John Lewis Partnership lessons in logical incrementalism and organic growth: a case study and interview with the Chairman, Mr Charlie Mayfield

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how strategy is developed and implemented in an organisation with an unusual ownership model. Partnerships are not a prevalent form of ownership but as this case demonstrates they can be extremely effective. Furthermore this case demonstrates how logical incrementalism can be used to implement major strategic decisions. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on company documentary evidence and a semi-structured interview with Mr Charlie Mayfield, Chairman of John Lewis Partnership. A chairman has a helicopter view of business whose perspectives are rarely captured by strategy researchers. This case study offers an insight into strategic thinking of a chairman and chief executive of a successful company. Research limitations/implications – The case study and interview offer a unique insight into the rationale behind strategic decisions within a successful partnership that has grown organically in a highly competitive retail market without high gearing. Originality/value – This case study sheds light on strategic moves within partnership. Furthermore, very few case studies offer insight into the thinking of a chief executive who has successfully managed a business in a turbulent environment.

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Differences in the role of market research and internal CRM according to strategy type

The traditional or conventional role of market research is one of enabling marketing managers to make informed decisions about key strategic issues and likewise reduce chances of poor strategic decisions. (Hamlin, 2000; Raguragavan et al., 2000) Yet recent literature suggests marketing research is becoming marginalized in supporting strategic decisionmaking. (Weber, 2001) In addition internal CRM is emerging as a viable source of aggregated customer intelligence (Malhotra and Peterson, 2001). Very few studies have explored the contingent role business strategy may have in explaining either the changing role of market research or the emergence of internal CRM systems. This study involved a cross-industry postal survey of 240 Australian marketing managers. One contribution of this study was to find market research having a greater role in supporting productivity and political outcomes for Prospector strategies when compared to both Defender and Analyzer strategies. The findings also showed Prospector strategies to have more sophisticated internal CRM systems than Defender strategies.

Cross-cultural differences in consumer decision-making styles

This article compares consumer decision-making styles between Singaporeans and Australians. Utilising Hofstede’s framework, the paper argues that cultural dimensions influence consumer decision making styles. It is essential that managers understand cross-cultural consumer decision-making styles to make strategic decisions or effectively handle members of these nationalities. Marked differences were found between the two populations for: brand consciousness, innovativeness and overchoice confusion. The results suggest that some consumer decision-making styles differ due to consumers’ cultural values. Managerial implications and future research directions are discussed.

Towards the development of a conceptual design management model for remote sites

Remote and environmentally sensitive sites present unique challenges for participants involved in the design and construction process. Worldwide advances in information technology coupled with improved site accessibility and manageability has enabled the construction industry to undertake such projects with greater ease. Furthermore, research on information technology in construction has begun to focus our attentions on our increased ability to work virtually in distributed teams. These remote sites have a range of development potential as clients have varied interests including; tourism, scientific investigation and resource exploration and processing which impact upon the management of the design process. These sites pose unique challenges to the project teams and in particular for the management of project design. The conceptual design phase is often marked by an iterative and creative process, which tends to be a sociologically oriented world where designers respond to a range of functional, aesthetic, environmental and even spiritual concerns. Strategic decisions made during the briefing and conceptual design stage may impact upon construction logistics and sustainability. Detailed design for construction tends to be a production oriented world. There is a significant body of literature that addresses the application of lean thinking to improving the interface between detailed design and construction production. There is little literature that takes a holistic view of design management for remote sites. The lean design management field of research has much to contribute to the design management of these projects. The review of the literature indicated that much of the lean thinking has been primarily concerned with sequential production. However, lean thinking is based upon principles of flow and value, which is also conducive to the complex process involved in design management for remote sites. A conceptual model is developed that considers both the production and sociological approaches to design management, in response to the peculiar demands of the site and their project teams.

Malmquist indices of total factor productivity changes in the Australian construction industry

Construction is an important industry and forms a vital part of national economics in the world. Factors affecting the productivity of the construction industry should be measured appropriately to reflect its development situation and economic performance. The Malmquist index method with a novel decomposition technique is employed to estimate the total factor productivity of the Australian construction industry during the period 1990-2007 and to analyse the factors affecting the technological change in the industry. Research results exemplified by two input variables and one output variable elaborate how construction technology, pure technical efficiency and scale economy take effect in the change of construction productivity. In addition, based on temporal and spatial comparisons, the analysis for construction productivities reveals their changes over time and across the country. Proposals and recommendations are expected to be beneficial for policy making and strategic decisions to improve the performance of the Australian construction industry.

