Darko M. Milosevic
Università LUM Jean Monnet
The Economics and Management of Natural Resources
Networks & Institutional Theory
(NIT)
Multi-sided platforms and Collaborative advantage: Knowledge
creation and Learning in Dynamic
Network Organizations
Abstract
xxx
Keywords: Knowledge
creation; Collaboration;
Learning, Dynamic network; Google Cloud platform;
Multi-sided platforms + collaboration occurs by tema interactions, using concepts + articulate tacit knowledge and synergy + externalization + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + strategy to fusion, acquisition same as adoption include knowledge development + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + strategy to interact to create joint solutions and synergy + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + communication same as socialization + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + conceptualization same as internalization + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + collaboration + internal + external = community (interest, practice) example online community + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + collaboration occurs by learning + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + learning means of action learning and learning through authorities + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + learning produces reproductive, reflection and transformation + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + level of individual, team, organizational, external + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + uses + techniques methods and tools + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + produce + network learning + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + strategy to fusion, acquisition same as adoption include knowledge development + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + strategy to interact to create joint solutions and synergy + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + communication same as socialization + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + conceptualization same as internalization + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + collaboration + internal + external = community (interest, practice) example online community + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + collaboration occurs by learning + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + learning means of action learning and learning through authorities + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + learning produces reproductive, reflection and transformation + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + level of individual, team, organizational, external + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + uses + techniques methods and tools + Dynamic Network Organizations
Multi-sided platforms + produce + network learning + Dynamic Network Organizations
I. Introduction
Core
concepts of this paper is aims to describe the delivery of a product or service
to the customer (representing the market opportunity) interacting with the
individual or organization, initiating the dynamic network that forms the virtual organization, which again
uses information and communication
technology, integration, globalization,
knowladge creation,
collaboration and learning (Camarinha-Matos et al., 2003[1]; Grimshaw and Kwok, 1998[2]).
II. Background
A move back towards the resource-based view (RBV) in
the beginning on 21st millennium, superior knowledge of single-firm and
corporate
dynamic capabilities become the “King” between
all biggest competitive advantages (Mowshowitz 1986[3], Fairchild 2004; Garud
and Kumaraswamy, 2002[4]; Davenport and Prusak, 2000). Following the RBV
precept that “success breeds success,” when firms enjoy asset mass
efficiencies, organizational knowledge processes become the predominant
paradigm for the firm activities, where new principles such as multiplication
and combination, integration, sharing of knowledge[5]
and adding value, become firm’s
strategic management capability, imperative to quickly orchestrate and
reconfigure externally sourced competences while leveraging internal resources[6]
such as unique, valuable,
and portable new growth
platform, know-how and know-who, user communities and digital,
social and mobile networks. (Dierickx & Cool, 1989:1507; Pettigrew at.el., 2000:7; Umemoto, 2002[7]; Shuen, 2008:22 [8]; Kungu, 2013). According to Hoque (2010[9]) characteristics such as “transformation,
personal relationships, common vision, collaboration and trust” as well as “learning
capacity, culture, team work and human capital” (Hitt et al., 2001; Barney,
2001a) will
bring a virtual enterprise closer toward true virtual governance.
To understand more fully the forms, functions and effectiveness of
inter-firm strategies and how a
group functions my focus on single-firm and relationship
with key players in its environment (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992[10]),
I assumed that direct network effects are positive,
and consumers may value a product more if similar consumers use that
product as well. I built
from the literature review three central
concepts of Knowledge Management: knowledge
creation, collaboration,
and strategic learning[11].
Knowladge creation
The external
dilemma of “sustaining vs. plan for the future” scarcity of resources and time
pressures and creates a constant need to adapt and learn new skills, stated as
strong limitations to knowledge creation.
O’Dell et al. (1998) proposed approach to knowledge management that is based on
“value proposition”,
creating a supportive
environment such as culture,
technology, infrastructure, and measurement, and implementing a change process
trough planning, design, implementation, and scalability. The
globalization of innovation and the use of information technology tools emphasizing why
tacit and explicit knowledge are necessary for sustaining knowledge
creation (Lazaric at. el. 2008[12]
+/-). Certain firms may appear as ‘technological gatekeepers’
and may play a central role in the network in transferring knowledge while
being strongly connected to external sources of knowledge; others are ‘active
mutual exchangers’, i.e. characterised by the right balance of absorption
and diffusion of knowledge, while others still may appear to play the role of ‘weak
mutual exchangers’ with a balanced role of absorber[13]. The ‘gatekeepers of knowledge’ can be present during
coordination and learning process (Allen 1977[14]; Morrison
2004[15]; Rychen
and Zimmermann 2006[16]).
