The Emergence of Partnership Networks in the Enterprise Application Development Industry - A Global Corporation Perspective

Currently, dramatic changes are happening in the IS development industry. The incumbent system developers (hubs) are embracing partnerships with less well established companies (spokes), acting in specific niches. This paper seeks to establish a better understanding of the motives for this strategy. Relying on existing work on strategic alliance formation, it is argued that partnering is particularly attractive, if these small companies possess certain capabilities that are difficult to obtain through other arrangements than partnering. Again drawing on the literature, three categories of capabilities are identified: the capability to innovate within their niche, the capability to provide a specific functionality that can be integrated with the incumbents’ systems, and the capability to address novel markets. These factors are analyzed through a case study. The case represents a market leader in the global IS development industry, which fosters a network of smaller partner firms. The study reveals that temporal dynamics between the identified factors are playing a dominant role in these networks. A cyclical partnership model is developed that attempts to explain the life cycle of a partnership within such a network.

Bridging Research and Development : Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) in the Swiss National Centre of Competence (NCCR) North-South - Capitalising on Experience

Within the framework of Switzerland’s international NCCR North-South research programme, Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are a practice-oriented component with a transdisciplinary approach. By linking research and development practice, they bring together researchers, practitioners and local communities in a common effort to test and evaluate research findings in concrete development contexts. They provide unique insights into innovative approaches and opportunities for promoting sustainable development in countries of the South and East. After an initial four-year phase, the PAMS projects implemented to date were evaluated in order to learn about their potentials and limits, as well as to decide on the direction of the component for the next phase of the programme. The present publication presents the results of this evaluation.

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS): Experience with a transdisciplinary tool in the NCCR North-South programme

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are small transdisciplinary projects which bring scientific research insights from the NCCR North-South into policy and practice. They are implemented by researchers from different disciplines in collaboration with non-scientific actors. PAMS aim to implement and test approaches, methods and tools developed in research, in order to identify promising strategies and potentials for sustainable development. In this sense, they are solution-oriented. This paper will provide insights into our experience with PAMS, with a special focus on the implementation of transdisciplinarity and its outcomes. From 2001 to 2010, 77 PAMS were implemented in Africa, Asia and Latin America. An internal evaluation of the first 55 projects was conducted in 2006. Results of this evaluation led to a refinement and improvement of the tool. A second internal evaluation is currently underway in the NCCR North-South. This evaluation will provide an overview of 22 new PAMS. We will look at partners involved, project beneficiaries, activities implemented, outcomes achieved, and lessons learnt. In the first evaluation, transdisciplinarity was considered as “a form of collaboration within scientific fields … and as a form of continuous dialogue between research and society” (Messerli et al., 2007). The evaluation report concluded that this understanding of transdisciplinarity was not satisfactorily applied in the 55 projects. Only about half of the PAMS addressed mutual exchange between researchers and society. Some involved only one specific field of research and clearly lacked interdisciplinary co-operation, and most often knowledge was transferred mainly unilaterally from the scientific community to society, without society having any effect on science. It was therefore recommended to address transdisciplinarity more carefully in Phase 2 PAMS. The second evaluation, which is currently under way, is analysing whether and how this recommendation has been met, based on criteria defined in the NCCR North-South’s Outcome Monitoring Strategy. The analysis is focusing on partners with whom researchers interact and investigating whether practices have changed both in research and society. We are also exploring the role of researchers in PAMS. Preliminary results show that researchers can assume different roles, from direct implementation, mediation, and promotion of social learning between different actors, to giving advice as neutral outsiders.

Research for sustainable development: Foundations, experiences, and perspectives

Research for Sustainable Development is based on the experiences of a decade of inter- and transdisciplinary research in partnership in nine regions of the world. It presents 29 articles in which interdisciplinary teams reflect on the foundations of sustainability-oriented research, propose and illustrate concrete concepts, tools, and approaches to overcome the challenges of such research, and show how research practice related to specific issues of sustainable development has led to new thematic and methodological insights. The book seeks to stimulate the advancement of research towards more relevant, scientifically sound, and concrete contributions to realising the vision of sustainable development.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

EU trade agreements and their impacts on human rights: study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

The European Union’s (EU) trade policy has a strong influence on economic development and the human rights situation in the EU’s partner countries, particularly in developing countries. The present study was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) as a contribution to further developing appropriate methodologies for assessing human rights risks in development-related policies, an objective set in the BMZ’s 2011 strategy on human rights. The study offers guidance for stakeholders seeking to improve their knowledge of how to assess, both ex ante and ex post, the impact of Economic Partnership Agreements on poverty reduction and the right to food in ACP countries. Currently, human rights impacts are not yet systematically addressed in the trade sustainability impact assessments (trade SIAs) that the European Commission conducts when negotiating trade agreements. Nor do they focus specifically on disadvantaged groups or include other benchmarks relevant to human rights impact assessments (HRIAs). The EU itself has identified a need for action in this regard. In June 2012 it presented an Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy that calls for the inclusion of human rights in all impact assessments and in this context explicitly refers to trade agreements. Since then, the EU has begun to slightly adapt its SIA methodology and is working to define more adequate human rights–consistent procedures. It is hoped that readers of this study will find inspiration to help contribute to this process and help improve human rights consistency of future trade options.

Dynamics of governance and control in inter-organizational software development

In recent years, development of information systems (IS) has rapidly changed towards increasing division of labor between firms. Two trends are emerging. First, client companies increasingly outsource software development to external service providers. Second, the formerly oligopolistic enterprise application software industry has started to disintegrate into focal partnership networks – so called platform ecosystems. Despite the increasing prominence of IS outsourcing and platform ecosystems, many of these inter-organizational partnerships fail to achieve expected benefits. Ineffective governance and control frequently plays a pivotal role in producing these failures. While designing effective governance and control mechanisms is always challenging, inter-organizational software development projects are often business-critical and exhibit additional dynamics and uncertainty. As a consequence governance and control have to be adapted over time. The three research projects included in this book provide a better understanding of how and why governance and control can be effectively adapted over time. The implications for successful management of inter-organizational software development projects are highly relevant for theory and practice.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.