Construction capital productivity measurement using a data envelopment analysis

During the past few decades, the construction industry has experienced a series of changes including the innovation of construction technologies and the enhancement of management strategies. These improvements should have had a considerable effect on industrial efficiency and productivity performance, but research is needed to address whether the capital productivity levels of the construction industry have in fact shown such a huge improvement. This paper aims to develop an analysis procedure to measure capital productivity changes and to reasonably quantify factors affecting productivity levels in the construction industry. Based on the data envelopment analysis method, this research has developed a novel model measuring capital productivity and has applied it to the Australian construction industry. The numerical results indicate that the average annual capital productivity levels of the construction industry are slowly growing in all the Australian states and territories except for Queensland and Western Australia. In addition, construction technologies are shown to have a close relationship with the changes in capital productivity according to the temporal-spatial comparisons of productivity indices. The research findings are expected to be beneficial for making policy and strategic decisions to improve the capital productivity performance.

Labour productivity measurement with variable returns to scale in Australia's construction industry

As an important productivity indicator, the change of labour productivity is one indispensable marker in determining the rise or fall of overall industrial performance. This study aims to address whether the labour productivity level of the Australian construction industry has, in fact, shown a huge improvement during the last few decades. This article constructs a measuring method estimating labour productivity changes based on the data envelopment analysis technique with variable returns to scale. By adopting a production frontier approach, the labour productivity index can be broken down into components attributable to efficiency change, technological progress and capital accumulation. The numerical results exemplified by a single-input and single-output system indicate that the average annual labour productivity levels of the construction industry are slowly growing in all the Australian states and territories. However, the year-on-year change in the overall labour productivity performance does not maintain a long-term increase over the period 1990–2008. The study forms the basis for further industrial productivity research. Proposals and recommendations are expected to be beneficial for making policy and strategic decisions to improve the performance of the construction industry.

Impactos da implantação do sistema de informações sobre o processo decisório estratégico: uma experiência do SERPRO

O ESTUDO OBJETIVOU VERIFICAR OS IMPACTOS DA IMPLANTAÇÃO DO SISTEMA DE INFORMAÇÕES SOBRE O PROCESSO DECISÓRIO ESTRATÉGICO DO SERPRO - SERVIÇO FEDERAL DE PROCESSAMENTO DE DADOS. CONSIDERA-SE QUE AS ENTREVISTAS REALIZADAS COM A DIRETORIA, BEM COMO OS RESULTADOS DA PESQUISA APLICADA AOS SUPERINTENDENTES E COORDENADORES DA UNIDADE DE PROCESSOS CORPORATIVOS DA REFERIDA EMPRESA, SE CONSTITUIREM NOS SUPORTES DE ARGUMENTAÇÃO DESTE TRABALHO. FORAM TAMBÉM ANALISADOS OS DOCUMENTOS OFICIAIS DA ORGANIZAÇÃO E REALIZADAS ENTREVISTAS COM ANTIGOS ADMINISTRADORES. OS RESULTADOS MOSTRAM QUE OS MAIORES IMPACTOS DA IMPLANTAÇÃO NA ORGANIZAÇÃO FORAM O DESVELAMENTO DO PROCESSO DECISÓRIO ESTRATÉGICO, A AGILIZAÇÃO DESSAS DECISÕES ESTRATÉGICAS E UMA POTENCIALIZAÇÃO DO USO DOS DIVERSOS SISTEMAS DE INFORMAÇÕES POR PARTE DE TODOS OS USUÁRIOS DO SISTEMA DE INFORMAÇÃO PARA O PROCESSO DECISÓRIO.

Doação : uma figura estratégica para o marketing

Este trabalho analisa diversas correntes de pensamento acerca do tema estratégia e apresenta o modelo de análise estratégica originalmente desenvolvido pelo professor Luciano Zajdsznajder - ex-professor da cadeira Pensamento Estratégico na Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública. As doutrinas estratégicas aqui abordadas pertencem a duas áreas de atuação: militar e empresarial. Na área militar, analisamos os principais elementos das obras de Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz e B.H. Liddell Hart. Na esfera empresarial, são analisados os seguintes autores: Michael Porter, H. Igor Ansoff e Francisco Gracioso. O modelo do professor Zajdsznajder é, então, apresentado e analisado. Este modelo fundamenta-se na análise das cinco principais possibilidades de orientação estratégica - ou seja, o pensamento, os modelos mentais que determinam as ações e decisões estratégicas -, que são: o conflito, a coerção, a competição, a negociação e a doação. São fornecidos diversos exemplos de empresas cujas estratégias fundamentam-se em cada uma das cinco orientações e são observadas, inferidas e analisadas as conseqüências dessas opções. Finalmente, concluímos que a orientação da doação apresenta, no atual ambiente de mercado, vantagens sobre as demais orientações como fundamento para a formulação de estratégias de marketing.

