Sales complexity and value appropriation: a taxonomy of sales situations

Purpose The increasingly complex business-to-business (B2B) sales process necessitates that sales managers strike the right balance between appropriate resource allocation, while also maintaining the profitability of the organization. While previous research has mainly focused on how changes in the business environment pose distinct challenges to salespeople, very little research has focused on how sales managers should react to these complex situations. Drawing upon the extant sales research, this paper aims to point to a gap in the literature of how sales managers deal with the complexity associated with the sales process and deal with the same. Design/methodology/approach Methods from the grounded theory research approach were used to conduct 18 in-depth interviews with B2B sales managers. Purposive sampling was used to identify the participants. Findings A taxonomy of sales situations that reflects the changing complexity of the sales function and how sales managers need to orchestrate their resource allocation decisions to ensure appropriate value capture from B2B relationships emerged within the themes. This paper highlights four fundamental tenets of sales situations that account for both the complexity of the sales process and the value appropriation challenge that sales managers face. Practical implications The taxonomy will help sales managers have a better understanding of the changing complexity in the B2B sales process and help them with decisions making. Sales managers can orchestrate their resource allocation to achieve value appropriation. Originality/value This paper develops a new taxonomy of the sales situation. It unravels the changing complexity of the B2B sales process and discusses how value appropriation can be achieved by sales managers.

The Life Course Metaphor: Implications for Biography and Interpretive Research

This paper reviews qualitative research in the United States, highlighting the ways research has changed in the era of the third age. With growing attention to positive and uplifting aspects of aging, qualitative research has played a critical role in the exploration of the ways in which older adults are engaging in meaningful ways with others. We describe two key methodological approaches that have been important to examining positive aspects of aging and exploring the extent to which a growing number of years of healthy retirement are redefining the aging experience: ethnographic research and grounded theory research. We also review key topics associated with qualitative research in the era of the third age. These topics fit within two dominant frameworks – research exploring meaningmaking in later life and research exploring meaningful engagement in later life. These frameworks were critically important to raising attention to meaningful experiences and interactions with others, and we propose that the agenda for future qualitative research in the United States should continue contributing to these frameworks. However, we note that a third framework should also be developed which examines what it means to be a third age through use of a phenomenological approach, which will assist in the important task of theory building about the third age.

An Evidence-Based Study of Diabetes Prevention and Management with NLP and Deep Learning

In this paper we explore applying machine learning and NLp techniques to conduct Grounded Theory research in Diabetes detection, prevention and management in underserved communities where Electronic health records are not complete or absent. We also present a novel method of automating coding of interviews in layman language using language understanding and language lexicon.<div><br><div><br></div></div>

An Evidence-Based Study of Diabetes Prevention and Management with NLP and Deep Learning

In this paper we explore applying machine learning and NLp techniques to conduct Grounded Theory research in Diabetes detection, prevention and management in underserved communities where Electronic health records are not complete or absent. We also present a novel method of automating coding of interviews in layman language using language understanding and language lexicon.<div><br><div><br></div></div>

Reconciling agility and architecture: a theory of agile architecture

<p>The purpose of agile software development is to enable the software development team to respond to change and learn from change so that it can better deliver value to its customer. If an agile software development team spends too much time planning and designing architecture up-front then the delivery of value to the customer is delayed or otherwise compromised, and responding to change can become extremely difficult. Not doing enough architecture design increases exposure to risk and increases the chance of failure. The balance between architecture and agility is not well understood by agile practitioners or researchers. This thesis is based on grounded theory research involving 44 participants from 36 organisations, all working in agile software development and who are either experienced in architecture design or are closely involved with architecture. The thesis presents a theory that describes how agile software teams design an agile architecture with reduced up-front design and which is able to respond to change, helping teams find a balance between architecture and agility. The theory describes six forces that affect the agility of the architecture and up-front design, and five strategies that teams use in response to those forces to determine how much effort they put into up-front design. Understanding these forces and strategies helps agile teams to determine how much up-front design is appropriate in their contexts.</p>

Reconciling agility and architecture: a theory of agile architecture

<p>The purpose of agile software development is to enable the software development team to respond to change and learn from change so that it can better deliver value to its customer. If an agile software development team spends too much time planning and designing architecture up-front then the delivery of value to the customer is delayed or otherwise compromised, and responding to change can become extremely difficult. Not doing enough architecture design increases exposure to risk and increases the chance of failure. The balance between architecture and agility is not well understood by agile practitioners or researchers. This thesis is based on grounded theory research involving 44 participants from 36 organisations, all working in agile software development and who are either experienced in architecture design or are closely involved with architecture. The thesis presents a theory that describes how agile software teams design an agile architecture with reduced up-front design and which is able to respond to change, helping teams find a balance between architecture and agility. The theory describes six forces that affect the agility of the architecture and up-front design, and five strategies that teams use in response to those forces to determine how much effort they put into up-front design. Understanding these forces and strategies helps agile teams to determine how much up-front design is appropriate in their contexts.</p>

