To solve some of the challenges of traditional science, such as restricted access to funding, centralized governance, and siloed knowledge dissemination, decentralized science (DeSci) has emerged as a transformative approach facilitated by blockchain technology, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), and Web3. However, the emerging field of DeSci, faces several challenges, such as the absence of an organizational framework to describe its inherent complexities. This study introduces the Decentralized Science Pyramid Framework (DSPF), an innovative adaptation of Mintzbergâs organizational structure, adapted to the unique demands and properties of DeSci. The DSPF delineates a structured model for DeSci projects that integrates technology, governance, community engagement, and application within a decentralized context. Through the introduction of the DSPF, this research highlights the operational dynamics of DeSci, focusing on the practical application of Mintzbergâs theories to address real-world scientific challenges. The case study of VitaDAO, a decentralized autonomous organization exemplifying the core principles of DeSci, demonstrates the practical applicability of the DSPF. This study not only advances the academic discourse on DeSci but also offers practical insights for practitioners, innovators, and policymakers, marking a substantial step toward realizing the full potential of decentralized science.
Michael Lustenberger, Florian Spychiger, Lukas KĂźng, Pedro Cuadra
This guidebook summarizes the insights and outcomes from the Innosuisse Project 103.141 IP-ICT Designing and Implementing a Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Running from November 2022 to May 2024, the project was conducted as a collaborative effort between the ZHAW Institute for Organizational Viability and DecentAge AG with support from Innosuisse and Infinity Economics, Stefan Kneller. The projectâs primary objective was to develop a robust DAO Design Framework and deploy it on the Infinity Economics Platform (IEP). DecentAge AG successfully executed this model on the IEP, giving users an easy way to create and manage DAOs directly on the blockchain. This implementation allows organizations to operate without centralized management, streamlining governance and enhancing accessibility. This guide will provide you with the essential practical and scientific understanding of DAOs and how to effectively structure the initiation process in accordance with a DAO Design Canvas.
Although academic and practical interest in non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has continuously increased over the last few years, there is still a need to better understand their social acceptability. The aim of the study was to explore the double edge of NFT legitimacy for NFTs by unveiling the role of sustainability and by adopting technology legitimacy and the field of sustainability transition studies as a theoretical lens. Specifically, this research investigates the role of sustainability in securing and maintaining technology legitimacy within NFT projects. We interviewed 12 experts through exploratory qualitative research. The findings highlight three main ways in which sustainability participates in the legitimation of NFT projects. While sustainability can be inherent in the NFT project itself, this legitimation can also be derived from the perceived sustainability of the NFT technology or be part of innovative business models. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications are then discussed. JEL CODES: O33, O35, O50
KYC is vital for financial institutions worldwide to prevent illicit activities. The current process is slow, ineffective, and reliant on centralized databases. This study explores decentralized identification (DID) as a solution. DID enables efficient access to verified user credentials while enhancing user privacy. Thus, enhancing the speed and efficiency of the overall KYC process. The study employs the Design Science Research approach to systematically design the decentralized identity solution for KYC. Our solution employs blockchain and cryptographic technologies to enhance the DID process. Credentials submitted in the DID system are verified by a DID resolver, then stored and managed by an identity hub through the employment of a blockchain-based KYC contract. Ethereum JSON-RPC is employed to facilitate the DID authentication process. We also implemented zero-knowledge proofs to enhance usersâ privacy. The result of this study contributes to the advancement of KYC by offering practical insights, design guidelines, and evaluation measures for the implementation of decentralized identification.
A âkiller appâ denotes any computer programme or software that is so essential or desirable that it demonstrates the fundamental worth of a larger technology. It is portrayed as virtually indispensable or vastly superior to competing products. Supply chain transparency (SCT) has long been ripe for disruption and in need of such a technological solution. Several applications have appeared on the market - but few have coalesced the complex tasks required for full transparency. To date, there is no âkiller appâ for fashion supply chain transparency. Applications that facilitate SCT including tracking and tracing mechanisms as well as data repository and distributed ledger systems like blockchain are complex and daunting for most fashion businesses. Industry powerplays and lack of trust are blocking the universal adoption of current solutions. This chapter aims to explore how SCT can be adopted by firms and facilitated at scale. We advance current knowledge of digital technology applications for SCT through the theoretical lens of organisational culture to decipher how start-ups are developing technology for adoption by fashion firms. Using a single case study methodology, we analysed one hybrid start-up (fashion and technology firm) that has developed and implemented advanced digital technology initiatives at scale. From our case analysis, we provide insights into the requirements to build a digital ecosystem - one with which most firms are not yet familiar. We discuss key implications for theory and practise, based on our findings.