Governança corporativa em pequenas e médias empresas brasileiras

A governança corporativa define um conjunto de regras que busca alinhar ação do agente em relação às decisões estratégicas da empresa, assim maximizando os benefícios gerados aos seus stakeholders, em especial aos acionistas. Para pequena média empresa demandante de recursos, tal ferramental extremamente importante para aumentar sua capacidade de captação dos recursos necessários ao seu crescimento desenvolvimento, uma vez que reduz assimetria informacional entre esta seus principais agentes financiadores: credores novos investidores. Esta dissertação visou compreender quais as principais questões de governança corporativa de pequenas médias empresas brasileiras, especialmente aquelas em expansão, buscando definir partir destas algumas contribuições das boas práticas de governança corporativa para esse segmento. Na revisão bibliográfica foram levantados, segundo teoria da agência e teorias complementares, os principais conceitos ligados governança corporativa. Também realizada uma análise destes conceitos segundo captação de recursos estrutura de capital da companhia, dado que pressupõe entrada de novos investidores credores. Para validação desse referencial foram realizadas entrevistas em profundidade com técnicos gestores das relacionados as atividades de venture private equity realizadas pela BNDESPAR. Por meio deste, foi possível definir, segundo os problemas suas causas, algumas diretrizes de melhores práticas de governança para pequenas médias empresas brasileiras.

Vieses do decisor que podem influenciar sua tomada de decisão

A pesquisa aqui representada teve por objetivo identificar quais vieses podem influenciar os tomadores de decisões estratégicas de organizações brasileiras localizadas no estado do Rio de Janeiro. O trabalho realizado apoiou-se em questionário adaptado de Bazerman (2004). A partir de estudos sobre o cognitivo, este autor apresenta as heurísticas e respectivos vieses, objetos desta dissertação. Os tipos de pesquisas utilizados foram a bibliográfica e a de campo. Esta pesquisa de campo foi realizada com presidentes e diretores executivos do ambiente corporativo. Em suas funções, são eles os responsáveis por decisões estratégicas de empresas brasileiras localizadas no Brasil. A pesquisa revelou que os vieses apresentados por Bazerman (2004) foram identificados nos executivos entrevistados.

Redes de cooperação interorganizacionais : a identificação de atributos e benefícios para um modelo de gestão

A presente tese trata do tema redes de cooperação interorganizacionais no contexto brasileiro. O estudo aborda uma política pública governamental desenvolvida no Sul do Brasil voltada a ampliar a competitividade das pequenas empresas e gerar desenvolvimento econômico e social através do incentivo a formação de redes de cooperação entre empresas. O objetivo principal da tese é identificar e compreender os principais fatores que afetam a gestão de redes de cooperação. A partir de uma pesquisa quantitativa realizada em uma amostra de 443 empresas participantes de 120 redes, os resultados evidenciaram os principais elementos de gestão. O Programa Redes de Cooperação, desenvolvido pelo Governo do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, trata-se de uma política pública que, desde o ano 2000, objetiva o fortalecimento competitivo de pequenas empresas e o desenvolvimento socioeconômico regional. Esse programa sustenta-se em três pilares de atuação: a) uma metodologia de formação, consolidação e expansão de redes entre empresas; b) uma estrutura regionalizada de suporte à implementação formada por uma rede de universidades regionais e c) uma coordenação central por parte do Governo do Estado, responsável pelos instrumentos de promoção, orientação e apoio aos empresários e gestores das redes. Cabe destacar que o caso estudado envolve 120 redes de cooperação, nas quais participam três mil empresas que, juntas, empregam 35.000 pessoas e faturam mais de US$ 1 bilhão. Além disso, a relação próxima com as universidades vem possibilitando uma interação acadêmica em nível nacional que tem gerado avanços teórico-práticos para o fortalecimento da cooperação interorganizacional. Com base nas referências teóricas e em evidências observadas por estudos exploratórios, realizados ex ante no campo de pesquisa, identificaram-se cinco atributos de gestão de redes – mecanismos sociais, aspectos contratuais, motivação e comprometimento, integração com flexibilidade e organização estratégica – e cinco benefícios – ganhos de escala e de poder de mercado, provisão de soluções, aprendizagem e inovação, redução de custos e riscos, e relações sociais. Para confirmação ou não dos dez fatores identificados ex ante e o seu grau de importância, realizou-se uma análise conjunta em uma amostra de 443 proprietários de empresas de uma população de 3.087 associados às 120 redes do programa. Os dados empíricos foram coletados pelo pesquisador em 2005, sendo agregados e processados através do programa estatístico SPSS versão 12.0. Os resultados obtidos pela análise conjunta confirmaram a importância dos dez fatores identificados. Nenhum dos fatores destacou-se significativamente em relação aos demais, o que indica que todos eles têm impacto semelhante na gestão das redes. No campo de estudos sobre redes interorganizacionais, as conclusões da pesquisa contribuíram para uma melhor compreensão dos fatores que influenciam em maior ou menor grau a gestão de redes de cooperação. Demonstraram empiricamente, no caso brasileiro, a coerência de postulados teóricos, desenvolvidos por pesquisas realizadas em outros contextos. No que tange às políticas públicas, os resultados evidenciaram que a promoção da cooperação em redes possibilita ganhos competitivos para as pequenas empresas. No âmbito organizacional, os fatores realçados poderão orientar os gestores nas suas decisões estratégicas no sentido de ampliar os ganhos competitivos da ação em rede.

