Contemporary Practice and Theory of Organisations – Part 1: E-Book
19,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: ibidem
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
Organizations are the central entities of the business world, comprising multiple people pursuing a collective goal while being linked to an external environment. Both academics and practitioners have kept up a continuing interest in advancing their understanding of organizations. This is the first of two volumes dedicated to the state of the art of theories and practices of organizations. It is the outcome of contributions by alumni and alumnae of the ESB Business School at Reutlingen University. This first volume provides a discussion of contemporary organizational forms and properties, as well as on team aspects.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 344
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
ibidemPress, Stuttgart
Table of Contents
Introduction
This is the first of two volumes dedicated to the state of research and practice in organizations. It is a joint effort of graduates of the Master’s in International Management at ESB Business School at Reutlingen University in Germany. Although organizations have been studied and researched for decades, their state of practice and theory is still evolving. This first volume is dedicated to three broad themes: non-traditional forms of organization, organizational characteristics and team level aspects.
The non-traditional organizations treated in the first section of this volume include project-based, team-based,virtualand network ways of organizing. To be distinguished from traditional structuring philosophies, such as functional, divisional, geographic or matrix structures, these modern elements, often combined with their traditional counterparts, have been practiced with varying degrees of success and understanding over the last few decades. The first four articles in this volume present and synthesize the current knowledge available in this domain. In particular, they discuss different interpretations of the networked organization, the right choice of project organization, disparate phenomena considered in the context of virtual organizations, and ongoing research gaps about ways of organizing.
The second section of this book contains a handful of papers highlighting different properties studied in organisations, all of which have created excitement among researchers and practitioners alike: identity, complexity, agility, alignment and resilience. Some properties, such as identity and complexity provide a deeper understanding of organizations and their interactions with their environment. Other organizational characteristics, such as agility, alignment or resilience have been proposed as sources of competitive advantage. What this second section highlights is the extent to which further research is necessary and what concrete research gaps need to be addressed in order to better inform business leaders and managerial practitioners about how to better understand and shape their organizations.
The final section of this volume turns the attention to virtual and international teams, as well as to the more foundational theme of team dynamics. While team dynamics is a well-published domain, recent research investigations undertaken in this decade suggest that this topic is far from being entirely understood in the corporate context. Virtual teams are a means of utilizing the most qualified employees for a specific project. Here, critical success factors are of great interest and therefore discussed in the dedicated article. As with virtual teams, international teams have become a form of work that has become a necessity nowadays. The effectiveness of global leaders is of particular concern in international team setups. All these team-related subjects are screened for their state of research and practice prior to suggesting further research.
Overall, this volume brings together twelve contemporary topics relevant for understanding today’s organizations, while showing to what extent research efforts have achieved to supply substantiated knowledge and guidance.
Section I: Modern Forms of Organization
Networked Organizations
Sarah Breucker, Timea Havar-Simonovich
Abstract.This article discusses the topic “networked organization” with a focus on terminology, definitions and in recent literature. Authors agree on the rising importance of networked organizations, but introduce different, at times contradictory perspectives on the topic. The different research approaches and focuses, as well as remaining research gaps, are examined in this article. It is found that due to inconsistencies in terminology, definition and characterization of networked organizations, the current state of research neither provides a satisfactory foundation for the academic field, nor for management practice, as research, theories and solutions are either too holistic or too specific to be applicable.
Keywords:Networked organizations, networked enterprises, organizational networks,collaboration
Introduction
Undoubtedly, the importance of networked organizations (NOs) has increased during the last decades, driven by the need to “respond to the increasing need of strong adaptability to the constantly changing economic context” (Camarinha-Matos, Pereira-Klen, & Afsarmanesh 2011, p. V). Today, networked organizations can be found in various forms, acting in diverse industries, including manufacturing, knowledge based-industries (Goldman 2012), public services (Provan & Milward 2001), banking and insurance (Mukherjee 2009).
This article discusses the state of research on the topic “networked organizations”. Many authors have contributed to it, introducing different, somewhat heterogeneous perspectives. To reduce complexity here, the focus has been set on terminology, definitions and characteristics given during the last 14 years. Additionally, findings of exemplary earlier contributions that were often cited in current literature have been included. In total, 49 articles from journals and three more recently edited books (Camarinha-Matos, Afsarmanesh, & Ollus 2008b; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2011; Putnik & Cruz-Cunha 2012) have been reviewed.
