The purpose of this paper is to describe an analytical approach – functional analysis – that can be used to evaluate the current design of an organization and identify alternative…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to describe an analytical approach – functional analysis – that can be used to evaluate the current design of an organization and identify alternative designs that may increase the ability to realize strategic and operational goals.
Design/methodology/approach
The approach described in this paper is based on key concepts in systems theory and axiomatic design theory (Suh, 1990, 2001). A brief case example is used to illustrate the practical application of the approach.
Findings
It is shown that functional analysis can be used to map the design of an organization and identify key design challenges (e.g. related to overlapping or conflicting functions).
Research limitations/implications
The case study that is described is considered to be a pilot application of the approach as it is based on a limited number of interviews.
Practical implications
This paper should be relevant for applied researchers, management consultants, project managers and others who are analyzing the current structure of an organization and/or are involved in re-designing an organization.
Social implications
Application of the functional approach may improve design processes and thereby enhance the effectiveness of social systems, including public and private sector organizations.
Originality/value
This paper describes how key concepts in systems theory and axiomatic design theory can provide the basis for a new framework for analyzing organization designs.
Details
Keywords
Traditionally, the main goal of empirical research has been to test theories. Yet, theory-testing is problematical in the social sciences. Findings from empirical studies have…
Abstract
Traditionally, the main goal of empirical research has been to test theories. Yet, theory-testing is problematical in the social sciences. Findings from empirical studies have proven hard to replicate and there is a lack of progress in creating a coherent and cumulative knowledge base. There are both practical and epistemological issues that prevent effective empirical tests. It is difficult to operationalize constructs and design decisive tests of theories. The laws and regularities posited in theories in the natural sciences are independent of human actors, while theories in the social sciences describe systems and structures that are created and maintained by human actors. Nonetheless, human actors are sometimes guided by theories. They may change their behavior or make different decisions based on academically produced knowledge. This relationship is usually mediated by the use of tools of various sorts (i.e., design principles, diagrams, or stories). I discuss why scholars should conduct empirical research to test the pragmatic validity of tools that are derived from theories rather than testing the scientific validity of the theories themselves.
Details
Keywords
Onno Bouwmeester and Jelmer Stiekema
The purpose of this paper is to explore the paradoxical image of consultants as “experts without expertise.” It examines the extent to which different stakeholders’ perceptions of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the paradoxical image of consultants as “experts without expertise.” It examines the extent to which different stakeholders’ perceptions of consultants’ expertise are aligned, and why.
Design/methodology/approach
This research applies a creative approach to survey methodology by asking different stakeholder groups to react to consultancy expertise cartoons. This is followed by a rhetorical interpretation of the perceptions of consultants’ expertise using pathos.
Findings
This survey revealed that employees are the most critical of consultants, while clients and consultants retain positive impressions of consultants’ expertise. Unexpectedly, relative to other stakeholder groups, academics occupy a moderately critical position like outsiders. Given that consultants and clients value the same indicators of expertise, this explains the latter stakeholder group’s positive valuation.
Research limitations/implications
Since this study focusses on the expert image of consultants more generally, the authors cannot differentiate the conclusions for perceptions related to different types of consultants based on discipline or the image of their specific role (e.g. expert vs coach or change agent).
Practical implications
Consultants and academics need pathos that is stakeholder dependent, for getting their expertise better accepted.
Originality/value
This paper helps explain why managers, despite the many criticisms of the services consultants provide, continue to hire consultants for their expertise. Furthermore, it sheds light into why managers prefer the services of consultants vs those provided by academics. It also nuances the assumption that academics are the main critics of consultants. Instead, this paper identifies that the majority of consultant critiques come from employees in client organizations.
Linh Chi Vo and Mihaela Kelemen
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to bridging the gap between researchers and practitioners. It does so by comparing the various models of academic-practitioner…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to bridging the gap between researchers and practitioners. It does so by comparing the various models of academic-practitioner collaboration and introducing Dewey’s democratic experimentalism as a promising alternative.
Design/methodology/approach
The conceptual implications are drawn from an analysis and discussion of the literatures in the field of organizational knowledge production, co-production and Deweyan studies.
Findings
Democratic experimentalism offers a much needed platform for a collaborative relationship between academics and practitioners that leads to knowledge that is rigorous and relevant to practice.
Originality/value
While the current models of academic-practitioner collaboration provide mechanisms for knowledge co-production, the Dewey’s democratic experimentalism goes further to emphasize the nature of the relationship between academics and practitioners in such common endeavor to ensure that all of them are equal co-creators of knowledge.