Skip to topic | Skip to bottom
Home
Agora
Agora.AgencyInRiskr1.4 - 03 Jun 2018 - 13:36 - GregorioIvanoff

Start of topic | Skip to actions

Ágora


"The logical foundations shaping three prominent streams of strategic management thought are summarized and then compared and contrasted. The intent is to determine whether these research streams are restatements of a single core logic using different terms to describe the same phenomena and relationships, or whether they provide alternate, and potentially competing, explanations for effective strategic action. Analysis reveals some concordant assertions, some similarities across pairs of frameworks, and some fundamental contradictions among the various logic sets. Since key elements in the fundamental premises of each research stream present logical contradictions with each of the other two, a strategy derived from an integration of these perspectives creates inconsistencies in a firm’s enacted context, its assumptions about strategy making, and its administrative arrangements. As circumstances change, a firm may be required to undergo a ‘core logic shift’ to maintain consistency between its strategy and its strategic context. When a shift becomes necessary, a firm needs to overcome structural inertia, competitive inertia, organizational momentum, and its current management logic to maintain internal consistency. Additional implications of the comparison of these three logics for both theory and practice are discussed" (LENGNICK-HALL; WOLFF, 1999).


"This paper explores a theoretical linkage between software engineering and strategic management. Software engineering is now faced with two dynamic innovation streams: technological innovation and market innovation. Harshly shook by rapid technological development and highly volatile market environments, today's software development is under the constant necessity for swift and reliable development practices and market launch in appropriate timing. In short, software development has to be more and more strategic. Based on a brief review of the existing strategic management frameworks, the paper suggests that Eisenhardt's framework of 'Strategy as Simple Rules' is highly applicable to software development practices. Through a short case study of internet service development in Japan, the paper also suggests that dual roles of beta versions, as a product and media, would play a critical role in making strategic decisions in internet service development" (KAKIHARA, 2006).


"How do organizations survive in the face of change? Underlying this question is a rich debate about whether organizations can adapt—and if so how. One perspective, organizational ecology, presents evidence suggesting that most organizations are largely inert and ultimately fail. A second perspective argues that some firms do learn and adapt to shifting environmental contexts. Recently, this latter view has coalesced around two themes. The first, based on research in strategy suggests that dynamic capabilities, the ability of a firm to reconfigure assets and existing capabilities, explains long-term competitive advantage. The second, based on organizational design, argues that ambidexterity, the ability of a firm to simultaneously explore and exploit, enables a firm to adapt over time. In this paper, we review and integrate these comparatively new research streams and identify a set of propositions that suggest how ambidexterity acts as a dynamic capability. We suggest that efficiency and innovation need not be strategic tradeoffs and highlight the substantive role of senior teams in building dynamic capabilities" (O'REILLY III; TUSHMAN, 2008).


Keywords: sustainability risks in agency, modeling-based view, value in sustainability, dynamic capabilities, political agency, human behavior, risk rating, risk


Palavras-chave: risco em produção cultural, análise de risco, globalização


Ambidexterity. Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambidexterity >. Access on 4 Deecember 2013.

Credit rating agency. Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agency >. access on 6 December 2013.

Global village. Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_village >. access on 8 March 2013.

KAKIHARA, Masao. Strategizing software development: strategic management of internet service development. Proceeding, WISER '06 Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Workshop on interdisciplinary software engineering research, Pages 37 - 44, ACM New York, NY, USA ©2006, ISBN:1-59593-409-X doi > 10.1145/1137661.1137670. Available from < http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1137661.1137670 >. access on 4 December 2013.

Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Chapter Seven. W.C. Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136. Available from < http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm >. access on 29 December 2013.

LENGNICK-HALL, C.; WOLFF, J. Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 1109-1132, 1999. Available from < http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199912)20:12%3C1109::AID-SMJ65%3E3.0.CO;2-8 >. access on 5 February 2009.

Marshall McLuhan. Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan >. access on 11 March 2013.

O'REILLY III, Charles A.; TUSHMAN, Michael L. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 28, 2008, Pages 185–206. Available from < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308508000105 >. access on 4 December 2013.

oekom research AG. Available from < http://www.oekom-research.com/index_en.php?content=home >. access on 24 June 2015.


http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=orientation+social+human+agency+%22in+risk%22&btnG=Pesquisar


Number of topics: 1


Persona

Number of topics: 1


ILAnet

Number of topics: 2


Express

Number of topics: 0


Pipl

http://pipl.com/directory/tags/Risk

-- GregorioIvanoff - 14 Nov 2016
to top


Direitos de cópia © 1999-2018 pelos autores que contribuem. Todo material dessa plataforma de colaboração é propriedade dos autores que contribuem.
Ideias, solicitações, problemas relacionados a Ilanet? Dê sua opinião
Copyright © 1999-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Ilanet? Send feedback