A growing body of research suggests that decentralization is the next step in organizational evolution. However, models on how Web3 organizations live, survive, and die remain overly simplified. We develop a theoretical framework for understanding the survival and failure of Web3 organizations through the lens of institutional theory. We argue that isomorphism encourages Web3 entities to become more centralized and that the organizational hybridity generated from centralization decreases the survival rates of Web3 organizations.
Abstract Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are digital assets based on blockchain technology that are increasingly being used for various applications in organizations. Given NFTsâ unique technological features, we posit that traditional, centralized organizations can adopt them to introduce novel solutions to the fundamental problems of organizing, namely, division of labor and integration of efforts. We examine the prospects and promises of NFT-enabled organization design and suggest how organizations can navigate its potential hurdles. We discuss critical boundary conditions for the deployment of NFTs in organization design and conclude by articulating how our Point of View article contributes to scholarship on blockchain technology and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Duygu Phillips, Per L. Bylund, Matthew W. Rutherford, Curt B. Moore
How can cryptocurrency gain legitimacy in the eyes of users? Drawing upon the theories of institutional uncertainty and legitimacy, we propose a process model in which legitimacy for cryptocurrencies acquired at the market level via rhetorical strategies (i.e. evasive action) will reduce uncertainty in the formal institutional environment. This reduction in institutional uncertainty will beget additional legitimacy, and thus higher performance for individual crypto firms, on average. This study (1) advances institutional entrepreneurship research by investigating the legitimation process of cryptocurrency; (2) extends our understanding of the evolution of an innovation and its diffusion under institutional uncertainty; (3) contributes to the development of institutional theory by elucidating how cryptocurrencies can change existing institutions, and even create new ones, through evasive entrepreneurship; and (4) provides an overall theoretical rationale for how cryptocurrency can become more widely accepted.
Abstract Research Summary This abductive study investigates how management occurs without managerial authority as part of a previously unseen organizational formâthe decentralized platform with an independent market value. Our mixedâmethods study of the cryptocurrency industry draws on fuzzyâset qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) to analyze archival and interview data and offer new theory on how decentralized platforms coordinate activities to grow in an earlyâstage, before network effects kick in. We find that, in the absence of a central authority, platforms coordinate activities with three mechanisms, namely decentralized (a) algorithmic coordination, (b) social coordination, and (c) goal coordination. Our QCA treat these mechanisms as explanatory conditions and, using a representative sample of 20 cryptocurrency platforms, reveal which configurations of decentralized coordination mechanisms nurture, or hinder, earlyâstage platform growth. Managerial Summary Firms operate around a managerial hierarchy that distributes tasks, resources, information, and rewards to organizational members who pursue common goals as contractâbound employees. From 2009, a new organizational form, called the âdecentralized platform,â emerged and diffused without relying on hierarchy nor managerial authorityâand without having to employ anyone. The most prominent decentralized platform, Bitcoin, has millions of users, thousands of contributors, and a market valuation never achieved before by an organization without a CEO nor shareholders. This study explicates how this unprecedented level of organizational decentralization functions in practice. We foreshadow implications for the digital economy, wherein âWeb3â innovations, such as nonâfungible tokens and DAOs, have already shifted the orchestrating role played by platforms in capitalist societies.
Abstract Research summary International business strategy and international management are two distinct but related fields of study. This article explores the connections between them. It shows how internalization theory can act as a bridge between them. The key is to analyze not only core activities, such as production, marketing and R&D, but support services such as human resource management, information technology, and corporate finance. Internalization decisions and location decisions must be analyzed holistically, and diagrammatic techniques show how this can be done. These diagrams reveal the networks of communication and the hierarchical structures that emerge from such decisions. Managerial summary The organizational structure of a multinational enterprise is inherently complex, making it difficult to determine whether one organizational structure is more efficient than another. Delayering, decentralization, and agility are recommended, but what are their practical implications? Internalization theory addresses these problems in a simple and coherent way. It shows that it is not only core activities, namely production, marketing and R&D, that need to be coordinated, but support services too. Decisions on the location and outâsourcing of support services must be aligned with similar decisions on core activities. A diagrammatic analysis is presented that facilitates the solution of these problems.