After a short introduction, similarities and contradictory opinions in the focus area are examined. Subsequently, a cluster of the differences in research focuses and approaches in the reviewed literature is provided and gaps in research are pointed out. The article closes with a conclusion on the state of research in relation to further academic studies and management praxis.
1Literature contributions to the field of networked organizations
The following section discusses literature contributions to the topic with focus on terminology, definitions and characteristics, while pointing out similarities and disagreement among authors.
1.1Terminology and definitions
In a literature review about network organizations from the year 1997, the author already mentioned the „remarkable diversity of ideas and nomenclatureon networks“ (Alstyne 1997, p. 1). A number of terms, such as agile enterprise, small firm network ormodular corporation, are linked to the “concept of an association of distinct business units operating in tandem” (Alstyne 1997, p. 1). Further years of literature contributions did not lead to moreconsensus, but to even more diversity. Many authors are aware of this problem and seek to find a definition for their own studies (Baum & Schütze 2012, 2013; Camarinha-Matos, Afsarmanesh, Galeano, & Molina 2009).
The following paragraph gives an overview of the nomenclature and definitions after 1997. The term collaborative network (CN) is used as an overall term to describe multiple independent entities (companies, individuals, or machines), which collaborate towards a common goal, often supported by computer technology. The single entities have different, often complementary corporate cultures, operating environments, competences and skills (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008b; Ferreira, Cunha, Carneiro, & Sá 2011; Shadi & Afsarmanesh 2011).
As soon as an organizational structure is involved that establishes governance rules, legal regulations and takes care of the overall management of the network, theterms collaborative networked organization (CNO) (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh 2008; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008b; Chituc & Azevedo 2005; Chituc & Nof 2007; Dutton 2008; Lavrac et al. 2007; Yassa, Hassan, & Omara 2012) or collaborative enterprise network (CEN) (Alfaro-Saiz, Rodríguez-Rodríguez, & Verdecho 2011; Baum & Schütze 2012, 2013) are used. Other authors use the terms networked organizations (NO) (Dangelmaier & Dürksen 2012; Lavrac et al. 2007; Smirnov, Pashkin, Levashova, Chilov, & Krizhanovsky 2003; Smirnov, Shilov, Levashova, Sheremetov, & Contreras 2007) or networked enterprise (NE) (Mukherjee 2009; Noori & Lee 2004) as synonyms.
A different view is the concept of a virtual enterprise (VE),which is considered to be a collaboration, which is temporary or focused on a singular project (Camarinha-Matos, Afsarmanesh, & Ollus 2008a; Chesbrough & Teece 2002; Kumar & Harding 2011; Lavrac et al. 2007; Stefanovic et al. 2012). Arsovski et al. share this understanding, but use the term virtual organization (VO) (Arsovski, Arsovski, Aleksic, Stefanovic, & Tadic 2012). Thus, VEs and VOs can be seen as sub-categories of the concepts described above. Other authors do not limit the term virtual organization to temporary, but also to permanent collaborations of different enterprises (Jansson, Karvonen, Ollus, & Negretto 2008; Tamošiūnaitė 2011).
Various specific models of NOs for certain industries or purposes are found in the literature, such as a “collaborative virtual laboratory” (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009, p. 47) in in the science and engineering context or the “Intelligent Learning Extended Organizations” (Kieslinger, Pata, & Fabian 2009, p. 1), which describe temporary networked organizations that include businesses and educational institutions.
Another term that needs clarification is the virtual organization breeding environment (VOBE), which can be seen as a CNO “on standby”, without a current task, “prepared to collaborate and thus rapidly respond to a collaboration opportunity or necessity” (Vargas Vallejos, Macke, & Faccin 2011, p. 58). Authors referring to this are Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh (2008), Camarinha-Matos et al. (2009), Camarinha-Matos et al. (2008a, 2008b), Chituc & Azevedo (2005), Chitucand Nof (2007). In the following, the terms networked organizations and collaborative networked organizations will be used as synonyms, and, given the definition mentioned above, further described. Figure 1 provides an overview of characteristics of the networked organization.
1.2Characteristics of networked organizations
“Due to the absence of this generic description, a general characterization and differentiation of individual types of CEN becomes difficult.” (Baum & Schütze 2012, p. 549) Figure 1showsthe seven characteristics concluded to be the features that most authors agree on in building a profile of a NO.
