Search results

Jelinek has developed a multi-level model for conceptualizing the contextual influences through which intellectual property (IP) is “understood, interpreted and made sense of” by key parties to IP “deals.” This commentary reflects upon that model through a historical examination of industry–university relationships in one case – specifically, IBM. Since the late 1920s, IBM has encouraged multifaceted relationships with universities. From the start, IBM sought relationships with academia not only because of the market potential represented by university campuses, but also because Thomas Watson Sr. viewed academic customers as potential research collaborators, a novel idea at the time that later proved instrumental in the development of the corporation's successful research enterprise. IBM's university relationships have continued to evolve over time, reflecting shifts in the corporation's business strategy, and changes in larger macroeconomic structures. The case of IBM reveals complex interactions among governmental, corporate, and academic actors and their policies at different points in time, providing support for Jelinek's multi-level approach to framing IP dynamics, and suggesting possible refinements of the model for the future.

Drawing upon prior work in cognition, organizational learning, strategy, and organization theory, a multi-level, longitudinal account of change in core competence is presented. The central concern addressed is how knowledge passes from “individual” to “organizational,” and how insight present in one part of the organization comes into broader currency. Data from a mature industry firm form the foundation for a depiction of change as a cognitive process involving multiple individuals, groups, and levels within the organization. Speculative propositions and a process model are presented.

Strategic change and managerial cognition are closely intertwined. However when data on a specific case of delayed strategic change involving multiple levels of an organization are presented, questions are raised about the application of a managerial cognition framework. This commentary attempts to reconcile some of what is currently known regarding managerial cognition and how a cognitive model is induced from a case study on strategic change in the James Division of Warren Corporation. Alternative interpretations of the data are introduced and directions for future research using the induced theory are suggested.

The authors argue that most current descriptions of production management systems rely on too narrow a theoretical perspective, and thereby fail to meet management's needs. They suggest instead a more comprehensive approach based on task assignment and task structuring for production management. Structuring is seen to be composed of task areas (capacity establishment and capacity utilisation), task levels (strategic, tactical, and shop‐floor), and task support (including managerial technology, such as database organisation, information systems, and software). Task assignment takes into account the skills, attitudes, and working limits of human resources, developing task subgroupings or constellations to match tasks to available persons.

This paper outlines a multi-level conceptual framework of industry–university (I–U) intellectual property (IP) relationships to understand efforts to commercialize university discoveries by considering how the parties to deals make sense of their interactions. Institutional, sectoral, and organizational levels frame interactions around any single deal, shaping participants’ sometimes divergent views. The complex dynamics of interactions between the parties and between and among levels mean that details and nuances will be vital. Commentaries by Maryann Feldman and Marietta Baba provide detailed insights on universities (Feldman) and industry (Baba) that enrich and corroborate the multi-level model. Directions for further research and policy implications in this important emerging area are suggested.

The purpose of this paper is to respond to Yammarino's “Levels of analysis and the US Constitution”.

The paper presents a conceptual assessment of the approach of Yammarino, suggesting an extension beyond “the” organization to groups of interacting organizations – where much contemporary innovation, and indeed economic activity takes place.

The paper advocates extending organization theory explicitly to embrace multi‐firm and multi‐organizational collaborations. “The firm” as an isolated entity is increasingly less meaningful without its constellation of affiliates, partners and networks.

Organization theorists, and managers, would do well to extend their horizons to include networks and partners, to understand how “organizations” work beyond their nominal boundaries.

The paper highlights an extension of organization theory to reflect contemporary inter‐organizational cooperation.

Both Marianne Jelinek's chapter and this commentary examine the legal, economic, and policy environments for university–industry technology transfer and the management of intellectual property. To complement Jelinek's framework, this commentary offers an alternative conceptual framework that incorporates the role of individual scientists and also acknowledges repeat transactions that form relationships between university and industry partners.

A cognitive view of implementing strategic innovation sees individual learning of senior managers became organizational only when Operating Logic shifted to Innovating Logic at the operating level, which required recognition at the operating level that change was needed. Organization learning concepts extend the account, while simpler explanations of entry threat and changing division management collapse organizational cognition to top-management, directing attention away from proactive strategic innovation. The cognitive view emphasizes broader cognitive resources and participation to enable organizational learning by doing.

U.S. industry–university (I–U) relations around intellectual property (IP) have become increasingly contentious since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, while especially lucrative patents and licenses resulting from biomedical and pharmaceutical discoveries capture the headlines. Some assert that I–U relations around IP are in crisis, others suggest that no such problem exists, and still others bemoan the “increasing commercialization” of U.S. education. This chapter develops a multi-level model of I–U IP dynamics, drawing on pluralistic, multi-theory perspectives, field interviews, and secondary data. The model includes three levels: the institutional (economy) level, I–U (sector) level, and the organizational level. These levels jointly affect the immediate context of any deal. The chapter closes with a discussion of this model's implications for further research and some theoretical speculations.

Multicultural teams (MCTs) and their managers are subject to numerous exogenous forces that profoundly affect how these teams’ members relate, what their difficulties are, and how they interact with task, technology and the larger organization(s) around them. We approach such teams from a multi-level perspective, focusing on global business culture, industry situation, and national political context as macro forces affecting these teams. We explain how these factors affect team functioning through the centripetal and centrifugal forces that they exert on individuals. Our perspective will acknowledge the complex reality of social construction among team members, and offer the view that members’ expectations and their mutual interactions are responsible for shaping each other's subsequent cognitions.