FeiâYue Wang, Wenwen Ding, Xiao Wang, Jonathan M. Garibaldi ¡ 7 authors
This article discusses the impact and significance of the autonomous science movement and the role and potential uses of intelligent technology in DAO-based decentralized science (DeSci) organizations and operations. What is DeSci? How does it relate the science of team science? What are its potential contributions to multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and/or transdisciplinary studies? Does it have any correspondence to the social movement organizations in traditional social sciences or the cyber movement organizations in the new digital age? Particularly, issues on DeSci to current professional communities, such as IEEE and its societies, conferences, and publications, are addressed, and the effort for the framework and process of DAO-based DeSci for free, fair, and responsibility sensitive sciences is reviewed.
Purpose This study aims to contribute to the early but fervent debate on blockchain and supply networks by proposing a novel theoretical perspective on blockchain adoption grounded on social capital theory. In particular, it seeks to answer the following question: what is the role of social capital in shaping the decision to adopt blockchain in supply networks? Design/methodology/approach Multiple case-studies, based on interviews performed with managers of eight firms, were used. Findings The social capital theory emerged as an additional but necessary lens to investigate blockchain implementation in supply networks. The intuitions proposed highlighted the importance of managersâ sensemaking for investigating technology adoption. Relational capital emerged as a necessary but not sufficient condition to adopt blockchain in supply networks. In addition, it is argued a relationship between competitive opportunities at the firm level and the idea to adopt the blockchain. The opportunity to act as âTertius Gaudensâ or as âTertius Iungensâ information brokers in supply networks should severely affect firmsâ proneness toward the adoption of blockchain solutions. Originality/value This is one of the first studies in the literature investigating blockchain adoption in supply networks from a social capital perspective. It introduces new issues to the debate related to the role of blockchain in the supply chain by discussing the role of goal misalignment and competitive advantage, which emerged as crucial for shaping the decision to adopt blockchain in supply networks.
Blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies have enormous potential for creating business value but have not yet been widely adopted. Enterprise blockchain systems are recognized as solutions to existing operational problems or âpain pointsâ but their potential for delivering value through strategic opportunities is not well understood. Drawing from literature on strategic alliances and the resource-based view of the firm, we identify avenues through which blockchain systems can contribute to a firmâs strategic capabilities and, as a result, to its sustained competitive advantage. We provide a framework for understanding how participation in blockchain solutions can enable companies to build upon existing strategic capabilities, strengthen collaborative capabilities and develop blockchain-specific capabilities. The framework can be useful to firms and service providers for incorporating strategic outcomes into the evaluation of blockchain investment opportunities.
Sohee Kim, Sejun Yoon, Nagarajan Raghavan, Nguyen-Truong Le ¡ 5 authors
The blockchain is a technology with high growth potential that increases social benefits by streamlining procedures, reducing costs, and innovating the way we work. Considering the growth potential of blockchain technologies, countries around the world are attempting to graft into various fields such as finance, logistics, and healthcare, and actively promoting technology development. Tracing and analyzing the developmental trajectories of blockchain technology can give great insight for R&D direction and strategies. We developed an improved knowledge persistence-based main path approach to identify technological trajectories of the blockchain technology. In addition, future technological directions for each sub-technology under blockchain technology were identified by the knowledge unconventionality metric. The results show that the blockchain technology can be divided into five sub-technologies, and each sub-technology has evolved with high technological interactions among other sub-technologies. Based on the last knowledge streams of the main paths, this paper suggests potential future directions for each sub-technology in the blockchain technology.