Figure 1: Characteristics of a networked organization
These characteristics distinguish the concept of networked organizations from other concepts, such as centralized, vertically integrated organizations or markets (Alstyne 1997; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009; Contractor, Wasserman, & Faust 2006; Goldman 2012; Jarvenpaa & Ives 1994; Lin, Desouza, & Roy 2010; Lorenzoni, Shank, & Silvi 1999; Powell 1990).
The figure demonstrates that characteristics 1 – 4 are the most common and undisputed, as they were stated in 31 literature contributions. The fact that characteristics 5 – 7 are mentioned less frequent suggests that they might not be regarded as indispensable: they can be, but are not necessarily feature of a networkedorganization. E.g., Smirnov et al. state that NOs are independent companies, “often with different geographic locations" (Smirnov et al. 2003), but not always. The factor trust among the participants is mainly discussed by authors looking “one step ahead”, e.g. towards the avoidance of conflicts in NOs (Carneiro, Novais, Lemos, Andrade, & Neves 2011; Grugulis, Vincent, & Hebson 2003).
1.3Disagreements in literature on the definition and characteristics
Nevertheless, there are some characteristics that oppose contradictory views. As described in section 2.1, the time limitation is a factor that some authors apply to NOs in general (Chituc & Azevedo 2005; Chituc & Nof 2007 and Yassa et al. 2012), while others only apply it to the concept of a virtual enterprise (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008a; Chesbrough & Teece 2002; Kumar & Harding 2011; Lavrac et al. 2007 and Stefanovic et al. 2012). Figure 2 summarizes four more fields of disagreement: while the left column shows the predominant opinion and lists exemplary authors, contradictory opinions are summarized on the right.
Predominant Opinion
Contradictory opinion
Participantsof a NO are individuals, units, institutions and companies from more than one enterprise. (Baum & Schütze 2012, 2013; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009; Yassa et al. 2012)
NO describe collaborating individuals or units of one single enterprise (Dutton 2008; O'Sullivan 2002; Schweer, Assimakopoulos, Cross, & Thomas 2012; Tamošiūnaitė 2011; Yuk-kwan Ng & Höpfl 2013)
The entities in a NO work towards acommon or compatible goal. This can, but does not have to be, profit maximization, e.g. stated by (Baum & Schütze 2013; Goldman 2012).
In a NO, every participant follows its own goals which are unknown to the others (Vetschera 1999). This is particularly true in the non-profit or public sector, since profit maximization does not apply (Provan & Milward 2001).
To make a NO work, acentral responsible entityis needed (Chesbrough & Teece 2002; Lavrac et al. 2007; Palo & Tähtinen 2013; Wincent, Thorgren, & Anokhin 2014).
A NO should be a system where all units have equal power, which is a challenging task to fulfill (Vetschera 1999).
A NO only exists with the presence of at least onecollaborative task,e.g. stated by (Baum & Schütze 2012, 2013).
In the VOBE described above, the NO is in a “standby-mode” without a current task (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh 2008; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008a, 2008b; Chituc & Azevedo 2005; Chituc & Nof 2007; Vargas Vallejos et al. 2011).
Figure 2: Contradictory opinions on characteristics of a NO
2Clusters of reviewed literature
In this section, literature contributions will be clustered and contrasted according to their research focus and approach.
2.1Research focuses
Evidently, authors look at networked organizations from different perspectives. Figure 3 provides an overview of the three main research foci and the corresponding authors identified in the reviewed literature: (1) information systems & technology, (2) theoretical framework development and (3) management of NOs. The numbers and sizes of the bubbles represent the number of authors that are grouped by focus themes.
Figure 3: Research Focuses
It becomes obvious that the majority (37) contributed to advances in the understanding of managerial aspects. According to the specific focus, this field is divided into four sub-categories, shaded in grey. In the following, the research focuses and exemplary contributions will be further described, according to the references listed in figure 3.
The first research focus examines information systems and technology enabling networked organizations. It discusses the design and operation of information systems and knowledge logistic systems for communication, process integration or quality documentation purposes (Dutton 2008; Stefanovic et al. 2012).
The second research focus deals withtheoretical framework development. Leading authors from the early stages of literature contributions are Powell, who already contributed to this topic in 1990 by differing networked organizations from hierarchies and the marketplace, Powell (1990) as well as Snow, Miles and Coleman, who suggested the typology of internal, stable and dynamic networked organizations two years later (Snow, Miles, & Coleman 1992). Many current authors have referred to these concepts in their work (Alstyne 1997; Baum & Schütze 2013; Noori & Lee 2004).
