‐levels of organizational analysis and inflexible and flexible governance mechanisms.

The findings suggest that a fit between EAS routines and organizational routines leads to successful EAS deployments and hence improved business performance.

The findings provide researchers with reasons to incorporate routines into existing research models to better explain EAS‐organizational alignment. The next step is to empirically validate the EAS‐organizational alignment framework.

Firms can gain an understanding of how EAS routines and organizational routines can be manipulated to positively influence EAS‐organizational alignment and hence increase business performance. Firms can use routines as strategic tools for adoption and successful deployment of EAS across their global operations.

The paper's findings provide a perspective, different from past research, on our understanding of EAS‐organizational alignment and offer valuable guidance for future research in this area.

Inspections have been made during the year at the majority of the principal food importing ports in England and Wales in connection with the administration of the Public Health (Foreign Meat) and the Public Health (Unsound Food) Regulations, 1908.

In this paper, we investigate how digital technology disruptors and the incumbents who stand to be disrupted by them frame their arguments to transform or sustain existing institutional frameworks to enable or deter the market entry of these technologies. Using a longitudinal, comparative case analysis of three digital technologies – namely, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), cloud antenna, and over-the-top (OTT) technologies – we explore how stakeholders use public interest frames for this purpose. We find that entrepreneurs use three specific frames to drive institutional change for the successful adoption of digital technologies in the presence of established incumbents and powerful regulators: frames that emphasize the broad public appeal of the new digital technology; frames that emphasize efficiency, democracy, and technological advancement; and frames that emphasize present as well as future benefits to the public. We find that constructing interpretations of what serves the public interest is the primary tactic used by disruptors to gain market entry, and an equally popular weapon for incumbents to block the entry of new digital technologies. These interpretations lead to a framing contest aimed at influencing regulators and obtaining a more favorable institutional environment. Our empirical findings illustrate that new digital technologies themselves are not the sole contributors to institutional change. Rather, institutional outcomes associated with the introduction of new digital technologies are shaped by how disruptors and incumbents use public interest frames and how regulators react to these frames.

Two models of organizational behavior are reviewed. The apolitical model describes a relatively stable and centralized monolith, while the political model describes a potentially unstable federation of self‐interested parties. It is argued that the apolitical model is largely predicated on social and generalized exchange and forces for stability, while the political model is largely predicated on economic and dyadic exchange and forces for instability. It is further argued that the contradictions inherent in these forces help fuel evolutionary change (where the apolitical model becomes most salient), punctuated by revolutionary change (where the political model becomes most salient). Thus, the two models apply simultaneously to organizational action, suggesting that the organization can be seen as both a stable monolith and an unstable coalition.

One of the primary responsibilities of a board of directors is to assess management practices and to make sure that the organization is being run in a fashion that is consistent with the interests of shareholders. This responsibility becomes especially important when the firm is performing suboptimally. The current paper integrates corporate governance theory with attribution theory to examine the processes by which board members attribute poor firm performance to either external or internal causes. A framework is presented that suggests that inside directors and outside directors differ significantly in the constraints they face and in the ultimate attributions they make. Facing primarily social constraints, such as loyalty to the CEO and fear of retaliation, inside directors are more likely to consistently attribute poor performance to industry or environmental factors, as opposed to top management. Facing primarily cognitive constraints, outside directors will use specific informational cues to attribute poor performance either to industry/environmental factors or to top management. Implications and suggestions for future research are provided.

This chapter explores how “discourse,” as a process concerned with the production and consumption of talk and text, has been embraced within the field of organizational change and development (OCD). We present six ways of thinking about the role of discourse in OCD (namely: “discourse as component,” “discourse as process,” “discourse as analysis,” “discourse as method,” “discourse as mindset,” and “discourse as style”). Although the advent of dialogic OD has raised awareness of discourse, we demonstrate that it remains a marginal and under-utilized area of interest. We conclude by making a case for a more expansive role for discursive modes of analysis and engagement within OCD.

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

Cooperative strategies, both domestic and foreign, have become an important component of the strategic repertoire of firms. Various forms of interfirm alliances are redefining and transforming the very nature of competition. Considering their importance, a solid understanding of their fundamental dynamics is necessary. Different forms of alliances exist: from those that emerge because partners have some preexisting advantages such as geographic proximity or shared history to those that arise because third parties such as governments have created the enabling environment. Looking at the context and operational dynamics of various alliance configurations may help our understanding of how to manage them. This paper presents four configurations or clusters of alliances based on their origins and link the context to operational dynamics. The policy and research implications of the paper are also presented.