Search results

Recent research places an increased emphasis on the inclusion of the customer in value creation, learning and innovation processes; yet, there remains a gap in the understanding of just how such customer involvement may work. This paper aims to address this gap by examining two aspects of customer involvement – their knowledgeability and their agency. In addition, three boundaries (semantic, syntactic and pragmatic) across which relationship development occurs and which may facilitate and/or inhibit value co-creation, collaborative learning and innovation processes have been explored.

Three case studies have been used. Two were large-scale construction projects in the UK, and one was a global professional accounting firm in the USA.

Customers may become frustrated if not allowed to exercise their agency. However, their involvement can create tensions for suppliers who may have to become more tolerant of divergent goals. In respect of knowledgeability, it was found that constraint satisfaction is important in allowing customers to reconcile their personal knowledge schema with the collective schema. However, it was also noted that customer knowledgeability brings with it challenges for suppliers, who must find ways to add value for such customers.

A number of further questions relating to the agency and knowledgeability of customers and their inclusion in value co-creation, collaborative learning and innovation processes have been posed. The need for guidance in identifying and minimising the barriers to crossing semantic, syntactic and pragmatic boundaries between customers and suppliers has also been highlighted.

This study makes an important contribution to research in the field, in that how the inclusion of the customer in business networks alters current assumptions and practices is investigated.

This study aims to address how and why do formal key account management (KAM) programmes hinder effective KAM management, and how can the problems of formalization in KAM be overcome. Recent empirical studies have reported an unexpected negative relationship between KAM formalization and performance.

An 18-month (340 days) ethnographic investigation was undertaken in the UK-based subsidiary of a major US sports goods manufacturer. This ethnographic evidence was triangulated with 113 in-depth interviews.

This study identifies how and why managerial reflexivity allows a more effectively combining of formal and post-bureaucratic KAM practices. While formal KAM programmes provide a means to initiate, implement and control KAM, they have an unintended consequence of increasing organizational bureaucracy, which may in the long-run hinder the KAM effectiveness. Heightened reflexivity, including “wayfinding”, is identified as a means to overcome many of these challenges, allowing for reflexively combining formal with post-bureaucratic KAM practices.

The thesis of this paper starts a new line of reflexive KAM research, which draws theoretical influences from the post-bureaucratic turn in management studies.

This study seeks to increase KAM implementation success rates and long-term effectiveness of KAM by conceptualizing the new possibilities offered by reflexive KAM. This study demonstrates how reflexive skills (conceptualized as “KAM wayfinding”) can be deployed during KAM implementation and for its continual improvement. Further, the study identifies how KAM programmes can be used to train organizational learning regarding KAM. Furthermore, this study identifies how and why post-bureaucratic KAM can offer additional benefits after an organization has learned key KAM capabilities.

A new line of enquiry is identified: the reflexive-turn in KAM. This theoretical position allows us to identify existing weakness in the extant KAM literature, and to show a practical means to improve the effectiveness of KAM. This concerns, in particular, the importance of managerial reflexivity and KAM wayfinding as a means to balance the strengths and weaknesses of formal and post-bureaucratic KAM.

Over several decades many ranking techniques have been proposed as aids to journal selection by libraries. We review those closely related to physics and others with novel features. There are three main methods of ranking: citation analysis, use or user judgement, and size or ‘productivity’. Citations offer an ‘unobtrusive’ quantitative measure, but not only is the absolute value of a citation in question, but also there is no consensus on a ‘correct’ way to choose the citing journals, nor of the ranking parameter. Citations can, however, point out anomalies and show the changing status of journals over the years. Use and user judgement also employ several alternative methods. These are in the main of limited applicability outside the specific user group in question. There is greater ‘parochialism’ in ‘use’ ranking than in ‘judged value’ lists, with citation lists the most international. In some cases, the attempted ‘quantification’ of subjective judgement will be misleading. Size and productivity rankings are normally concerned with one or other formulation of the Bradford distribution. Since the distribution is not universally valid, for library use the librarian must satisfy him/herself that the collection conforms to the distribution, or that his users would be well served by one that did. This may require considerable effort, and statistics gained will then render the Bradford distribution redundant.