+++ DOPUNI +++
Collaboration
Collaboration
development process was principled on a specific, tentative model described as a cycle of mutual learning, knowledge sharing, and open communication between
members. Jean-Pierre Jeannet and Hein Schreuder[18] presented
the business concept of 'strategic learning cycles', new
dynamic capabilities of virtual organizations over
time, and new roles for designers as "broker"[19] ,
"entrepreneur"[20]
or "promoter"[21].
Miles and Snow attribute three roles to the broker, which performing in the life cycle of the
co-operation. First the architect of the co-operation which keep skills and resources around the world, second the lead operator
where managers act as lead operators, take advantage laid by
manager-architects, and whose understand how cross-cultural relationships are forged and
maintained and finally the caretaker which
is focus on enhancement activity, and sharing information among firms.
According to Miles and Snow (1986) broker could create a supplier dynamic networks by identifying, coordinating
and controlling firm by reducing transaction costs,
depicted as a “black box”
which creates mutual benefit and the perception of 'win-win constellation'. The
network broker appears as a coordinator of the inter-firm exchanges and
learning. (Elodie, 2007 p.5[22]).
Kortge et. al. (1994[23])
calculate the customer`s perceived value price range, using a combination of
stage in the life cycle, experience cost curves, and leraning curves[FMZ2] .
(Dominic,
1999 p.155[24]).
Other researchers
given attention relate to business concepts such as knowledge management, flexible or dynamic networking, agile competition, business process redesign, new
products or service
design and supply web.
To better achieve common or compatible goals collaborative network has focuses on the structure, behavior, social
capital and devolving of dynamics networks[25][26][27]. Hossain and Wigand (2004:2) defined virtual collaboration as “refers
to the use of information and communication technologies for supporting the
collective interaction among multiple parties involved”. Typology concepts
is divided into internal, stable, dynamic and web-company, and focus into structure and process perspective, blurred the boundaries of
the firm in terms of scope and depth. The structure perspective focuses on the building blocks of the virtual organizations and its
properties, while the process
perspective focuses on behavior
and operation[28]. By scope we mean the
inclusion of a much larger constituency of interests, from owned and affiliated
subunits, to joint ventures, strategic partnerships and networks, including
political and social institutions shared by similar firms. By depth we mean the
flattening of hierarchies and the breaking down of barriers between functions
in order to create the horizontal and vertical integration of knowledge. Firms in technologically intensive
fields rely on collaborative relationships to access, survey, and exploit
emerging technological opportunities. First, collaboration raises entry barriers. Second, interfirm cooperation
accelerates the rate of technological innovation. Third, reliance on collaboration has potentially
transformative effects on all participants. Finally, collaboration may itself become a dimension of
competition[29].
Collaborative
networks of Virtual enterprises is inductor of value creation based on stable
business networks or ‘virtual communities’, and represent a promising paradigm
for all knowledge-driven entities in the society[30]. I
argue that network structure provides advantageous access to external resources
that can both complement (enhance) the internal capabilities of the firm and
substitute for the capabilities that a firm is lacking. External corporate venturing
refers the creation of new businesses by corporations in which a corporation
leverages external partners in an equity or nonequity inter-organizational
relationship (Keil, 2002; Miles & Covin, 2002; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). [31] In contrast to equity
inter-organizational relationship with direct minority investments and joint ventures, non-equity alliances are
based on contracts and do not use ownership in the relationship. This form of
relationship is used to develop existing internal ventures or create a
framework for joined business development[32]. Non-Equity Strategic Alliances are less costly and require less
time to terminate (Harrigan, 1988) and can range from
close working relations with suppliers, outsourcing of activities or licensing
of technology, to large R&D consortia, industry clusters and innovation
networks.
Figure[FMZ3] 2. Ontology model of Collobration
Source: Gauvin, M.,
et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge management with ontologies:
the case of the Canadian military." Journal
of Knowledge Management Practice 6
(2005).