Since the beginning, humans have worked, and many have sought to do so more productively. Although one can point to many earlier innovations in management, scientific management has its roots in mechanical engineering in the 1880s from the techniques of Frederick Taylor (Crainer, 2003; Drucker, 1993; Kanigel, 1997; Taylor, 1903, 1911). In a natural progression from Adam Smith (1776) and his predecessors, who observed the benefits of labor specialization, Taylor advocated for the separation of managers (not just supervisors, but planners and schedulers) from other workers, making management a technical discipline. He also sought to increase the productivity of workers and machinery by observing, measuring, and developing theories about the best ways of doing work. Although many of Taylor's specific recommendations have not endured, his scientific approach underlies much of the research output in the management academy, which established a scholarly perspective by the 1920s (the first business journal appeared in 1928) and began to flourish post-World War II. In a development that would not surprise Adam Smith, the management academy subsequently divided into specialized disciplinesâsuch as strategy, leadership, entrepreneurship, marketing, human resources, and information systemsâand drew in other relevant ones such as finance and accounting. Along the way, operations management (OM) research occurred under various monikers, including factory management, production management, industrial management, management science, operations research, and decision sciences. 1 To this day, and more so than other management disciplines, OM scholars work in academic departments with highly varied names and participate in a wide variety of professional societies and conferences with diverse emphases and perspectives. Meanwhile, relevant research on managing work has continued in the fields of industrial and mechanical engineering, as well as in engineering management. Over time, conceptions of the scopes and boundaries of these disciplines and nearby fields have evolved. So, what is the scope of the OM discipline now, at the 40th anniversary of the Journal of Operations Management (JOM)? This question is important to consider when determining what topics should fit into JOM, but it is also essential to the community of OM scholars. I suspect that some contemporary conceptions of the scope and extent of OM are too narrow. Herein, I advance a more generous view of OM, one that acknowledges the management of all of the work required to operate an enterprise 2 (and across supply chains)âa work-based view. In his famous book, Taylor (1911) stated that its ambitious purpose was âto show that the fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations.â Ironically, this pervasive view may have impeded the emergence of OM as a field, because, until the mid-1950s, many still equated OM with âvirtually the entire field of industrial management,â and many OM textbooks included chapters on âpersonnel management, finance, marketing, organization and general managementâ (Buffa, 1980, p. 1). By 1980, on the first page of the inaugural issue of JOM, Buffa regarded OM as having finally emerged as âa functional field of management.â Ten years later, however, Meredith and Amoako-Gyampah (1990) noticed that many academicians affiliated with OM still had trouble defining its boundaries. As Hayes (2000, p. 105) later remarked, the discipline of OM does not have clear limits, because operations occur everywhere; they âencompass most of the resource-consuming and value-creating activities within a company.â Over the past 40 years, OM has taken on a wider view with respect to areas such as services, behavioral operations, sustainability, and supply chain management (SCM). Many in OM have embraced SCM especiallyâeven though it is not just âwithin a companyââincorporating it into OM curricula or even rebranding their departments as SCM. Operations and supply chain management (OSCM) has become a common term. While this embrace represents a welcome increase in scope and level of analysis, it has also transferred some momentum and attention away from managing internal operations. How do our teaching materials define the discipline? Let us consider some examples. According to Jacobs and Chase (2017, p. 3), OSCM is âthe design, operation, and improvement of the systems that create and deliver the firm's primary products and services,â and it involves acquiring and managing resources. Heizer and Render (2014, p. 4) defined OM as âthe set of activities that creates value in the form of goods and services by transforming inputs into outputs.â These definitions include terms like âsystemsâ and âset of activitiesâ that imply processes of doing workâprocesses that require, transform, and add value to resources. Indeed, the concept of managing work relates closely to that of managing processes, a concept firmly embedded in OM. According to Swink et al. (2017, p. 1), OM âis the management of processes used to design, supply, produce, and deliver valuable goods and services to customers.â And Krajewski et al. (2013, p. 2) stated that OM ârefers to the systematic design, direction, and control of processes that transform inputs into services and products for internal, as well as external customers.