Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the value of a developmental learning view on implementation of quality management (QM) concepts. QM concepts are common in various organizations; some implement them smoothly, others struggle and sometimes even abandon the initiatives. What is then a successful implementation – is it the use a specific QM method as a standard problem solving approach, or is it that learning has occurred during implementation?

The paper is based on an illustrative case study carried out at a hospital in western Sweden. The data have been collected through about 130 hours of participation in project work by the first author and through seven face-to-face interviews of about one hour each.

It is shown that a Design for Six Sigma pilot project with a narrow view on implementation could be regarded as a failure, but it gave rise to much learning and new improved ways of working. Hence, it is argued that a developmental view on implementation can support learning by an emergent and experimental approach to implementation processes.

Much research has been done on how to increase the success rate of implementations of QM initiatives, e.g. procedures to follow to reach an outcome where the new way of working is standard procedure. Less research has problematized the implementation process, questioning what a successful outcome of an implementation is.

Models of integrated care are prime examples of complex interventions, incorporating multiple interacting components that work through varying mechanisms to impact numerous outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore summative, process and developmental approaches to evaluating complex interventions to determine how to best test this mess.

This viewpoint draws on the evaluation and complex intervention literatures to describe the advantages and disadvantages of different methods. The evaluation of the electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) mobile application and portal system is presented as an example of how to evaluate complex interventions with critical lessons learned from this ongoing study.

Although favored in the literature, summative and process evaluations rest on two problematic assumptions: it is possible to clearly identify stable mechanisms of action; and intervention fidelity can be maximized in order to control for contextual influences. Complex interventions continually adapt to local contexts, making stability and fidelity unlikely. Developmental evaluation, which is more conceptually aligned with service-design thinking, moves beyond these assumptions, emphasizing supportive adaptation to ensure meaningful adoption.

Blended approaches that incorporate service-design thinking and rely more heavily on developmental strategies are essential for complex interventions. To maximize the benefit of this approach, three guiding principles are suggested: stress pragmatism over stringency; adopt an implementation lens; and use multi-disciplinary teams to run studies.

This viewpoint offers novel thinking on the debate around appropriate evaluation methodologies to be applied to complex interventions like models of integrated care.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the idea of practice‐based innovation and to propose a framework that can be used to conceptualize and analyze practice‐based innovation processes in organizations.

The argument is driven by conceptual analysis and theoretical synthesis based on theory and research on innovation, organizational change, individual and organizational learning.

The proposed framework portrays practice‐based innovation as a cyclical process of adaptive and developmental learning driven by contradictions and tensions between explicit and implicit dimensions of work processes.

The paper adds to previous research through its focus on practice‐based innovation and the conceptualization of this notion in terms of learning in and through everyday work. It thus creates connections between innovation research and research on workplace learning.

This paper aims to extend the conceptualization of well-being as a staged social responsibility process by undertaking further conceptual development of these ideas as well as exploratory, small-scale international testing.

The sample comprised 117 leaders from Alaska, India and Norway. Cluster analysis was used to determine systematic differences in the way leaders think about societal well-being (well-being action logics), and regression analysis was used to test positive and significant relationships between well-being action logics and stages of consciousness.

Cluster analysis confirmed the three theoretically derived well-being action logics of top managers: compensatory, integral and hybrid. The authors found preliminary empirical support for a systematic relationship between well-being action logics and stages of consciousness as per constructive-developmental theory.

Better adoption of societal well-being as a normative ethic hinges on building the capacity of top managers to process more complex understandings of the range of components of societal well-being and how these components interact, conflict and synergize.

Being asked to embrace more complex views about societal well-being can be overwhelming, leading top managers to retreat into defensiveness. The result is resistance to change, preferring instead to stay with familiar yet outmoded conceptions. Societal well-being can thus suffer.

This paper opens the black box to find systematic differences in the way managers think about societal well-being. Further, the research has uncovered that these differences follow a staged developmental process of greater complexity.

The aim of the study was to illustrate how three different institutional logics, present in the implementation of action research, interact in a formalised project, in a traditional university setting.

The article is empirical in nature and the research method used is an instrumental case study. The case was the implementation of action research within the framework of an educational project co-financed by EU funds, conducted in a Polish public university. The research process was conducted from September 2017 to November 2019. The following techniques were used: document analysis, in-depth interviews, participatory observation during the project. Constant comparative analysis was used as an analytical approach.

The study indicates that action research, project management and university management follow different “logics”. The dominant logic of action research is problem-solving, of project management is efficiency and of university management is compliance. These different logics and the relationship between them is explained in the paper.

The research enriches the ongoing discussion on logic multiplicity and project management in a new context – that of the university environment and combines the issue of the implementation of action research with broader conversations on institutional logics.

This paper aims to further our understanding of policy–practice gaps in organizations from an organizational learning perspective. The authors conceptualize and analyze policy–practice gaps in terms of what they label the dual challenge of organizational learning, i.e. the organizational tasks of both adapting ongoing practices to prescribed policy demands and adapting the policy itself to the needs of practice. Specifically, the authors address how this dual challenge can be understood in terms of organizational learning and how an organization can be managed to successfully resolve the dual learning challenge and, thereby, bridge policy–practice gaps in organizations.

This paper draws on existing literature to explore the gap between policy and practice. Through a synthesis of theories and an illustrative practical example, this paper highlights key conceptual underpinnings.

In the analysis of the dual challenge of organizational learning, this study provides a conceptual framework that emphasizes the important role of tensions and contradictions between policy and practice and their role as drivers of organizational learning. To bridge policy–practice gaps in organizations, this paper proposes five key principles that aim to resolve the dual challenge and accommodate both deployment and discovery in organizations.

Because this is a conceptual study, empirical research is called for to explore further and test the findings and conclusions of the study. Several avenues of possible future research are proposed.

This paper primarily contributes by introducing and elaborating on a conceptual framework that offers novel perspectives on the dual challenges of facilitating both discovery and deployment processes within organizations.

This paper aims to understand how competing logics can co-exist in the organizational field of Indian microfinance.

The paper uses the theoretical lens of an organizational field to understand the composition of the microfinance field. Using the definition of an organizational field, key players in Indian microfinance are identified and their interactions within the field are analysed to understand the emergence and co-existence of multiple logics. The data used for this paper are collected from published work on Indian microfinance.

The co-existence of competing logics is sustained through the creation of two sub-fields within Indian microfinance. Each of the sub-field is dominated by one institutional logic. The field originated in developmental logic of microfinance and gradually adopted the banking logic post-2000. The sub-fields are dominated by different organizational forms with different nature of interaction within the field.

Actors within the field would experience institutional complexity with lesser intensity because of the existence of two distinct sub-communities with individual logic. Dual logics can sustain itself independently provided these are embedded in two different sub-communities. Despite the emergence of a new logic, the previous logic can still remain relevant given the enabling support from institutional infrastructure.

The manifestation of development and banking logics through practices and the belief system in Indian microfinance would offer useful insights for social entrepreneurs balancing the dual goals of hybrid organizations. Due to the sub-communities, a professional working with different forms of organization would experience little pressure to adjust to diverse logic and would also experience no or little identity conflict.

This paper focuses on the microfinance sector in India as an organizational field and explores the mechanism of co-existence of the dual goals of microfinance at the field level.