O valor da tecnologia da informação: considerações sobre a avaliação de investimentos estratégicos em TI e sobre o processo de análise e tomada de decisão

Este trabalho discute os principais fatores a serem considerados na tomada de decisões estratégicas relativas a investimentos em tecnologia da informação. É feita uma avaliação do impacto da implantação de TI nas organizações e são sugeridos métodos que podem ser utilizados para medir os benefícios tangíveis e intangíveis do investimento em TI. A seguir, é feita uma apresentação breve da teoria de análise de decisões e da forma como algumas das novas ferramentas de software podem auxiliar os seres humanos a tomar decisões racionais. Por fim, é apresentado um exemplo de um modelo multi-critérios simples (SMARTS) como uma ferramenta de apoio ao processo de decisão.

O processo decisório do empreendedor frente à transição da pequena para a média empresa: casos do setor hoteleiro na cidade Curitiba-PR

O presente estudo buscou entender como as mudanças ocasionadas pelo crescimento da empresa afetam o processo decisório, com foco na transição de pequena para média empresa. Buscou-se preencher o gap existente sobre esse período de transição entre pequenas e médias empresas, principalmente sob os aspectos abordados pelas lógicas Effectuation e Causation, descritas por Sarasvathy (2001). Esta pesquisa parte do princípio de que as pequenas empresas possuem poucos níveis hierárquicos e geralmente as decisões estão centralizadas no empreendedor-proprietário. Já quando a empresa cresce e torna-se média empresa, há um aumento nas formalizações dos processos e nas hierarquias. Com isso, há uma necessidade de modificar o processo decisório, que pode ser descentralizada ou envolver mais pessoas, se comparado às pequenas empresas. O referencial teórico da pesquisa, teve como base temas relativos à pequenas e médias empresas; setor hoteleiro, estrutura organizacional; ciclo de vida das organizações; processo decisório; e, por fim, o uso das lógicas causation e effectuation, com foco nas características do processo decisório do empreendedor. A pesquisa teve de caráter qualitativo e exploratório e faz uso do método de estudos de casos, através de entrevistas em profundidade com empreendedores do setor hoteleiro, que é um setor de serviços que tem tido grande visibilidade e crescimento nos últimos anos. Foram analisados dois casos no setor hoteleiro de Curitiba- PR, que passaram recentemente pela fase de transição de pequena para média empresa. Em cada um dos casos foram entrevistados os proprietários-fundadores, os seus sucessores diretos e o gerente-geral. Também levantou-se depoimentos de clientes em sites de avalizações de hospedagem. Para análise dos dados foram atribuídas categorias analíticas, e foi realizada a análise do conteúdo, (contrapondo com o referencial teórico apresentado) e cross-case analysis (comparativo das informações obtidas em cada caso). Ao finalizar a pesquisa, concluiu-se que a transição de pequena para média empresa afeta as decisões no sentido de aumentar a formalização de processos, há uma delegação de pequenos poderes, um maior distanciamento dos funcionários e a cúpula administrativa, há uma preocupação maior com a capacitação dos funcionários, são consideração de aspectos racionais na decisão, há uma equipe de suporte para tomada de decisões, há uma preocupação com o longo prazo, as responsabilidades tornam-se mais claras, e mais autonomia é delegada aos funcionários. Pode-se dizer que não mudou o fato da administração permanecer familiar, o foco das decisões ainda mantém-se no curto prazo, as decisões permanecem flexíveis, mantém-se a centralização do poder de decisões estratégicas; há ainda uma dificuldade em separar o pessoal do profissional, definição de metas e objetivos não muito claras, investimentos em um projeto por vez, e o uso de rede de contatos ainda é importante para o desenvolvimento da empresa.