Dictating Impact of Systemic (Trans)formations on Management Re-engineering in R&D Firms

Authors: M. Aminu Sanda

Abstract:

This paper examines challenges to the implementation and internalization of benchmarked management practices by research organizations in developing economies as transformative tools towards commercialization. The purpose is to understand the contributing influence of internal organizational factors from both situational and historical perspectives towards the practice implementation constraints, and also to provide theoretical understanding on how systemic formations and transformations in the organizations’ activities influenced the level to which their desired needs are attained. The results showed that the variability in the outcomes of the organizations’ transformation processes was indicative of their (in)ability to deal with the impacts of cumulated tensions in the systemic interfaces of their organizational activity systems. It is concluded that the functionalities of the systemic interfaces influence the functionality of the organizational activity system.

Keywords: Organizational activity system, practice implementation, systemic formations, systemic transformations, management re-engineering, R&D firms.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1336981

References:

[1] M. Mengu and D. Grier, D, Best Practices for the Management Of Research And Technology Organizations. Copenhagen: DTI – WAITRO, 1999.
[2] A. Sturdy and P. Fleming, "Talk as technique: A critique of the words and deeds distinction in the diffusion of customer service cultures in call centres,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, pp. 753-773, 2004.
[3] A. N. Leontiev, Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall., 1978.
[4] M. Ryder, "Spinning webs of significance: Considering anonymous communities in activity systems,” Paper presented at the Fourth Congress of the International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory: Aarhus, Denmark, June 7-11, 1998. Retrieved from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/iscrat_99.html.
[5] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The Psychology of Higher Mental Functions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
[6] Y. Engeström, Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit, 1987.
[7] Y. Engeström, "Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice,” In S. Chaiklin and J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-103, 1993.
[8] F. Blackler, "Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 30, pp. 863-884, 1993.
[9] F. Blackler, N. Crump and S. McDonald, "Organizing processes in complex activity networks,” Organization, vol. 7, pp. 277–300, 2000.
[10] P. Jarzabkowski, "Strategy as social practice: An activity theory perspective on continuity and change,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, pp. 23-55, 2003.
[11] Y. Engeström, "Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigning work,” Ergonomics, vol. 43, pp. 960-974, 2000.
[12] M. A. Sanda, Four Case Studies on the Commercialization of Government R&D Agencies: An Organizational Activity Theoretical Approach. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology Press, 2006.
[13] F. E. Kast and J. E. Rosenzweig, Organization and Management: A Systems and Contingency Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.
[14] A. I. Glendon, "Safety culture,” In: W. Karwoski (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 1337-1340, 2001.
[15] V. Kaptelinin and B. A. Nardi, Activity theory: Basic concepts and applications, in Proc. Computer-Human Interaction ‘97. Atlanta, Georgia, 1997.
[16] Y. Engeström, "Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization,” Journal of Education & Work, vol. 14, pp. 133-156, 2001.
[17] J. C. Spender, "Organisations are Activity systems, not merely systems of thought,” Advances in Strategic Management, vol. 12, pp. 153–74, 1995.
[18] Y. Engeström, R. Engeström and H. Kerosuo,”The discursive construction of collaborative care. Applied Linguistics, vol. 24, pp. 286-315, 2003.
[19] P. Collins, S. Shukla and D. Redmiles, "Activity theory and system design: A view from the trenches,” Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 11, pp. 55-80, 2002.
[20] K. Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973.
[21] M. Adams, D. Edmond and A. H. M ter Hofstede, "The application of activity theory to dynamic workflow adaptation issues,” in Proc. PACIS 2003, pp. 1836- 1852, July 2003.
[22] J. V. Wertsch, Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
[23] E. Hutchins, "Learning to navigate,” In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-63, 1993.
[24] J. Lave and E. Wenger Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[25] J. G. March, "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,” Organization Science, vol. 2, pp. 71-87, 1991.