During the last 10 years, Camarinha-Matos, Afsarmanesh and Ollus can be seen as the leading contributors to the development of a theoretical framework. They were responsible for the ECOLEAD project (European Collaborative Networked Organizations Leadership Initiative), a four-year initiative (2004-2008), including 28 academic and industrial partners from 14 countries, which conducted research on CNOs from a holistic point of view (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008a). One major goal of ECOLEAD was “the establishment of a sound theoretical foundation, and a reference model, as a pre-condition for the next generation of CNOs” (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009, p. 58).Several authors either directly contributed or referred to the ECOLEAD project with their work (Baum & Schütze 2012, 2013; Chituc & Nof 2007; Ferreira et al. 2011; Jansson et al. 2008; Lavrac et al. 2007; Vargas Vallejos et al. 2011).
Most contributions focus on the management of networked organizations, including different issues of the formation and operation of networked organizations from a management perspective on macro- and micro-level (Vetschera 1999). Some authors focus on the manufacturing sector, where NOs have the advantages to be more responsive to changing market requirements (Baum & Schütze 2013; Camarinha-Matos 2009; Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009; Chesbrough & Teece 2002; Dangelmaier & Dürksen 2012). Another “hot topic” is innovation in networked organizations, e.g. discussing open innovation concepts within a NO to enhance product or technology development (Camarinha-Matos 2009; Chesbrough & Teece 2002; Goldman 2012; Noori & Lee 2004; Palo & Tähtinen 2013). Furthermore, there have been contributions on the challenge of economic measurability of certain factors in networked organizations, such as performance measurement (Alfaro-Saiz et al. 2011; Chituc & Nof 2007; Ferreira et al. 2011; Provan & Milward 2001; Soda & Zaheer 2012). It was also stated that qualitative and intangible features, such as motivation and collaboration spirit (Jansson et al. 2008) or intellectual capital (Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Alfaro-Saiz, & Verdecho 2011) have to be measured. Other contributions cope with risk assessment in the formation of NOs (Kumar & Harding 2011), the introduction of strategic cost analysis (Lorenzoni et al. 1999), or the measurement of the organization’s agility (Lin et al. 2010). The last sub-category is leadership and human resource management (HRM). The leadership challenges in NOs that are most widely discussed include the need for an adaptation of strategy, e.g. (Sviokla, Schneider, Calkins, & Quirk 2004), and HR policies (Swart, Kinnie, & Purcell 2004), the increased requirements on talent-management, e.g. (Schweer et al. 2012), and the establishment of a trust-based culture (Lavrac et al. 2007). Others deal with the anticipation and resolution of conflicts that typically evolve in such an environment (Carneiro et al. 2011; Mukherjee 2009). An exemplary leadership approach to improve the success of NOs is to introduce incentives, which improve individual behavior, thereby lead to more effectiveness on collaborative levels and also provide a measurable system (Shadi & Afsarmanesh 2011). This example shows that the research focuses overlap to some extent (in this case leadership and measurability). Figure 3 illustrates this through the intersection of the bubbles. Another example is the discussing of an open innovation approach in the context of manufacturing (Camarinha-Matos 2009; Chesbrough & Teece 2002).
2.2Research approaches
There have been diverse approaches by different authors in the revised literature towards the topic, which are summarized in Figure 4. While literature reviews (1) and the development of theoretical frameworks (2) are approaches under a holistic perspective, case studies (3) and analyses with statistical or mathematical models (4) conduct research with a specific approach that is focused on singular problems or industry cases. Some contributions are not listed, as they are a mixture of different approaches. In the following paragraph, some exemplary contributions will be pointed out.
Figure 4: Research Approaches
In literature reviews, authors predominantly examine literature for similarities and differences regarding terminology, characteristics and concepts of networked organizations (Alstyne 1997; Tamošiūnaitė 2011).
A variety of authors, especially those engaged in the ECOLEAD project, use the state of research combined with theoretical approaches to set up theoretical frameworks for the concept of networked organizations (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008a). Various theoretical concepts have been applied to describe the formation, operation and dissolution of NOs, including field theories, system theories and cognitive theories (Baum & Schütze 2012).
