Search results

How information technology is rapidly becoming necessary for achieving quality in the airline industry is focused on. Three levels of service quality management are proposed in a strategic model: the standard service system; a complex service system; and a sensitive service system. The latter implies the integration of an advanced information culture with an advanced service culture. SAS is used as an empirical case to illustrate development to today′s practice and to compare present practice with the proposed strategy for tomorrow.

Describes an innovative marketing strategy of a Norwegian shipyard gaining access to the Russian market and explains its use of innovation theory as a framework. Explains why the shipyard gained a productivity growth of 34 per cent in 1989‐91 and is expecting a further 20 per cent increase in 1992‐93, which may be mainly due to the market orientation of the shipyard. Develops a model for grouping measures of innovativeness and suggests that the main reasons for change are in the total quality management programmes, organizational networking and market‐oriented project management. The coalition for change in the company includes the trade union and top management, while the coalition against change comprises middle management and local private business. The first want to keep the organization market driven, while the latter want to keep the organization “as it is”. It is a classic fight between a market‐driven management and a state‐driven management style. Sterkoder Ltd had to understand that the market gives the direction – and not the state‐supported policy.

Surveys existing literature pertaining to the role of communication and information in generating innovation in organizations, aiming to organize innovation literature, coupled with information and communication in organizations, around critical innovation factors in the various phases of the information process, and asking, principally, what critical innovation factors, coupled with information and communication, exist in the various phases of an innovation process? Finally, systematizes the literature in a model displaying CIF in relation to the above question.

This paper seeks to use systemic thinking for the purpose of criticizing neoclassical utility theory.

First, the systemic‐theoretical ontology, epistemology and methodology are presented. Then the basis for the utility theory, and later spin‐offs, the decision theory and game theory, for which among others Jon Elster is a main agent, are criticized.

The psychological hypothesis, on which the utility theory is based, is rejected as untrue.

The fact that a theory can be explained in simple mathematical terms may make it popular, but this will hardly make it more scientific, despite its display of numerous mathematical terms. This paper's contribution has been to provide a critique of this concept.

In this article we will discuss the link between systemic thinking, organizational learning and knowledge management. We will develop a conceptual model to illustrate and explain this link, which will be further discussed throughout the article. The main entities of this model are: emphasis on internal motivation, relations in and among systems, in addition to the development of vision, generation of ideas and creativity. The philosophical basis for this model is systemic thinking. We will thus explain the meaning of this way of thinking, before we discuss the individual elements of the conceptual model.

To discuss systemic thinking in relation to the naturalistic and anti‐naturalistic position in the philosophy of social science. To develop the theme in two parts: I and II.

A cybernetic approach is taken and a discussion on what is the foundation for the philosophy of social science for systemic thinking is developed.

The findings for Part I are that the rationalistic view of knowledge is based on reflection and reason. The empirical viewpoint on knowledge based on observations. The realistic view of knowledge is based on the link between the rationalistic and the empirical point of view. The systemic viewpoint is based on the realistic view of knowledge.

Provided assistance to social scientists who study social systems from the systemic or cybernetic point of view. Gives researchers studying problems/phenomena in social systems a systemic viewpoint.

It positioned systemic thinking in relation to the philosophy of social science.

Although we observe a general optimism concerning IT’s potential for creating suitable competitive advantages, there exists a lack of empirical support for the positive economic impact of IT on businesses. This is denoted as the productivity paradox of IT. We argue that in situations of hypercompetition, using conventional productivity measures as the only performance indicator would be inadequate when studying the impact IT has. Furthermore, investing in IT does not ensure its proper implementation. Consequently there is a need to consider what companies are using IT for and its consequences for innovation and a variety of performance measures. In a study of 200 firms within the Norwegian IT sector, we found that focusing on the use of IT might be a promising route for studying the relationship between IT and successful innovations, and between IT and performance. We also found a number of trade‐offs between the various performance measures and between successful innovations and performance. Although we were able to find positive effects of IT we argue in favour of developing an information and a knowledge strategy prior to developing an IT strategy

Considers from a cybernetic point of view, a number of philosophical problems raised by the design and utilization of information systems and knowledge management. Discusses the transformation from facts in social systems, via data and information into knowledge, and the practical use of knowledge, which is defined as the cybernetic strategy of action. This paper is normative and conceptual and the research question posed is: How are social facts transformed into data, data into information, and information into knowledge?

To discuss systemic thinking in relation to the naturalistic position in the philosophy of social science. To develop the theme in two parts: Part I: systemic thinking and the naturalistic position; and Part II: the systemic position.

A cybernetic approach is taken, and a discussion on what is the foundation for the philosophy of social science for systemic thinking and the systemic position is developed.

The findings of Part I have been given. Part II analyses the systemic position and considers the classical controversy in social science between methodological individualism and methodological collectivism (holism). The pre‐condition on which the systemic position is based is given. The ideal requirements set up by the systemic position are presented under the headings: espistemology/methodology; ontology; axiology; and the ethical position.

Provided assistance to social scientists who study social systems from the systemic or cybernetic viewpoint and give a practical analysis of the systemic position. Provides researchers and others working in this field with an investigation of the role and conduct of social scientists.

It positioned systemic thinking in relation to the philosophy of social science.

In the knowledge economy, where the business environment is characterised by turbulence and complexity, knowledge is the main source of creating both innovation and sustainable competitive advantage. This paper describes a conceptual model and an associated set of managerial and organising implications for the innovation‐led company. The question we are trying to answer is: which management and organising characteristics are necessary to manage innovation in the knowledge economy? The paper is based on in‐depth interviews of 32 CEOs and top executives in leading European organisations, 40 people known internationally for their ability to achieve and maintain a position among the top performers in their fields, and a “best practice study” of five leading international companies.