Strategic Learning
A key
feature in organizations’ capacity for learning from collaboration is a
function of access to knowledge and possession of capabilities for utilizing
and building on such knowledge. The concept of explorative and exploitative
learning (March, 1991[34])
contrasts entrepreneurial search for new opportunities and solutions with
adaptive and more risk-averse learning that leverages existing knowledge. Exploration
activities include search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play,
flexibility, discovery, or innovation. Exploitation activities include refinement, choice,
production, efficiency, selection, implementation, and execution (March, 1991[35]). Companies
are increasingly using corporate venturing to learn from knowledge sources
beyond the boundaries of the firm, driven by professional associations outside
the organization, where identified learning policies and learning needs are
function of new developments within the broader profession (p.23[36]).Organizational learning
means that these processes
include creating knowledge
from the feedback and taking action
based on that knowledge, understanding and maintained of the interrelationships between processes, and examined and changed as needed.[37] Learning in these
circumstances is a
complex, multi-level process, involving learning from and with partners under conditions of uncertainty, learning about partners’
behavior and developing
routines and norms that can mitigate the risks of opportunism, and learning how to distribute newly
acquired knowledge across different projects and functions[38].
The issues of trust, partner selection, knowledge transfer through co-operative
business ventures, complementarities and synergies between partners have
dominated the scientific discourse. (Miles and Snow, 1986:57) point out that
information technology will „substitute for lengthy trust building processes“[39]
during the implementation of dynamic networks. Paradoxically, the more virtual the organization[FMZ4] , the
more people need to meet in person to
establish trust in
their relationships. The more consumers trust you build, the more trusted a brand is, and the more willing
consumers are to share their data (Handy,
1995 p.46[40])[41],
[42]. Knight (2002)
suggests that there is a difference between inter-organizational learning,
which is about learning within network, and network learning, which is about
learning by network. Network learning is about learining by a group of
organizations as a group” (p.428). (p.38[43]),
where high level of reproductive learning, and a certain amount of reflective
learning, defined term “ learning products”.
Figure[FMZ5] 3. Ontology model of Learning
Source: Gauvin, M.,
et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge management with ontologies:
the case of the Canadian military." Journal
of Knowledge Management Practice 6
(2005).
Cloud-based platforms
Some
firms such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft become serial envelopers, with
inferior internal capabilities, attacked many adjacent platforms, leverage markets[45],
benefit more from a sparse network structure and gain revenue trough economic
of scale. Platforms which these firms uses serve as matchmakers, build
audiences for advertisers as well as members, reduce the transaction cost and
providing shared resources services to multiple groups of customers that can
realize gains from trade or benefit from getting together, that would not occur
otherwise.[46] [47] [48]
In this chapter, I review literatures,
and write about knowladge creation, collaboration and strategic
learning. I also write about platform-based
collaborative learning.
III. Research Methods
My concepts and relationships
is based on literature review.
In
sampling procedure I intended to have four
respondents to cover each sample category from
generic ontology model: knowledge creation, learning and collaboration
in a four cases at organizational levels. The methodology includes three
phases: (1) establishing an ontological model to convey all meanings, (2)
gathering the meanings both from a literature review and from online survey and
(3) the analysis and comparison of findings. [54] I followed methods by Gauvin, M., et al. (2005) [55] and
Burns and Stalker (1961[56]).
DOPUNI As a qualitative
method, I collected
data from Google survey
with partners and from partners websites. As
dummy variable I used case studies of four
companies which are part of the program Google
Certified Ad Networks: Agosto, Ezakus, Gigya, and ShareThis. Dependent
variables are Google network portfolio diversity of collaborative activities.
The aims describe Google platforms delivery
of a product or service to the customer or organization, through dynamic network which uses information
and communication technology, vertical integration, globalization,
and collaboration (Camarinha-Matos et al., 2003[57]; Grimshaw and Kwok, 1998[58]). My main goals was to improve work environment processes and
their artifacts in virtual
organizations for knowledge creation, learning and collaboration, and to deeper understanding what a virtual organization is
and how it is organized trough platform
technology. My network approach
include non-equity strategic alliances, interfirm
relationships, network position, growth, and portfolios of collaborative
activities. I follow Furlan
& Grandinetti (2011) framework three-dimension phenomenon involving “size
growth”, “relationship growth”, and “dynamic capability growth”, attempted
to map out, or explain more fully triangulation-the richness and complexity of
human behavior by studying it from more than one standpoint[59].
