The impact of organizational boundaries on (re)building capabilities

The literature concerning firm boundaries has focussed extensively on the rationale for different boundary choices and the economic efficiencies that such choices can make. There is also an acknowledged position that a firm’s boundary choices may impact the ability of a firm to maintain and even build new capabilities, though such choices may not be optimal from an economic efficiency perspective. It is in this context that we seek to investigate how firms make this potential trade-off in respect of their boundary choices and how these choices are implemented across a wide range of activities. Using qualitative data from three public sector construction oriented organizations, we observe that neither pure make nor buy decisions assisted significantly in capability building. Dual modes – where firms make and buy the same product or service simultaneously – provided firms with some opportunities to manage this paradox, but the most successful decisions seemed to occur in respect of using intermediate governance modes such as alliances. We also observed that the boundary choice was just one dimension of the capability building process and firms pursuing the same boundary choice decisions often had quite divergent outcomes on the basis of their boundary management and the ability of knowledge to move across firm boundaries.

Knowledge integration within Japanese firms : the Fujitsu way

The paper analyses knowledge integration processes at Fujitsu from a multi-level and systemic perspective. The focus is on team-building capability, capturing and utilising individual tacit knowledge, and communication networks for integrating dispersed specialist knowledge required in the development of new products and services. The analysis shows how knowledge integration is performed by Fujitsu at different layers of the company.

Organisational knowledge integration: towards a conceptual framework

This study analyses organisational knowledge integration processes from a multi-level and systemic perspective, with particular reference to the case of Fujitsu. A conceptual framework for knowledge integration is suggested focusing on team-building capability, capturing and utilising individual tacit knowledge, and communication networks for integrating dispersed specialist knowledge required in the development of new products and services. The research highlights that knowledge integration occurring in the innovation process is a result of knowledge exposure, its distribution and embodiment and finally its transfer, which leads to innovation capability and competitive advantage in firm.

Integrating specialised knowledge for innovation in small technology firms

Knowledge Integration (KI) is one of the major aspects driving innovation within an organisation. In this paper, we attempt to develop a better understanding of the challenges of knowledge integration within the innovation process in technology-based firms. Using four technology-based Australian firms, we investigated how knowledge integration may be managed within the context of innovation in technology firms. The literature highlights the role of four KI tasks that affect the innovation capability within technology-oriented firms, namely team building capability, capturing tacit knowledge, role of KM systems and technological systemic integration. Our findings indicate that in addition to the four tasks, a strategic approach to integrating knowledge for innovation as well as leadership and management are essential to achieving effective KI across multiple levels of engagement. Our findings also offer practical insights of how knowledge can be integrated within innovation process.

Animal stories : flash flood 2011

Flash flood disasters happen suddenly. The Toowoomba Lockyer Valley flash flood in January 2011 was not forecast by the Bureau of Meteorology until after it had occurred. Domestic and wild animals gave the first warning of the disaster in the days leading up to the event and large animals gave warnings on the morning of the disaster. Twenty-three people, including 5 children in the disaster zone died. More than 500 people were listed as missing. Some of those who died, perished because they stayed in the disaster zone to look after their animals while other members of their family escaped to safety. Some people who were in danger refused to be rescued because they could not take their pets with them. During a year spent recording accounts of the survivors of the disaster, animals were often mentioned by survivors. Despite the obvious perils, people risked their lives to save their animals; people saw animals try to save each other; animals rescued people; people rescued animals; animals survived where people died; animals were used to find human victims in the weeks after the disaster; and animals died. The stories of the flood present challenges for pet owners, farmers, counter disaster planners, weather forecasters and emergency responders in preparing for disasters, responding to them and recovering after them.