Using his Information Scientist pseudonym of Icarus, Alan Gilchrist once called the Aslib Co‐ordinate Indexing Group (CIG) (now Aslib Informatics Group) a bunch of free‐thinkers—the hippy fringe of the information profession. As the leading light of this Group (Leo Jolley was its Chairman from its formal inception in 1970 until his death on Christmas Day 1976) one might have expected him to epitomize these alleged qualities, but this was not so. Leo was neither long‐haired, figuratively or otherwise, nor was he a particularly free‐thinker. His work relating to information retrieval tended to be highly formalized: for a time he was unjusdy criticized for his attempt to rigorously define the fundamental nature of feature card systems. Later he had to suffer similar criticism from the present writer when he attempted to define and standardize the vocabulary relating to co‐ordinate indexing and thesaurus construction. Leo was a highly individual thinker, however, and he certainly existed at the fringe of the information profession. His contacts with the profession appear to have been limited to the CIG and to the Classification Research Group. He was neither a member of the Institute of Information Scientists nor of the Library Association, and was affronted if accused of being a librarian. Thus, he formed a part of that limited band who have contributed much to the profession without really being a part of it. This must be qualified, however, in that he had established a company (J. L. Jolley and Partners) which operated a range of services from consultancy to punching holes in feature cards.

The following bibliography focuses mainly on programs which can run on IBM microcomputers and compatibles under the operating system PC DOS/MS DOS, and which can be used in online information and documentation work. They fall into the following categories:

Five leading abstracts services in the field of documentation were inspected. A measure of their coverage was obtained by matching the items of a bibliography against each service. All abstracts published by these services in 1964 were counted and ranked to estimate the scope of each service, to identify key journals and to assess the language problem. Leading journals were also identified by counts of citations following articles in nine leading documentation journals, mostly over a five‐year period. These citations were ranked in the same way as the abstracts in order to further identify key journals and to provide another view of the language barrier.

I should like to begin with an analogy, which was used originally by Alan Gilchrist in a paper on cost‐effectiveness some years ago. The analogy is repeated almost verbatim because it says precisely what I want to say, better than I could have said it myself.

Adapting to change is never easy, particularly when everything is moving so fast that one has less and less time to devote to thinking about the transition process. We are all rather like white water canoeists: carried on rapid waters in a small and fragile boat — in danger of being either sunk or left on the bank — and, with head over paddle, unable to see very far ahead. The change always seems to be external and it is difficult to answer such questions as what change and for what purpose and even if we knew the answers it is unclear to what extent we are capable of affecting the outcomes. What might be helpful is to examine some of the undercurrents that are propelling us forward, affecting our work and our perceptions of our professional role.

The author writes from experience, originally as a member of the Aslib Consultancy Service and subsequently as an independent consultant. She explores the expectations of the client and the consultant, qualities desirable in consultants and job satisfactions, and goes on to analyse in detail the consulting process, the pathology of information systems and the role of library consultants as change agents.

I first met punched feature cards in 1956. I was working as an assistant to E. G. Brisch, whose company classified the materials and components used in industry. His method brought similar articles together, both notionally in classified codebooks and practically when the classified items were stored in their code number order. The result was an excellent aid to variety reduction, standardization, and stock control. E. G. gave me a good grounding in analytical classification; but his office held other secrets too. One of these was a sort of punched card representing a property or quality, not an object or event as with all other punched cards I had met. On these other cards, notched or slotted for hand‐sorting with needles, or punched and verified in thousands for reading by machine, the holes stood for characteristics possessed by the item concerned. The new cards were different. Since they represented properties, the items possessing these had to be shown by the holes, and so they were. E. G. named them ‘Brisch‐a‐boo’: this I found was his special variant of ‘peek‐a‐boo’, a title by which they are still occasionally known. To stack some of them in exact register with each other is to find, as a set of through holes in numbered positions, the reference numbers of all the items recorded on them which have the qualities concerned.