V. State of the art
Finding the right cloud partner is a journey. More than
matching what you need, to what they do, Partnering involved in a project need to uncover mutual interests and build the trust and respect.
As Wenger
et al (2002[60])
stated “trust building relationship, equal exchange and foster collaboration meeting
an objective”.
Another Google partner, Ezakus want
to maximizes advertising investments by determining, in
real time, categories of users most receptive to banners, promotions and
branding campaigns. From a business perspective, advertisers wish to
learn everything about their audience. From a technical perspective, there are
multiple ways in which data can be captured inside the data management platform. Olivier Gardinetti,
CTO, Ezakus said:
“As a leading data management platform
in Europe, day-to-day,
we manage approximately six hundred million events. That could be around fifty
or sixty million people to process. […] This predictive knowledge
maximizes advertising investments by determining, in real time,
categories of users most receptive to banners, promotions and branding
campaigns. Compute Engine transforms and multiplies the service that we provide
to our clients. We can
better anticipate buying behavior of Internet users.” I assumed that In
order to reach the most profitable overall pricing the platform thus has to
have a solid knowledge of the indirect network effects on the one hand and
especially on their relative effects on the other hand (Dewenter 2006b: 3). The
demand of each group for membership depends both on the fee it is charged and
on the number of members from the other group.
From
another side, if
you want to know what people are talking about online, ask Gigya,
the company’s
which integrates Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn® and other social networking
features as a Software as a Service (SaaS) technology. Many
businesses have built pricing strategies that are as sophisticated as
predictive models using traditional business intelligence methods and
platforms. Gigya vice president, Raviv Pavel said:
” The Gigya team quickly realized that its platform hosting solution was not
ideal. They wanted to develop a competitive pricing model that doesn’t
charge customers for unused capacity and to provide a reliable, flexible system
with minimal downtime for customers.” Predictive analytics pricing models look at
information like the path the customer took to purchase as well as information
about the customer to determine the
customer’s actual needs group, value group and decision analytics. Kortge et. al. (1994) calculate the customer`s
perceived value price range, using a combination of stage in the life cycle,
experience cost curves, and leraning curves. .(p.155[1])
. From my opinion, Google team viewed learning as
either gaining knowledge or acquiring new competencies and skills, expanding individual’s experience from past
experience with Ezakus. For Gigya team, they represented a learning curve for migration
from the previous chat platform, but Pavel says the experience was rewarding: “We found
that BigQuery handles that structure quite easily without flattening the data.”
With Google Cloud Platform, Paul said, “There was a bit of a learning curve in the
beginning, and perhaps we were unclear on some of our requirements. We now
simply building products faster.” Once they figured out what they wanted though,
things went pretty smoothly. The big implementation task was migrating 30
million comments from one system to another in about 10 days[64]. Pavel
conclud: “The platform is highly effective and does exactly what it's supposed
to do. We are very happy with it.” The
biggest point (to improve learning) would be to have techniques to share
learning.
The
main problem for many companies arises from the fact that data can be extremely large and must be processed in real time period. ShareThis
drives traffic and revenue to their sites from advertisers, which work with
them to reach relevant audiences with highly targeted messaging across mobile
and web. The company gathers about a
billion social data points each day. With the old platform, setting up of queries
might have taken days, with new platform, it takes seconds: “We found
that BigQuery handles structure quite easily without flattening the data. Data science and
predictive analytics can help marketing pros know where to find the new revenue
opportunities and which product or service offerings are most likely to address
the market requirement. The goal is to leverage both internal and external data
- as well as structured and unstructured data - to gain competitive advantage
and make better decisions[65]. The most
effective way for commercial Web providers to develop profitable exchange
relationships with online customers is to earn their trust[66].
A more consumer-oriented information privacy model will lead to commercially
valuable relationship exchanges with important benefits for consumers and
companies doing business on the Internet[67].
Consumers will be in control of their personal information—a notion consistent
with customization of customer needs in online environments. Companies will be
rewarded with consumer trust, willingness to disclose personal information, and
increased loyalty[68]. Trust
is best achieved by allowing the balance of power to shift toward a more
cooperative interaction between an online business and its customers[69]. We’re
building the right products faster. Now marketing analysts can get the
information they need without engineering intervention.” - said Ishika Paul, engineering at
ShareThis[70].