Challenges of knowledge integration in small and medium enterprises

This study attempts to develop a better understanding of the challenges of knowledge integration (KI) within the innovation process in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Using several case studies, this study investigates how knowledge integration may be managed within the context of innovation in SMEs. The research places particular focus on identifying the challenges of knowledge integration in SMEs in relation to three aspects of knowledge integration activities, namely knowledge identification, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge sharing. Four distinct tasks emerged in the knowledge integration process, namely team building capability, capturing tacit knowledge, role of knowledge management (KM) systems, and technological systemic integration. The paper suggests that managing knowledge integration in SMEs can be best managed by focusing on these four tasks, which in turn will lead to innovation.

Knowledge integration within innovation process : a technopreneurial perspective

Knowledge Integration (KI) is one of the major aspects driving innovation within an organisation. In this paper, we attempt to develop a better understanding of responses to the challenges of knowledge integration within the innovation process in technology-based firms. Using four technology-based Australian firms, we investigated how knowledge integration may be managed within the context of innovation in technology firms. Previous research highlights the role of four KI tasks that affect the innovation capability within technology-oriented firms, namely team building capability, capturing tacit knowledge, role of Knowledge Management (KM) systems and technological systemic integration. Our findings indicate that in addition to these four tasks, a strategic approach to integrating knowledge for innovation, as well as leadership and management, are essential to achieving effective KI across multiple levels of engagement. Our findings also offer practical insights into how knowledge can be integrated within innovation process, with specific implications for managers.

Governance of enterprise Information and Technology: A new core competency for boards of directors

With the level of digital disruption that is affecting businesses around the globe, you might expect high levels of Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) capability within boards. Boards and their senior executives know technology is important. More than 90% of boards and senior executives currently identify technology as essential to their current businesses, and to their organization’s future. But as few as 16% have sufficient GEIT capability. Global Centre for Digital Business Transformation’s recent research contains strong indicators of the need for change. Despite board awareness of both the likelihood and impact of digital disruption, things digital are still not viewed as a board-level matter in 45% of companies. And, it’s not just the board. The lack of board attention to technology can be mirrored at senior executive level as well. When asked about their organization’s attitude towards digital disruption, 43% of executives said their business either did not recognise it as a priority or was not responding appropriately. A further 32% were taking a “follower” approach, a potentially risky move as we will explain. Given all the evidence that boards know information and technology (I&T***) is vital, that they understand the inevitably, impact and speed of digital change and disruption, why are so many boards dragging their heels? Ignoring I&T disruption and refusing to build capability at board level is nothing short of negligence. Too many boards risk flying blind without GEIT capability [2]. To help build decision quality and I&T governance capability, this research: • Confirms a pressing need to build individual competency and cumulative, across-board capability in governing I&T • Identifies six factors that have rapidly increased the need, risk and urgency • Finds that boards may risk not meeting their duty of care responsibilities when it comes to I&T oversight • Highlights barriers to building capability details three GEIT competencies that boards and executives can use for evaluation, selection, recruitment and professional development.

Building organizational capability through a quality assurance program within a business school and encouraging organizational culture change

This study explores organizational capability and culture change through a project developing an assurance of learning program in a business school. In order to compete internationally for high quality faculty, students, strategic partnerships and research collaborations it is essential for Universities to develop and maintain an international focus and a quality produce that predicts excellence in the student experience and graduate outcomes that meet industry needs. Developing, marketing and delivering that quality product requires an organizational strategy to which all members of the organization contribute and adhere. Now, the ability to acquire, share and utilize knowledge has become a critical organizational capability in academia as well as other industries. Traditionally the functional approach to business school structures and disparate nature of the social networks and work contact limit the sharing of knowledge between academics working in different disciplines. In this project a community of practice program was established to include academics in the development of an embedded assurance of learning program affecting more than 5000 undergraduate students and 250 academics from nine different disciplines across four schools. The primary outcome from the fully developed and implemented assurance of learning program was the five year accreditation of the business schools programs by two international accrediting bodies, EQUIS and AACSB. However this study explores a different outcome, namely the change in organizational culture and individual capabilities as academics worked together in teaching and learning teams. This study uses a survey and interviews with academics involved, through a retrospective panel design which contained an experimental group and a control group. Results offer insights into communities of practice as a means of addressing organizational capability and changes in organizational culture. Knowledge management and shared learning can achieve strategic and operational benefits equally within academia as within other industrial enterprises but it comes at a cost. Traditional structures, academics that act like individual contractors and deep divides across research, teaching and service interest served a different master and required fewer resources. Collaborative structures; fewer master categories of discrete knowledge areas; specific strategic goals; greater links between academics and industry; and the means to share learned insights will require a different approach to resourcing both the individual and the team.

