Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T14:17:53.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-envisioning organizational complexity using a multiple perspectives model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2020

Choon Bae (Paul) Yoo Open the ORCID record for Choon Bae (Paul) Yoo [Opens in a new window]
Choon Bae (Paul) Yoo*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW2007, Australia
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: paul.yoo@uts.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organizations are now more complex and require collaboration to function effectively across multiple stakeholders. Consequently, they need to be familiar with collaborative projects and participate consciously in shared processes for the accomplishment of particular goals. In order to support and strengthen business partnerships, organizations could use a model based on a multi-perspective approach, as a way of visualizing effective decision-making processes and gaining an understanding regarding how they can establish and maintain stable relationships with other organizations and strategic alliances. The benefits of the new multi-perspective model could be utilized for the collaboration of multiple stakeholders and to drive future organizational change. This study presents a case study which explores the use of a multiple perspective framework in Australian Government Organizations. The results from this study suggest that a multi-perspective model may be used to address organizational complexity through the holistic integration of stakeholder perspectives and sustained knowledge flow.

Keywords

Knowledge flowmultiple perspective frameworkorganizational complexitywicked problem
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , July 2021 , pp. 751 - 767
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amagoh, F. (2008). Perspectives on organizational change: Systems and complexity theories. The innovation journal. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), 1–14.Google Scholar
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Weggeman, M., & Torkkeli, M. (2018). Knowledge sharing behaviours within organization; a diary-based study of unplanned meetings between researchers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(2), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleyard, M. M. (1996). How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bager, T. (2018). Knowledge exchange and management research: Barriers and potentials. European Business Review, 30(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, I. (2003). Organisational behaviour (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Byeon, J. (2005). A systems approach to entropy change in political systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, 223–231.10.1002/sres.639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferlie, E. (2007). Complex organizations and contemporary public sector organizations. International Public Management Journal, 10(2), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasson, S., & Elrod, E. (2006). Distributed knowledge coordination across virtual organizational boundaries, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems 2006 (paper 63). Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwarzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Goodwin, T. (2018). Digital Darwinism: Survival of the fittest in the age of business disruption. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.Google Scholar
Head, B., & Alford, J. (2008). Wicked problems: The implications for public management, Proceedings of 12th Annual International Research Society for Public Management Conference. Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Heller, T. (2000). If only we'd known sooner: Developing knowledge of organizational changes earlier in the product development process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(3), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imperial, M. T. (2004). Collaboration and performance management in network settings: Lessons from three watershed governance efforts. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
Imtiaz, S., & Ikram, N. (2008). Impact analysis from multiple perspectives: Evaluation of traceability techniques, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Advances 2008 (pp. 457–464). Sliema, Malta.Google Scholar
Khadka, R., Shetty, N., Whiting, E. T., & Banic, A. (2016). Evaluation of collaborative actions to inform design of a remote interactive collaboration framework for immersive data visualizations, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Visual Computing 2016 (pp. 472–481). Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Fang, L., Lei, C., & Qiang, W. (2004). A cooperative task oriented knowledge management paradigm based on Multiple Intelligent Agents, IRMA International Conference, Idea group publishing.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., & Brian, M. (2006). Understanding the impact of organizational downsizing on knowledge sharing, ECIS 2006: Proceedings of the XIXth European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, Gotegorg, Sweden, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Lindgren, R., & Wallström, C. (2000). Features missing in action: Knowledge management systems in practice. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems–ECIS.Google Scholar
Linstone, H. A. (1985). Multiple perspectives: Overcoming the weaknesses of MS/OR. Interfaces, 15(4), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, S., Mckelvey, B., Mirabeau, L., & Oztas, N. (2006). The sage handbook of organisation studies (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mason, R. (2007). The external environment's effect on management and strategy: a complexity theory approach. Management Decision, 45(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, M. W. (2000). Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organisational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merali, Y. (2006). Complexity and information systems: The emergent domain. Journal of Information Technology, 21(4), 216–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2012). Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers – three blurry terms in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 81–91.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). The new age of innovation: Driving cocreated value through global network. New York: McGraw-Hills Company.Google Scholar
Reka, A., & Barabasi, A. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Rouse, W. B., McGinnis, L. F., Basole, R. C., Bodner, D. A., & Kessler, W. C. (2009). Models of complex Enterprise Networks, Second International Symposium on Engineering Systems, MIT Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Schulz, K.-P. (2005). Learning in complex organisations: A model development and application from a theory of practice perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8), 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scozzi, B., Garavelli, C., & Crowston, K. (2005). Methods for modeling and supporting innovation processes in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1), 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. & Humphries, C. (2004). Complexity theory as a practical management tool: A critical evaluation, Organisation Management Journal, 1(2), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., de Jong, J., & Keijser, B. (2020). Paradoxes of collaborative governance: Investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach. Public Management Review, 22(3), 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Yi, J. (2009). A measure of knowledge sharing behaviour: Scale development and validation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar