Infrastructure autopoiesis: requisite variety to engage complexity

Infrastructure systems must change to match the growing complexity of the environments they operate in. Yet the models of governance and the core technologies they rely on are structured around models of relative long-term stability that appear increasingly insufficient and even problematic. As the environments in which infrastructure function become more complex, infrastructure systems must adapt to develop a repertoire of responses sufficient to respond to the increasing variety of conditions and challenges. Whereas in the past infrastructure leadership and system design has emphasized organization strategies that primarily focus on exploitation (e.g., efficiency and production, amenable to conditions of stability), in the future they must create space for exploration, the innovation of what the organization is and does. They will need to create the abilities to maintain themselves in the face of growing complexity by creating the knowledge, processes, and technologies necessary to engage environment complexity. We refer to this capacity as infrastructure autopoiesis. In doing so infrastructure organizations should focus on four key tenets. First, a shift to sustained adaptation – perpetual change in the face of destabilizing conditions often marked by uncertainty – and away from rigid processes and technologies is necessary. Second, infrastructure organizations should pursue restructuring their bureaucracies to distribute more resources and decisionmaking capacity horizontally, across the organization’s hierarchy. Third, they should build capacity for horizon scanning, the process of systematically searching the environment for opportunities and threats. Fourth, they should emphasize loose fit design, the flexibility of assets to pivot function as the environment changes. The inability to engage with complexity can be expected to result in a decoupling between what our infrastructure systems can do and what we need them to do, and autopoietic capabilities may help close this gap by creating the conditions for a sufficient repertoire to emerge.

A Critical Review of Organizing Knowledge Management for Innovation

This study critically reviews the literature that demonstrates the relevance of knowledge management process and business intelligence, as well as the challenges arising when it comes to organising for innovation in today’s business organisations. Hence, the to attain desired innovation it is important to integrate business intelligence (BI) and knowledge management (KM) for the diffusion of innovation. Hence, importance of integrating business intelligence (BI) and knowledge management (KM) for the diffusion of innovation. Organisations’ innovation dynamics and knowledge processes that lead competitive advantage of organisations are examined. Literature points that many organisations rely on individual employees’ knowledge and skills. As a result, information systems that enable knowledge management (KM) as a critical tool for gaining a competitive advantage (Campbell, 2012). The seminal argument in this study is that knowledge diffusion and knowledge externalities are the main drive of increase in economy. As a result, this is expected to be a win-win value proposition for such organisations integrating business intelligence and knowledge management. However, owing to changing business conditions and the rapidity of technological development, as well as the rising expenses involved with carrying out R&D operations in many of these organisations, maintaining competitive advantage through internal R&D alone is becoming increasingly challenging. The importance of innovation processes and network dynamics in the context of Integrated Knowledge Networks is explored, which provide feasible possibilities for utilising innovation as an interactive process as well as knowledge processes for creating business intelligence in organisations. Due to the challenges of organising for innovation, the organisations figured to rely on “Open innovation” approach to intentionally seek out unique knowledge and information outside of their organisational bounds. This study also discusses the challenges that organisations hurdle on in managing inter-organizational cooperation because of external knowledge sourcing techniques (Campbell, 2009). This is due, in part, to the fact that they span a wide range of organisations, people, and resources, as well as the interactions that exist between them. The creative processes and network dynamics are facilitated by an architecture that blends organisational and technical aspects in Integrated Knowledge Networks. Hence, the study focuses on twofold to sourcing external knowledge in particular: learning from international business environments and corporate venturing strategy for corporate incubators.

Evaluation at the Endgame: Evaluating Sustainability and the SDGs by Moving Past Dominion and Institutional Capture

Three facts underlay this chapter. First, the human system and all our ambitions for improving the human system depend on sustainable natural systems. Second, we do not have much time. On track to fall well short of all sustainability goals, the climate and sustainability crises grow and extinction looms. Third, up to this point evaluation has shown little interest in sustainability, yet evaluation potentially addresses the very questions that are central to informing and guiding rapid adaptation of human behavior to successfully surmounting extinction.Business-as-usual evaluation will not suffice. At the endgame with extinction looming, we need an evaluation that is more nimble, keeps up with rapidly accelerating knowledge, is relentlessly use-seeking and that guides the way to joined-up approaches. The evaluation we need will systematically mainstream sustainability across all evaluations and interventions, in all evaluation criteria and standards. For this, all evaluations will always address nexus where human and natural systems join and incorporate knowledge and methods from both systems. Existing evaluation knowledge is well suited to this task, as are knowledges in biophysical sciences. We know and promote knowledge processes for integrative evaluation and are starting to shift toward the requirements for evaluation at the nexus. As this chapter shows, the anchors holding us back are political, not technical.

Family Firm Competitiveness and Organizational Ambidexterity

Long-term survival is one of the main goals of family business. Nevertheless, very few firms survive to the third generation. The concept of organizational ambidexterity could add insights into the explanation of family firm (FF) survival. In the literature, organizational ambidexterity is defined as the capability to explore new knowledge, processes, and opportunities while exploiting current ones to achieve a greater competitive advantage and ensure the survival of the firm. The aim of this chapter is to review the literature that analyzes relationships between FF specificities and organizational ambidexterity to propose a framework of the antecedents of ambidexterity in this context. This could be a useful tool to better identify FF specificities that will support long-term survival through their influence on organizational ambidexterity.

Connecting information literacy and social capital to better utilise knowledge resources in the workplace

Human resources and intellectual capital are best utilised through an ongoing interaction between individual and social processes. Still there is a research gap of empirical multilevel studies, focusing both on individual and organisational aspects of knowledge processes. To fill this gap, this article reports on a quantitative study, where the relationship between information literacy and social capital, representing the individual and social contexts affecting organisational knowledge processes, is explored. Structural equation modelling-based analysis of 378 employees working in different companies in Finland demonstrated that information literacy supports all three dimensions of social capital at workplace. Strong information handling skills enable better access to knowledge beyond the resources of an individual, that is, social capital. The results of the study contribute to a better understanding of how to manage human resources and the information and knowledge processes that employees are expected to be involved in.

COMPARTILHAMENTO DE CONHECIMENTO EM UMA PEQUENA EMPRESA DE PRODUTOS ORTOPÉDICOS: ANÁLISE DAS PERCEPÇÕES DOS COLABORADORES

O objetivo central deste artigo é tentar compreender por meio da visão dos colaboradores de uma pequena empresa de produtos ortopédicos, as suas principais percepções, relacionadas ao compartilhamento de conhecimento organizacional. O método escolhido para a pesquisa é qualitativo com a tipologia qualitativa básica. Para a análise de resultados, foi utilizada a técnica de análise temática de Braun e Clarke. Os principais resultados encontrados demonstram que o compartilhamento de conhecimento na organização é realizado por intermédio da utilização das tecnologias de comunicações comuns ao público, assim como, com a realização frequente da técnica de brainstorming, conversas rápidas e outras estratégias para resolução de problemas conforme identificados nesta pesquisa. Referências Alavi, M., & Leidn, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136. Allameh, S. M.; Khozani, M. K.; Baniasadi, B. (2020) Consequences of knowledge processes in small businesses: the role of knowledge acquisition, dynamic capabilities, knowledge sharing and creativity. Int. J. Process Management and Benchmarking, Vol. 10, No. 1. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper, H. et al. (Eds.). APA handbook of research methods in psychology, v. 2, Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, v. 2 p. 57-71. Creswell, J. W. (2007) Projeto de pesquisa: Métodos qualitativo, quantitativo e misto. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed. Cummings, J. (2003) Knowledge Sharing: A Review of the Literature. Washington D. C.: The World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Dalkir, K. (2005) Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Drucker, P. F. (1993) Sociedade Pós-Capitalista. São Paulo: Pioneira. Gold H. A.; Malhotra, A; Segars, A, H.; (2001). Knowledge management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1), 185-214. Gray, C. (2006). Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12 (6),345-360. Harel, R.; Schwartz, D.; Kaufmann, D. (2020) Sharing knowledge processes for promoting innovation in small businesses. European Journal of Innovation Management. ISO 30401:2018. (2018) International Organization For Standardization. Knowledge Management Systems – Requirements. Genebra: ISO. Kayas, O, G.; Wright, G. (2018) Knowledge Management and Organisational Culture. The Palgrave Handbook of Knowledge Management. ISBN 978-3-319-71434-9 (eBook). Merriam, S. B. (2009) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2009. Morgan, G. (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 25, n. 4, p. 605-622. Na Ubon, A.; Kimble, C. (2002) Knowledge Management in Online Distance Education. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Networked Learning, University of Sheffield, UK, pp. 465-473. Ngah e Ibrahim (2010). The Effect of Knowledge Sharing on Organizational Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises. Santos, N.; Rados, G. J. V. (2020) Fundamentos teóricos de gestão do conhecimento. E-book. – 1. ed. – Florianópolis: Pandion, 114 p. Takeuchi, H.; Nonaka, I. (2008) Criação e dialética do conhecimento. In: Takeuchi, H.; Nonaka, I. Gestão do conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman. Utami, Y.; Rofik, M.; Cahyaningtyas, N. W.; Darminto, D. P. (2021). Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Innovation on Small Business Performance. CISIS 2020: Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems pp 408-411.