Communities of practice : building organisational capability through an undergraduate assurance of learning program

This study explores academic perceptions of organizational capability and culture following a project to develop a quality assurance of learning program in a business school. In the project a community of practice structure was established to include academics in the development of an embedded, direct assurance of learning program affecting more than 5000 undergraduate students and 250 academics from nine different disciplines across four discipline based departments. The primary outcome from the newly developed and implemented assurance of learning program was the five year accreditation of the business school’s programs by two international accrediting bodies, EQUIS and AACSB. This study explores a different outcome, namely perceptions of organizational culture and individual capabilities as academics worked together in teaching teams and communities. This study uses a survey and interviews with academics involved, through a retrospective panel design consisting of an experimental group and a control group. Results offer insights into communities of practice as a means of encouraging new individual and organizational capability and strategic culture adaptation.

ACE research vignette 034: Building a capability development framework through innovation

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. In this vignette, Alireza Javanmardi Kashan and Kavoos Mohannak considers ‘How do firms develop competitive capabilities within product innovation projects?’

Peer leadership and capability building in law and justice

The aim of this project was to create a model mapping the scaffolding and development of: peer leadership opportunities and capacity; and graduate capabilities, work-related skills and outcomes, across the range of peer assisted learning programs offered in the Faculty of Law during 2013. In doing so, it conceptualised Law and Justice students’ roles and opportunities for peer leadership across the whole of their learning experience and aimed to raise awareness of the benefits to leaders of participating in peer programs (relevant to the development of their graduate capabilities and employability). Through the mapping, the project also sought to increase student understanding of the range of peer leader opportunities available across the Faculty and therefore promote participation in such programs.

Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia: Final report

FRDC project 2008/306 Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia was developed and approved in response to the widespread recognition and acknowledgement of the importance of incorporating economic considerations into marine management in Australia and of the persistent undersupply of suitably trained and qualified individuals capable of providing this input. The need to address this shortfall received broad based support and following widespread stakeholder consultation and building on previous unsuccessful State-based initiatives, a collaborative, cross-jurisdictional cross-institutional capability building model was developed. The resulting project sits within the People Development Program as part of FRDC’s ‘investment in RD&E to develop the capabilities of the people to whom the industry entrusts its future’, and has addressed its objectives largely through three core activities: 1. The Fisheries Economics Graduate Research Training Program which provides research training in fisheries/marine economics through enrolment in postgraduate higher degree studies at the three participating Universities; 2. The Fisheries Economics Professional Training Program which aims to improve the economic literacy of non-economist marine sector stakeholders and was implemented in collaboration with the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre through the Future Harvest Masterclass in Fisheries Economics; and, 3. The Australian Fisheries Economics Network (FishEcon) which aims to strengthen research in the area of fisheries economics by creating a forum in which fisheries economists, fisheries managers and Ph.D. students can share research ideas and results, as well as news of upcoming research opportunities and events. These activities were undertaken by a core Project team, comprising economic researchers and teachers from each of the four participating institutions (namely the University of Tasmania, the University of Adelaide, Queensland University of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), spanning three States and the Commonwealth. The Project team reported to and was guided by a project Steering Committee. Commensurate with the long term nature of the project objectives and some of its activities the project was extended (without additional resources) in 2012 to 30th June 2015.

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.