Four
different companies want to expands data capacity and client base with Google
Cloud Platfrom. From Google point the
solution of the problem for this companies are in approach to
incorporates routing and server management actions on individual servers,
within a data center, and across multiple data centers, and works at multiple
time scales. Key considerations to evaluate Google Cloud Platform[71] and to offers potential architectures need to
distributing components on multiple CSP platforms which leveraging the
strengths of product offerings available through each separate CSP or on Hybrid
Cloud platforms, which requires leveraging investments in pre-existing
on-premises components.
The development processes towards collaboration was
described as a developmental cycle of mutual learning, knowledge
sharing, and open communication between members. Figure
1 shows real-time online advertising ecosystem. Whenever a web page of a web
site (owned by a publisher) is about to be viewed by a user (a member of the
audience) on the user’s browser, an ad request is sent to an RTB exchange (public
or private) directly or through intermediaries (called supply-side platforms)
to find an ad to display on that page (p.2[73]).
As we can see “transformation,
personal relationships, common vision, collaboration and trust” bring a virtual
enterprise closer toward true virtual governance” Hoque (2010[74]). The deep commitment and trust developed through these processes enhanced
the likelihood of the movement along the slide, i.e., the transformation of
co-operation into collaboration. I research collobration
as a transfer of knowladge between firms or as working relationships among
actors, and we can see that internal relationships help to improve the
effectivness and productivity of many internal processes, and collobration to external relationships
become critical between environments and other organizations, more structured
and formal.
VI. Conclusion
I
used tentative model tries to illustrate the fact
that virtual organization and social networks as “loose coupling” can in right
circumstances transform into virtual communities of practice, a joint
enterprise. As I mention before, with the growth in
IT capability, the knowledge-based
view as the key to competitive advantage, could create new firm forms of
organizing, facilitating market entry into market value, processing and transforming trough
the time social capabilities and relational dimensions (Dierickx & Cool,
1989, p. 1507; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Limitations of my study is …
VI. Citations
References
(1)
Armstrong, Mark, and Robert H. Porter,
eds. Handbook of industrial organization. Vol. 3. Elsevier, 2007. (p.
1724-1751-1753)
[1]
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H. and Konzilia, G. (2003). Deliverable D1: Interim report on
consolidated baseline - Definition of the baseline for the road map.
IST-2001-38379, Roadmap Design for Collaborative Virtual Orgnisations in
Dynamic Business Ecosystems.
[2]
Grimshaw, D. J. and Kwok, F. T. Sandy (1998). The Business Benefits of the Virtual Organization, in: The Virtual
Workplace, Idea Group Publishing.
[3]
Mowshowitz, A. (1986). Social dimensions
of office automation, in: Myovitz (ed.), Advances in computers, pp.
335-404.
[4] Garud, Raghu, Sanjay Jain, and Arun Kumaraswamy.
"Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological
standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java." Academy of management journal 45.1 (2002): 196-214.
[6] Kungu, James O. Strategy
Development In The Selected State Corporations That Offer Financial Services In
Kenya. Diss. University of Nairobi, 2013.
[8] Shuen, Amy. Web
2.0: A Strategy Guide: Business thinking and strategies behind successful Web
2.0 implementations. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2008.
[9] Ononiwu, Adanna E. "Virtual Enterprise and the fast food
industry: A Case Study of fast food operators in edo state." Benefits (2015):
198-200.
[10] Ancona, D. G.,
& Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary—external activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
634-665.
[11] Gauvin, M., et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge
management with ontologies: the case of the Canadian military." Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice 6 (2005).
[12] Lazaric, Nathalie, Christian Longhi, and Catherine Thomas.
"Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to
realized absorptive capacity." Regional
Studies 42.6 (2008): 837-852.
[13] Lazaric, Nathalie, Christian Longhi, and Catherine Thomas.
"Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to
realized absorptive capacity." Regional
Studies 42.6 (2008): 837-852.
[14] Allen, T. J.
(1977), Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the
dissemination of technological information within the R & D Organization.
MIT Press
[15] Morrison A.