On the specific side, a common approach is to explore the topic with cross-sectional case studies. Some examples are Swart et al. (2004), who conducted a case study on software firms to discuss the application of HRMs in networks or Lorenzoni et al. (1999), who examined strategic cost management in the Italian motorbike industry. Authors following a more holistic approach have criticized the case study technique: “The definitions of CEN are usually subjective point of viewconsiderations of the individual authors. Many times, various types of CEN are described case-driven and not reflected by a normative understanding.”(Baum & Schütze 2012, p. 550).
More rarely, statistical models were applied in order to discuss a certain question concerning networked organizations, such as in the statistical analysis by Contractor et al. (2006), who analyzed social and organizational behavior in a NO composed of representatives of three U.S. Army agencies and four corporations, which collaborate for the commercial production of software.
3Research gaps in the field of networked organizations
The previous sections have exposed the heterogeneity in the understanding of NOs and the diversity of research focuses and approaches. Under these conditions, a state of research has evolved that fails to balance the holistic, theoretic perspective against the preoccupation with short-term, singular issues. Nevertheless, three major research gaps have been identified among the presented research foci: (1) a standard definition and framework, (2) systems for economic measurement and (3) specific research gaps from the management literature.
Figure 5: Research Gaps
Many authors seek clarification of nomenclature and concepts. They claim a unifying, holistic model, as a standard, instead of further theoretical “ad-hoc approaches” (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2009, p. 58). It is criticized that prior clarification attempts have not been holistic, but too focused on single disciplines (e.g. either business or technology) and thus biased (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh 2008; Yassa et al. 2012). „The lack of a reference model that could synthesize and formalize the base concepts, principles, and recommended practices, is an obstacle for an easier and more consistent development of the area“ (Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh 2008, p. 2453). Although there have been endeavors to close this research gap, e.g. through the ECOLEAD project, it is still not fully explored.
Another major research gap is the lack of research on (performance) measurement systems for networked organizations as stated by Lin et al. (2010, p. 2824): “Research is needed to examine how to measure the performance of networked organizational structures or organizational networks.” Many other authors also mention (Alfaro-Saiz et al. 2011; Bednar & Godkin 2009; Chituc & Azevedo 2005; Chituc & Nof 2007; Ferreira et al. 2011; Rodriguez-Rodriguez et al. 2011).
Thirdly, research perspectives so far have been either too holistic or too specific to be applicable in management praxis. As stated by Yassa et al.: “Decision makers need more comprehensive information about CNO system to support their decision.”(Yassa et al. 2012, p. 1).Consequently, various specific research gaps in management literature have been claimed. Examples include “the issues of appropriate collaboration forms for micro and small enterprises” (Baum & Schütze 2013, p. 55), research on business modeling in NOs (Palo & Tähtinen 2013) and “additional longitudinal case studies to test the lasting effects of networks” (Bednar & Godkin 2009, p. 341).
4Conclusion
Authors agree on the rising importance of networked organizations, as these organizations “have the powerto reshape not only organizations but also industry dynamics” (Mukherjee 2009, p. 24). Although the topic can be traced back in literature to the early 1960s (Snow et al. 1992), no mature state of research has developed until today. It is claimed that networked organizations are „common in practice, but are surprisingly under-researched“ (Wincent et al. 2014, p. 329). The variety and inconsistencies in terminology, definition and characterization of a NO have been described in this article. Also, the varying research focuses and approaches were outlined. The analysis of the research gaps showed that the lack of consensus in these areas has led to a lack of comprehensive theoretical frameworks, (performance) measurement systems and investigations regarding specific management challenges. It can thus be concluded that the current state of research on networked organizations neither provides a satisfactory solution for the academic field, nor for the management praxis, as research, theories and solutions are either too often broad or too specific to be applicable.
References
Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R., & Verdecho, M. a.-J. (2011). Performance Management in Collaborative Networks: Difficulties and Barriers. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 133-139). Heidelberg: Springer.
Alstyne, M. V. (1997). THE STATE OF NETWORK ORGANIZATION: A SURVEY IN THREE FRAMEWORKS.Journal of Organizational Computing, 7(3).