â Holweg, Davies, De Meyer, Lawson, and Schmenner (2018) advocated well for process theory as foundational to OM. Although OM 3 has expanded its scope since 1980, Hayes (2000) cautioned that OM scholars require focus and must impose limits on their own activities, because they must spend a good deal of their professional time on common ground. In search of a solution, Skinner pragmatically stated that OM is essentially what practicing operations managers care about, and about the challenges they face (Hayes, 2000). So, what do practicing operations managers care about, and what challenges do they face? I expect that there are many things of which I am unaware, but I will highlight two key considerations. First, OM is often represented in executive ranks by a chief operating officer (COO). What does a COO do? Where the COO position exists, this person is often the second-in-command after the chief executive officer (CEO) and in charge of implementing a firm's strategy. This is a large role, even in comparison to other C-level executives, and it spans multiple functional areas. âOften, companies turn responsibility for all areas of operations over to the COOâthis typically includes production, marketing and sales, and research and developmentâ (Bennett & Miles, 2006, p. 72). Executing a strategy requires marshaling resources and managing processes across the enterprise and beyond. This is no small role with no shortage of challenges, most of them cross-functional and cross-disciplinary. Does the current scope of OM research cover the full spectrum of these challenges? A second but related consideration pertains to the work and processes within a firm. What if we conceived of a set of processes representing all of the work done in an enterprise? Figure 1 gives a generic example, where the work divides into three categories and a dozen enterprise processes (EPs). Each EP is multifunctionalâfor example, âDevelop Product/Serviceâ properly involves designers, engineers, marketers, financers, accountants, producers, procurers, customer supporters, et al.âso the mapping from EPs to functions is not one-to-one. Figure 1 does not show all of the information and work products flowing among the EPs, although multiple, bilateral flows occur between each, as well as to and from external customers and suppliers. Many companies have their own version of this model, which goes by various names, such as process architecture or enterprise architecture, 4 and gets explained using various metaphors, such as the company genome or operating system. Typically, the COO owns the second leadership process, âManage Company Operations,â which entails integrating and coordinating all of the other EPs. Whereas some may conceive of a broad definition of OM as encompassing just the âCore Value Processes,â a COO must furthermore ensure that all of the firm's âEnabling Processesâ are appropriately integrated into the whole. Indeed, the COO's challenge is to streamline and synchronize the flow of inputs and outputs throughout the company's operating system. With the EPs as the vehicle, the COO drives the company toward its chosen destination (its strategy). The COO is responsible for integrating and coordinating practically all of the work done within the enterprise, and its interactions with external suppliers and customers. The responses have always been along the lines of âwho knows?â Clearly, with the scale and complexity of contemporary operations, practicing operations managers face some immense challenges. Addressing them will require taking a larger view of work, its results, and the processes that assimilate them in enterprises. The process perspective is essential, but it could benefit from expanding in at least five ways. First, as discussed above, all EPsânot just âProduce and Distribute Product/Serviceâârequire attention, visibility, integration, coordination, synchronization, management, and improvement. This will require approaching some other disciplines (e.g., marketing, sales, engineering, finance, accounting, information technologies, and human resources) from a work-activity- and work-product-based perspective, to understand the flow of the actions and interactions required to transform valuable inputs into more valuable outputs in their areas. This is not intended to usurp their work or invade their domains, but rather to integrate with it, because that is sorely needed, and who better to do it than us? As Buffa (1980, p. 2) stated, âwe have seldom attempted to deal with interfunctional relationships, though I feel that we do this as well or better than our colleagues in other functional disciplines.â JOM's founding editor Lee Krajewski noted, âThinking of operations management issues from the perspective of their relationships to the entire enterprise saved the field in the 1980sâ (Meredith, Krajewski, Hill, & Handfield, 2002, p. 4). We can view OM from a COO's perspective, as the integration, synchronization, and management of most processes across the entire enterprise. Second, some conceive of processes only as formal approaches to be followed, rather than as an objective, observer-independent reality. Processes exist even when they have not been mapped, modeled, or standardized. I tell my students that, in their working careers, if they are ever asked, âDo you have a process for that?,â to always say âyesââbecause if work is being done and results are being produced, then there is a way that is happening. That way may not be documented, efficient, effective, or consistent, but it exists. The process is out there. Working processes need to be discovered, described, and understood before they can be improved, controlled, and prescribed. Quite a bit of work is needed merely to describe some of the important activities, practices, processes, and operating systems utilized in diverse organizations. Only then can we begin to sink our teeth into developing better theories about how best to manage them. Third, we need to investigate processes across the full continuum of work, from purely repetitive tasks like mass production to unique, one-time, novel tasks (e.g., some projects). All types of work break down into a network of related activities (i.e., a process) that is supposed to yield a result of value. Yet, I still see some making a false dichotomy between projects and processes. Of course, there are differences. Project processes often entail a flow of information rather than physical components. And project processes should be analyzed differently than repetitive processesâfor example, with throughput time (critical path) rather than capacity (bottleneck) as the