Firm transformation: Advancing a Darwinian perspective

Purpose of the paper: The paper advocates a Darwinian explanation of the process of firm transformation. Existing, but generally opposing views related to the selection-adaptation debates are united to consider the dialogic nature of both approaches. It is argued that a Darwinian approach, as opposed to a neo-Darwinian or Lamarckian approach provides the means to scale the sides of a debate that has for too long divided scholars interested in firm and industry transformation. Approach: The paper addresses three specific issues to develop its Darwinian argument. Firstly, the various work of Geoff Hodgson that have for many years advanced Darwin's evolutionary ideas are used to argue the nature and application of Darwinism in the socio-economic domain. Secondly, the nature of what constitutes the elements of firm-environment interaction is considered to establish basic areas of focus through which the process of firm transformation is more understandable. Lastly, the construct absorptive capacity is likened to a mechanism of transmission through which the learning processes associated with the acquisition of favoured variations can be reconciled with the generic evolutionary processes of variation, selection, and retention. Findings: To understand the process of firm learning, the role of habits and routines must be outlined in specific detail. They cannot be assumed to perform interacting and replicating roles simultaneously. To do so, undermines the fundamental qualities of an evolutionary theory. What is the original/value of paper: The preliminary framework advanced takes us beyond the Darwinian - Lamarckian debate and provides elements of focus from which a greater understanding of the process of firm/industry transformation is possible.

Dislocation after total hip replacement: there is no such thing as a safe zone for socket placement with the posterior approach

Introduction Malorientation of the socket contributes to instability after hip arthroplasty but the optimal orientation of the cup in relation to the pelvis has not been unequivocally described. Large radiological studies are few and problems occur with film standardisation, measurement methodology used and alternative definitions of describing acetabular orientation. Methods A cohort of 1,578 patients from a single institution is studied where all patient data was collected prospectively. Risk factors for patients undergoing surgery are analysed. Radiological data was compared between a series of non-dislocating hips and dislocating cases matched 2:1 by operation type, age and diagnosis. Results The overall dislocation rate for all 1,578 cases was 3.23% but the rate varied according to the type of surgery performed. The rate in uncomplicated primary cases was 2.4% which increased to 9.3% for second stage implantation for a two stage procedure for infection. There was no significant difference in the variability of the dislocating and non-dislocating groups for either inclination (p = 0.393) or anteversion (p = 0.661). Conclusions A “safe zone” for socket orientation to avoid dislocation could not be defined. The cause of dislocation is multifactorial, re-establishing the anatomic centre of rotation, balancing soft tissues and avoidance of impingement around the hip are important considerations.

Chromosomal rearrangements, phenotypic variation and modularity: A case study from a contact zone between house mouse Robertsonian races in Central Italy

The Western European house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, is well-known for the high frequency of Robertsonian fusions that have rapidly produced more than 50 karyotipic races, making it an ideal model for studying the mechanisms of chromosomal speciation. The mouse mandible is one of the traits studied most intensively to investigate the effect of Robertsonian fusions on phenotypic variation within and between populations. This complex bone structure has also been widely used to study the level of integration between different morphogenetic units. Here, with the aim of testing the effect of different karyotypic assets on the morphology of the mouse mandible and on its level of modularity, we performed morphometric analyses of mice from a contact area between two highly metacentric races in Central Italy. We found no difference in size, while the mandible shape was found to be different between the two Robertsonian races, even after accounting for the genetic relationships among individuals and geographic proximity. Our results support the existence of two modules that indicate a certain degree of evolutionary independence, but no difference in the strength of modularity between chromosomal races. Moreover, the ascending ramus showed more pronounced interpopulation/race phenotypic differences than the alveolar region, an effect that could be associated to their different polygenic architecture. This study suggests that chromosomal rearrangements play a role in the house mouse phenotypic divergence, and that the two modules of the mouse mandible are differentially affected by environmental factors and genetic makeup.

Book Review: "The Interface: IBM and the Transformation of Corporate Design, 1945-1975", John Harwood, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011

Within the history of twentieth-century design, there are a number of well-known objects and stories that are invoked time and time again to capture a pivotal moment or summarize a much broader historical transition. For example, Marcel Breuer’s Model B3 chair is frequently used as a stand-in for the radical investigations of form and new industrial materials occurring at the Bauhaus in the mid-1920s. Similarly, Raymond Loewy’s streamlined pencil sharpener has become historical shorthand for the emergence of modern industrial design in the 1930s. And any discussion of the development of American postwar “organic design” seems incomplete without reference to Charles and Ray Eames’s molded plywood leg splint of 1942. Such objects and narratives are dear to historians of modern design. They are tangible, photogenic subjects that slot nicely into exhibitions, historical surveys, and coffee-table best sellers...

Leading Digital Transformation: Building Technology and Information Governance Capability in Boards of Directors and the C-Suite

Information and technology and its use in organisation transformation presents unprecedented opportunities and risks. Increasingly, the Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) competency in the board room and executive is needed. Whether your organization is small or large, public, private or not for profit or whether your industry is not considered high-tech, IT is impacting your sector – no exceptions. But there is a skill shortage in boards: GEIT capability is concerningly low. This capability is urgently needed across the board, including those directors who come from finance, legal, marketing, operations and HR backgrounds. Digital disruption also affects all occupations. Putting in place a vision will help ensure emergency responses will meet technology-related duty of care responsibilities. When GEIT-related forward thinking and planning is carried out at the same time that you put your business strategy and plan in place, your organization has a significantly increased chance of not only surviving, but thriving into the future. Those organizations that don’t build GEIT capability risk joining the growing list of once-leading firms left behind in the digital ‘cloud of smoke’. Those organizations that do will be better placed to reap the benefits and hedge against the risks of a digital world. This chapter provides actionable, research-based considerations and processes for boards to use, to build awareness, knowledge and skills in governing technology-related organization strategy, risk and value creation.