Arsovski, Z., Arsovski, S., Aleksic, A., Stefanovic, M., & Tadic, D. (2012). Resilience of Virtual and Networked Organizations: An Assessment. In G. D. Putnik & M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.),Virtual and Networked Organizations, Emergent Technologies, and Tools. First International Conference, ViNOrg 2011 Ofir, Portugal, July 6-8, 2011. Revised Selected Papers(pp. 155–164).Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Baum, H., & Schütze, J. (2012). A Model of Collaborative Enterprise Networks.Procedia CIRP, 3, 549-554. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.094
Baum, H., & Schütze, J. (2013). An Organizational Concept for Collaborative Enterprise Networks.Procedia CIRP, 7, 55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2013.05.010
Bednar, D. H., & Godkin, L. (2009). Organizational Learning and the Development of a Networked Company.Review of Policy Research, 26(3), 329-343. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00385.x
Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2009). Collaborative networked organizations: Status and trends in manufacturing.Annual Reviews in Control, 33(2), 199-208. doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2009.05.006
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2008). On reference models for collaborative networked organizations.International Journal of Production Research, 46(9), 2453-2469. doi: 10.1080/00207540701737666
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., Galeano, N., & Molina, A. (2009). Collaborative networked organizations – Concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises.Computers & Industrial Engineering, 57(1), 46-60. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2008.11.024
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., & Ollus, M. (2008a).ECOLEAD and CNO base concepts. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh & M. Ollus (Eds.),Methods and Tools for Collaborative Networked Organizations(pp. 3-32). New York: Springer.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., & Ollus, M. (Eds.). (2008b).Methods and Tools for Collaborative Networked Organizations. New York: Springer.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Pereira-Klen, A., & Afsarmanesh, H. (Eds.). (2011).Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362). Heidelberg: Springer.
Carneiro, D., Novais, P., Lemos, F. v., Andrade, F., & Neves, J. (2011). Issues on Conflict Resolution in Collaborative Networks. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 271-278). Heildelberg: Springer.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Teece, D. J. (2002). When Is Virtual Virtuous?Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 127-135.
Chituc, C.-M., & Azevedo, A. L. (2005). Multi-Perspective Challenges on Collaborative Networks Business EnvironmentsCollaborative Networks and Their Breeding Environments. IFIP TC5 WG 5.5 Sixth IFIP Working Conference on VIRTUAL ENTERPRISES, 26–28 September, 2005, Valencia, Spain (Vol. 186, pp. 25-32). doi: 10.1007/0-387-29360-4_3
Chituc, C.-M., & Nof, S. Y. (2007). The Join/Leave/Remain (JLR) decision in collaborative networked organizations.Computers & Industrial Engineering, 53(1), 173-195. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2007.05.002
Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2006). Testing Multitheoretical, Multilevel Hypotheses About Organizational Networks: An Analytic Framework and Empirical Example.Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 681-703. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.21318925
Dangelmaier, W., & Dürksen, D. (2012). A Planning System Using a Four Level Approach for the Planning of Production in a Networked Organization. In G. D. Putnik & M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.),Virtual and Networked Organizations, Emergent Technologies, and Tools. First International Conference, ViNOrg 2011 Ofir, Portugal, July 6-8, 2011. Revised Selected Papers(Vol. 248, pp. 145-154). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Dutton, W. H. (2008). The Wisdom of Collaborative Network Organizations: Capturing the Value of Networked Individuals1.Prometheus, 26(3), 211-230. doi: 10.1080/08109020802270182
Ferreira, P. S., Cunha, P. F., Carneiro, L. s., & Sá, A. (2011).An Approach to Performance Management in Collaborative Networks Based on Stakeholders’ Key Success Factors. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 140-147). Heidelberg: Springer.
Goldman, S. L. (2012). Smart Communities and Networked Organizations. In G. D. Putnik & M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.),Virtual and Networked Organizations, Emergent Technologies, and Tools. First International Conference, ViNOrg 2011 Ofir, Portugal, July 6-8, 2011. Revised Selected Papers(pp. 304–315). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Grugulis, I., Vincent, S., & Hebson, G. (2003). The rise of the 'network organisation' and the decline of discretion.Human Resource Management Journal, 13(2), 45-59. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00090.x
Jansson, K., Karvonen, I., Ollus, M., & Negretto, U. (2008). Governance and Management of Virtual Organizations. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh & M. Ollus (Eds.),Methods and Tools for Collaborative Networked Organizations(pp. 221-238). New York: Springer.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The Global Network Organization of the Future: Information Management Opportunities and Challenges.Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 25-57.