(2004) Do leading firms feed industrial districts? Evidence from an Italian
furniture districts, Working paper presented DRUID conference, January 2004.
[16] Rychen F.,
Zimmermann (2006), Clusters in the global knowledge based economy: knowledge
gatekeepers and temporary proximity, Working paper, GRECAM Marseille.
[17] Gauvin, M., et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge
management with ontologies: the case of the Canadian military." Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice 6 (2005).
[19] R. E. Miles,
Snow, C. C., “Network Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms,” The McKinsey
Quarterly, 1986.
[20] J. A.
Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen &
Unwin, 1943.
[21] C. Pümpin,
Corporate Dynamism - How World Class Companies Became World Class. Bombay:
Jaico Publishing House, 1995.
[22] Loubaresse, Elodie. "How does context influence broker
role in industrial clusters? An analysis in terms of embeddedness." DRUID Summer Conference.
http://www2. druid. dk/conferences/viewpaper. php. 2007.
[23] Kortge, G. Dean, et al. "Linking experience, product
life cycle, and learning curves: Calculating the perceived value price
range." Industrial
Marketing Management 23.3
(1994): 221-228.
[25] L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, The emerging
discipline of collaborative networks, J. Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 16, Nº
4-5, pp 439-452, 2005
[26] L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, Collaborative
Networks: Reference Modeling, Springer 2008.
[27] DeSanctis, G.,
Monge, P., 1999. Introduction to the special issue: communication processes for
virtual organizations. Organization Science 10 (6), 693–703
[29] Augier, Mie, and Morten Thanning Vendelø. "Networks,
cognition and management of tacit knowledge." Journal of knowledge management 3.4 (1999): 252-261.
[31] Schildt, Henri A., Markku
VJ Maula, and Thomas Keil. "Explorative and
exploitative learning from external corporate ventures." Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 29.4 (2005):
493-515.
[32] Schildt, Henri A., Markku VJ Maula, and Thomas Keil.
"Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate
ventures." Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 29.4
(2005): 493-515.
[33] Gauvin, M., et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge
management with ontologies: the case of the Canadian military." Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice 6 (2005).
[34] March, J. G.
(1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71-87.
[35] March, J. G.
(1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71-87.
[36] Smith, Peter J., and Eugene Sadler-Smith. Learning in organizations:
Complexities and diversities. Taylor & Francis, 2006. (p.23)
[37] Jones, Patricia M. "Collaborative knowledge management,
social networks, and organizational learning." Systems, Social and
Internationalization Design Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction 2 (2001): 306-309.
[39] R. E. Miles,
Snow, C. C., “Network Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms,” The McKinsey
Quarterly, 1986.
[40]
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual
organization, Harvard Business Review, May/June, 73:3, pp. 40-50.
[41] Hydari, Huma. "The Virtual Project Management Office:
Best Practices, Proven Methods." Project
Management Journal 43.5
(2012): 102-102.
[42] Morey, Timothy, Theodore Theo Forbath, and Allison Schoop.
"Customer data: Designing for transparency and trust." Harvard Business Review 93.5 (2015): 96
[43] Coughlan, Paul, and David Coghlan. Collaborative strategic improvement
through network action learning: The path to sustainability. Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2011. (p.38)
[44] Gauvin, M., et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge
management with ontologies: the case of the Canadian military." Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice 6 (2005).
[45] CDATA-Eisenmann, T. R., G. Parker, and M. W. Van Alstyne.
"Platform envelopment." Harvard
Business School Technology and Operations Management Unit Research Paper 07-104.
[46] Evans &
Schmalensee, Industrial Organization, supra note 1, at 158 (explaining that
platforms “minimize transaction costs” through “matchmaking, audiencemaking,
and . . . elimination of duplication”).
[47] See David S.
Evans & Richard Schmalensee, Catalyst Code: The Strategies Behind the
World’s Most Successful Companies (Harvard Business School Press 2007).
[48] See David S.
Evans & Richard Schmalensee, Catalyst Code: The Strategies Behind the
World’s Most Successful Companies (Harvard Business School Press 2007).
[49]
http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/how-google-is-using-people-analytics-to-completely-reinvent-hr/#
[50] Huang, Lin Na, Feng Hua Liu, and Chun Li Liu. "Design
and Research on Collaborative Learning Program Based on Cloud-services." Advanced Materials Research.