Self-Organizing Agile Teams: A Grounded Theory

<p>Self-organizing teams are a hallmark of Agile software development, directly a ecting team e ectiveness and project success. Agile software development, and in particular the Scrum method, emphasizes self-organizing teams but does not provide clear guidelines on how teams should become and remain self-organizing. Based on Grounded Theory research involving 58 Agile prac- titioners from 23 di erent software organizations in New Zealand and In- dia, this thesis presents a grounded theory of self-organizing Agile teams. The theory of self-organizing Agile teams explains how software development teams take on informal, implicit, transient, and spontaneous roles and per- form balanced practices while facing critical environmental factors, in order to become self-organizing. The roles are: Mentor, Co-ordinator, Translator, Champion, Promoter, and Terminator. The practices involve balancing free- dom and responsibility, cross-functionality and specialization, and continuous learning and iteration pressure. The factors are senior management support and level of customer involvement. This thesis will help teams and their coaches better understand their roles and responsibilities as a self-organizing Agile team. This thesis will also serve to educate senior management and customers about the importance of supporting these teams</p>

Self-Organizing Agile Teams: A Grounded Theory

<p>Self-organizing teams are a hallmark of Agile software development, directly a ecting team e ectiveness and project success. Agile software development, and in particular the Scrum method, emphasizes self-organizing teams but does not provide clear guidelines on how teams should become and remain self-organizing. Based on Grounded Theory research involving 58 Agile prac- titioners from 23 di erent software organizations in New Zealand and In- dia, this thesis presents a grounded theory of self-organizing Agile teams. The theory of self-organizing Agile teams explains how software development teams take on informal, implicit, transient, and spontaneous roles and per- form balanced practices while facing critical environmental factors, in order to become self-organizing. The roles are: Mentor, Co-ordinator, Translator, Champion, Promoter, and Terminator. The practices involve balancing free- dom and responsibility, cross-functionality and specialization, and continuous learning and iteration pressure. The factors are senior management support and level of customer involvement. This thesis will help teams and their coaches better understand their roles and responsibilities as a self-organizing Agile team. This thesis will also serve to educate senior management and customers about the importance of supporting these teams</p>

Interaction Design and Agile Development: a Real World Perspective

<p>Although both agile development methods and interaction design aim to build quality software that meets the user's needs, each approaches development from a different perspective. Agile development methods describe activities addressing the coding (and in some cases the process management) part of software development, whereas interaction design methods describe activities for developing that aspect of the software that will be perceived by the user. Agile development and interaction design each have little to say about the other, despite the reality that both approaches are combined in practice. There has been little investigation into how the two processes work together, and the issues that arise. To aim for a better understanding of practice, we conducted grounded theory research about real-world software teams who combine interaction design and agile development. The results provided insights into interaction design being done up front (before implementation begins), the structure of the development iterations, the effect of incorporating interaction design techniques into the agile development iterations, as well as the role of the interaction designer on agile teams. The analysis also highlighted areas that may benefit from further research.</p>

Knowledge Management Infrastructure Framework for Enhancing Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes

In this age of digital transformation, knowledge-intensive organizations strive to improve business outcomes and sustainability by improving their knowledge-intensive business processes (KIBPs) to obtain a competitive advantage. Many researchers have claimed that KIBP enhancement is possible through knowledge management (KM) initiatives supported by an effective KM infrastructure. Current KM infrastructures deal with formal KM procedures, where knowledge is created, stored, assimilated, and disseminated. Such activities, however, are designed to be performed outside of the business process. KM infrastructures are expected to be more effective when they include specific real-time knowledge procedures integrated into the operational flow of KIBPs. This paper explores how modern KM infrastructures can support KIBPs, considering both formal and operational KM procedures. Our study’s essential contribution is the conceptual KM infrastructure framework (KMIF) developed based on grounded theory research. This infrastructure provides a systematic and robust approach, starting from the ground up, for structuring organizational knowledge assets across a range of KIBP environments. We define operational knowledge procedures directly involved in KIBPs, adding a layer to KM infrastructures beyond the formal knowledge procedures. A mixed-method case study was conducted to demonstrate and evaluate the proposed KMIF for enhancing business outcomes and sustainability of knowledge-intensive organizations.