Kieslinger, B., Pata, K., & Fabian, C. M. (2009). A Participatory Design Approach for the Support of Collaborative Learning and Knowledge Building in Networked Organizations.International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 2(3). doi: 10.3991/ijac.v2i3.999
Kumar, S. K., & Harding, J. (2011). Risk Assessment in the Formation of Virtual Enterprises. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 450-455). Heidelberg: Springer.
Lavrac, N., Ljubic, P., Urbancic, T., Papa, G., Jermol, M., & Bollhalter, S. (2007).Trust Modeling for Networked Organizations Using Reputation and Collaboration Estimates.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 37(3), 429-439. doi: 10.1109/tsmcc.2006.889531
Lin, Y., Desouza, K. C., & Roy, S. (2010).Measuring agility of networked organizational structures via network entropy and mutual information.Applied Mathematics and Computation, 216(10), 2824-2836. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2010.03.132
Lorenzoni, G., Shank, J. K., & Silvi, R. (1999). Networked Organizations: A Strategic Cost Management Perspective. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012643
Mukherjee, A. S. (2009). Leading the networked organization.Leader To Leader, 2009(52), 23-29.
Noori, H., & Lee, W. B. (2004). Collaborative design in a networked enterprise: the case of the telecommunications industry.International Journal of Production Research, 42(15), 3041-3054. doi: 10.1080/0020754042000208385
O'Sullivan, D. (2002). Framework for managing business development in the networked organisation.Computers in Industry, 2002(47), 77-88.
Palo, T., & Tähtinen, J. (2013). Networked business model development for emerging technology-based services.Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 773–782.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization.Research in Organizational Behavior, 12:, 295–336.
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks.Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.
Putnik, G. D., & Cruz-Cunha, M. M. (Eds.). (2012).Virtual and Networked Organizations, Emergent Technologies, and Tools. First International Conference, ViNOrg 2011 Ofir, Portugal, July 6-8, 2011. Revised Selected Papers(Vol. 248).Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R., Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J., & Verdecho, M.-J. (2011).A Review on Intellectual Capital Concepts as a Base for Measuring Intangible Assets of Collaborative Networks. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 41-47). Heidelberg: Springer.
Schweer, M., Assimakopoulos, D., Cross, R., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Building a Well-Networked Organization.MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(2), 35-42.
Shadi, M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2011). Addressing Behavior in Collaborative Networks. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 263-270). Heidelberg: Springer.
Smirnov, A., Pashkin, M., Levashova, T., Chilov, N., & Krizhanovsky, A. (2003). High-level business intelligence service in networked organizations.Frontiers of E-Business Research. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.2438&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Smirnov, A., Shilov, N., Levashova, T., Sheremetov, L., & Contreras, M. (2007). Ontology-driven intelligent service for configuration support in networked organizations.Knowledge and Information Systems, 12(2), 229-253. doi: 10.1007/s10115-007-0067-5
Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Coleman, H. J. (1992). Managing 21st Century Network Organizations.Organizational Dynamics(20(3)), 4-20.
Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). A network perspective on organizational architecture: performance effects of the interplay of formal and informal organization.Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 751-771. doi: 10.1002/smj.1966
Stefanovic, M., Arsovski, S., Arsovski, Z., Aleksic, A., Nestic, S., Rajkovic, D., & Punosevac, Z. (2012). Integration of Virtual and Networked Organization Using Server Oriented Architecture. In G. D. Putnik & M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.),Virtual and Networked Organizations, Emergent Technologies, and Tools. First International Conference, ViNOrg 2011 Ofir, Portugal, July 6-8, 2011. Revised Selected Papers(Vol. 248, pp. 165-175).Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Sviokla, J., Schneider, A., Calkins, C., & Quirk, C. (2004).The Rise of the Networked Organization.DiamondCluster Whitepaper, Spring 2004.
Swart, J., Kinnie, N., & Purcell, J. (2004). Human Resource Advantage in the Networked Organisation.Management Revue, 15(3), 288-304.
Tamošiūnaitė, R. t. (2011). Organization virtual or networked.Social Technologies (Socialines Technologijos), 1(1), 49-60.
Vargas Vallejos, R., Macke, J., & Faccin, K. g. (2011). Establishing Knowledge Management as an Important Factor to Develop Social Capital for Collaborative Networks. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, A. Pereira-Klen & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.),Adaptation and Value Creating Collaborative Networks. 12th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2011 São Paulo, Brazil, October 17-19, 2011 Proceedings.(Vol. 362, pp. 58-65). Heidelberg: Springer.