Vol. 756. 2013.
[53] The companies
are Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel, Amazon, Yahoo!, Facebook, eBay and
Salesforce. The patent data is from “2014 Top Patent Owners,” Intellectual
Property Owners Association, June 2015.
[54] Gauvin, M., et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge
management with ontologies: the case of the Canadian military." Journal of Knowledge
Management Practice 6 (2005).
[55] Gauvin, M., et al. "Understanding the state of knowledge
management with ontologies: the case of the Canadian military." Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice 6 (2005).
[56] Burns, Tom E., and George Macpherson Stalker. "The
management of innovation." University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship (1961).
[57]
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H. and Konzilia, G. (2003). Deliverable D1: Interim report on
consolidated baseline - Definition of the baseline for the road map.
IST-2001-38379, Roadmap Design for Collaborative Virtual Orgnisations in
Dynamic Business Ecosystems.
[58]
Grimshaw, D. J. and Kwok, F. T. Sandy (1998). The Business Benefits of the Virtual Organization, in: The Virtual
Workplace, Idea Group Publishing.
[59] Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education. Routledge. p. 254. (5th edition)
[60] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M. (2002), Cultivating communities of practice,
Harvard Business School Press,Boston., MA
[61] Evans, David S., and Richard Schmalensee. The antitrust analysis of
multi-sided platform businesses. No. w18783. National Bureau of Economic
Research, 2013. P.9.
[62] Katz, Nancy, et al. "Network theory and small groups." Small group research35.3
(2004): 307-332.
[66] Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak, and Marcos Peralta.
"Building consumer trust online." Communications
of the ACM 42.4 (1999):
80-85.
[67] Wang, H., Lee,
M., and Wang, C. Consumer privacy concerns about Internet marketing. Commun.
ACM 41, 3 (Mar. 1998), 63–70.
[68] Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak, and Marcos Peralta.
"Building consumer trust online." Communications
of the ACM 42.4 (1999):
80-85.
[69] . Hoffman, D.,
and Novak, T. A new marketing paradigm for electronic commerce. Inf. Soc.: An
Int. J. 13, 1 (1997), 43–54.
[71] In 2014, Google Cloud Platform was named the Best Cloud Computing
Provider in the Lifehacker Reader’s Choice Awards. See more: http://goo.gl/yk9TEK (17.02.2016)
[73] Elmeleegy, Hazem, et al. "Overview of turn data
management platform for digital advertising." Proceedings of the
VLDB Endowment 6.11 (2013): 1138-1149.
[74] Ononiwu, Adanna E. "Virtual Enterprise and the fast food
industry: A Case Study of fast food operators in edo state." Benefits (2015):
198-200.
[FMZ4]A
virtual organization approach is dedicated for management activities which are
changing dynamically in essence, and to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of such activities by handling them in a flexible manner
(Mowshowitz, 1997).
Virtual organizations are seldom formed from the
scratch. Most likely, they have to be converted from their legacy systems.
Boersma and Kingma (2005) example shows that restructuring to a virtual
organization involves business process reengineering (BPR). This requires throughout
understanding of the processes to be reengineered, or unrealistically high
expectation of the results of the BPR would be generated (Chan and Choi, 1997).
With respect to the objectives of virtual organization formation, Martinez et
al. (2001) define four possible options that could be set up: (i) Maximize
flexibility and adaptability to environment changes; (ii) Development of a pool
of competencies and resources; (iii) Reaching a critical size to be in
accordance with market constraints; and (iv) Optimization of the global supply
chain. As quoted in Talluri et al. (1999), ‘‘Apple Computer and Sony
Corporation engaged in a similar temporary alliance to manufacture PowerBook
notebooks. y Similarly, IBM, Apple Computer, and Motorola have become involved
in an interfirm alliance to develop an operating system and microprocessor for
a new generation of computers’’. It is obvious that strategic alliance is also
a driving force for forming virtual organizations. Through strategic alliance,
the problem of trust may become minimal because the parties involved in the
virtual organization have a clear and well defined objective. Chang (2003)
found firm’s networking ability is directly, and positively, related to its
technological innovation
Wang, William YC, and Hing Kai Chan.
"Virtual organization for supply chain integration: Two cases in the
textile and fashion retailing industry."International Journal of
Production Economics 127.2
(2010): 333-342.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.