Organizational competencies and dynamic Accounting Information System capability: Impact on AIS processes and firm performance

Accounting information systems (AIS) capture and process accounting data and provide valuable information for decision-makers. However, in a rapidly changing environment, continual management of the AIS is necessary for organizations to optimise performance outcomes. We suggest that building a dynamic AIS capability enables accounting process and organizational performance. Using the dynamic capabilities framework (Teece 2007) we propose that a dynamic AIS capability can be developed through the synergy of three competencies: a flexible AIS, having a complementary business intelligence system and accounting professionals with IT technical competency. Using survey data, we find evidence of a positive association between a dynamic AIS capability, accounting process performance, and overall firm performance. The results suggest that developing a dynamic AIS resource can add value to an organization. This study provides guidance for organizations looking to leverage the performance outcomes of their AIS environment.

On information technology competencies for collaborative organizational structures

There is an uptake of organizations involvement in collaborative organizational structures (COS). As the nature and level of information technology (IT) investment in COS will be similar, the COS IT competencies will leverage the IT investments to create the collaborative rent generating potential of the COS, which would then improve the business value of the COS members. Consistent with the resource-centric views of the firm, we suggest that the COS members need to contribute their managed IT competencies to their COS, whose synergies would create COS IT competencies. We suggest three key IT competencies for COS; proactive top management decision synergy, collaborative and agile IT infrastructure, and cross-functional tactical management synergy. Using survey data, we find evidence of a positive association between these COS IT competencies and the collaborative rent generating potential of the COS. We also find a positive association between the collaborative rent generating potential of the COS and the business value of the COS members. The results suggest that developing COS IT competencies add value to a COS and its members. This study provides guidance for organizations looking to leverage their involvement in a COS.

Organizational affordances: A structuration theory approach to affordances

Affordance is an important concept in the field of human–computer interaction. There are various interpretations of affordances, often extending the original notion of James J. Gibson. Often the treatment of affordances in the current human–computer interaction literature has been a one-to-one relationship between a user and an artefact. We believe that the social and cultural contexts within which an artefact is situated affect the way in which the artefact is used and the notion of affordance needs to be seen as a dynamic, always emerging relationship between people and their environment. Using a Structuration Theory approach, we conceptualize the notion of affordance at a much broader level, encompassing social and cultural aspects. We suggest that affordances should be seen at three levels: single user, organizational (or work group) and societal. Focusing on the organizational level affordances, we provide details of several important factors that affect the emergence of affordances. - This article provides a new perspective on the discourse of affordance with the use of Structuration Theory. - It shows how affordance can be understood as ‘use’ in situated practices (i.e. ‘technology-in-practice’) - The Structuration Theory approach to affordances is showcased using two case studies.

Managing teams: Comparing organizational and sport psychological approaches to teamwork

This paper examines how teams and teamwork research have been conceptualised in the fields of sport psychology and organizational psychology. Specifically, it provides a close inspection of the general theoretical assumptions that inhere in the two disciplines. The results of a discursive analysis of research literature suggest that the fields have significantly different ways of conceptualising teams and teamwork and that conceptual borrowing may prove fruitful. A key argument is however, that in order for meaningful cross-fertilisation to take place a sound understanding of these differences is necessary. Working from this premise, the essential differences between sport and organizational approaches to teams are outlined. The paper is concluded with a discussion of contributions that organizational psychology can make to understandings of sport-oriented teams.