Vetschera, R. (1999). Economic analysis of network organizations: Possibilities, limitations and open questions.Central European Journal of Operations Research, 7(4), 225-247.
Wincent, J., Thorgren, S., & Anokhin, S. (2014). Entrepreneurial orientation and network board diversity in network organizations.Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 327–344.
Yassa, M. M., Hassan, H. A., & Omara, F. A. (2012). New Federated Collaborative Networked Organization Model (FCNOM).International Journal of Cloud Computing and Services Science (IJ-CLOSER), 1(1), 1-10.
Yuk-kwan Ng, R., & Höpfl, H. (2013).Beyond the image of Big Brother: Towards a Trustworthy, Autonomous and Collaborative Networked Organization. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual International Conference on Business Strategy and Organizational Behaviour.
Project Organization
Jonas Haake, Cristina Meinshausen
Abstract. Project Management has evolvedinto a significant and indispensable discipline in a wide array of industries and businesses. Nonetheless a majority of projects fail and academics,as well as practitioners,consider the poor implementation of projects within existing organizational structuresas major root cause. The purpose of this article is to shed light on thistopicby systematically reviewing the existing literature on different organizational structures in project management. It further seeks to highlight specific factors for choosing a suitable organizational structure for certain typesof project. The paperdiscusses particulalrythree differentwys to organizeprojects,namely the functional project organization, the project-based organization and the matrix organization. There isa consensus thatthe efficacy and practicality of functional organizational structures is relatively limited,especially for comprehensive projects.By contrast,matrix organizations appear to gain increasing importance in contemporary project management, although relevant empirical research on the effectiveness of matrix structures is limited.
Keywords:Functional project organization, project-based organization, matrix organization, organizational structures inprojectmanagement, organization, corporation, enterprise
1Introduction
Businesses across a variety of different industries as well as public and social institutions make use of project management to achieve satisfying results with limited resources under critical time constraints (Meredith & Mantel2012).However, it must be noticed thattoo manyprojects are still subject to failure. For instance, in 2012 only 39 percent of software development and IT projects were successful. With regard to large and complex software projects the rate of successevendiminishes to six percent (Standish Group 2014; Standish Group2013). Academics and practitioners agree that one major cause for project failure is the poor implementation of projects within the existing organizational structure of a company (Standish Group 2013; Perkins 2006; Pinto & Mantel 1990; Pinto & Prescott1988). Consequently,the question arises as to how to successfully integrate projects within the organization(Frese 2012; Sayles1976). Furthermore,organizations need to decide whether a project should be granted full autonomy or whether it should be embedded in a functional department (Hill & White 1979).
Since the early 1960s,extensiveacademic research has been conducted to find an answer to the aforementioned question. Meanwhilereserachersand practitioners developedvaried adviceonproject related organizational forms and frameworks to enhance the effectiveness of project management within an organization. The purpose of thisarticleis to review the relevant literature on these alternative project organizations.
The researchreviewed inthisarticleis structured into three sections: the first section reviews the literature on the development of project organizational structures since the 1950s. The secondsectiondiscusses the distinctive features of these structures. Hereafter, the third part reviews frameworks and criteria, which serve as a guidance for management to decide which project organization is applicable in certain project environments.
2Evolution of alternative project organizational structures
According to the majority of academic researchers, the rapidly changing business environment has been the major influential factor for organizational change and the development of new organizational structures inthe past thirty years (Kerzner 2009; Kolodny 1979; Gailbraith 1971).
Circumstances such as global market opportunities, increasing competitiveness, rapidly changing marketplaces and technology, unpredictable consumer demands and overall increased complexity forced management to change in order to guarantee the survival of the company (Meredith & Mandel 2012; Kerzner 2009; Bodera2008). The U.S. American aerospace of the 1960s was one of the first industries which encountered many of the aforementioned challenges and theplayers in this sectorrealized that traditional vertical structures proved to be inadequate. Instead, the application of projects became significantly important and managers began implementing more innovative organizational structures such as matrix and pure-project organizations (Larson &Gobeli 1987; Knight 1976; Mee 1964).
With regard to this evolutionary process, Kolodny (1979) built his “evolutionary model” (p. 543),which illustrates the organizational development through fourphases, namely function, project, product/ matrix and matrix. However, prior to Kolodny’s concept, Davis and Lawrence (1977) already pointed out that organiza