primary constraintâbut both may be modeled as activity networks (Adler, Mandelbaum, Nguyen, & Schwerer, 1995; Browning & Ramasesh, 2007). It would be useful to develop a more unified theory of managing workflows across various kinds of process architectures. Fourth, OM scholars tend to focus on existing, mature, steady-state operational systems. Most give little attention to the genesis of such systems. How should operations begin and grow, from entrepreneurial startups to mature enterprises? What process architectures and operating systems make sense for a small, fast-moving startup; a stable, 50-person business; a growing, 200-person organization; and so on? What does OM contribute to making new ventures more efficient, effective, and likely to succeed? OM scholars could work with entrepreneurship scholars and practitioners to understand the needs, structures, and flows of work at varied scales and evolutionary rates. Fifth, to what extent should the process perspectiveâindeed, even OM theoryâextend toward the âmicroâ level of individual workers? For example, self-productivity guru David Allen's book Getting Things Done (Allen, 2001) discusses how to manage personal activities, projects, and workflows. Should OM theory guide and inform individual work (and vice versa) as well as companies and supply chains? That was certainly part of Taylor's stated ambition for his 1911 book (q.v., âfrom our simplest individual actsâ), yet much of the research on the management of work at the individual level seems to occur outside of the OM discipline. For these reasons, I see room to expand OM's process perspective in macro and micro directions. I see OM broadly as managing work to produce valuable results. Expanding this a bit, we could state that OM entails managing work, using resources and tools, to produce results (physical or digital products, processes, and/or services), all with particular goals. Each of these itemsâwork, resources/tools, results, and goalsâas well as the organizations of people involvedâis a kind of system (Browning, Fricke, & Negele, 2006). Figure 2 depicts the situation. OM tends to focus on the process, the system of work actions and interactions (often including the resources and tools employed), but this is merely the nexus of the systems that execute (organizations of people with behaviors), emerge from (result), and guide (goals) that processâall of which are enmeshed in a context/environment. 5 Each of these systems merits the attention of OM scholars, and certainly the implications of the systems' interactions and coevolution would help generate more powerful and integrative theories. We must double down on Chase's (1980, p. 12) admonition to study broader, system-wide issues. (His point at the time was merely to include people as well as equipment, but the intent is easily expanded.) For example, a firm's capabilities to produce particular kinds of results are likely due to appropriate configurations of people, processes, and tools. Improved operations require much more than better, faster workers and equipment, because how activities and resources are organized and managed makes a huge difference (Schmenner, 2015). 6 We must consider operations as complex, multilayered networks of processes connected to people, tools, results, goals, and contextsâsometimes with decentralized controlsâand even facilities, firms, and to OM to such as operations, and other and and services that expanding of across such areas will require working with other disciplines, including management, information engineering, and so in OM that as an or the is that important topics will be with or For example, should of be done only by management scholars (e.g., & rather than OM OM research often outside the OM example, and study of work science, industrial and other areas of management are processes, time management, project management, management, and many other such topics that well within the of OM. of the from contemporary organizations in and information systems scholars may be doing a better of useful about OM issues from these Hayes (2000, p. that the discipline of OM to a that people outside the field of OM doing our many of the topics we have our was more must integrate EPs across functions in can we do the in our own we of our management rather than merely a false sense of past other & OM scholars should the on effective, how can we What should our and focus a practicing operations care about of a when so many practitioners are too to care about some things that they I that we can our view of OM focus on the management of work, a work-based view. in processes, and as a of be more as discussed A process should a result of value to its and how to in process and/or on the of value in a particular which the not entails the value by an the purpose and of good a of of OM on the of operations research, the founding of for the into OM (Buffa, 1980, p. we should expand our view of the work to be The of work to as more and more contemporary operations work. According to p. is the only The of have not but they have become He goes on to state that our challenge is to increase the of work. This in well with the concept of processes and information as has production processes over the past will most likely transform work processes over the of this These a of research For example, as with factory will too as their to process improvement are a processes at the of and How do and relationships in workflows How should the work of a as the one by the be and managed for and What innovations are in work to these types of well within a broad view of that includes areas such as process will be relevant to practicing and operations With this broad of OM as managing work to produce valuable results, what of management are not we the of in the management we would be to on the of the other departments in business While we to in integrative research, it could focus on how work flows to and from the activities in strategy, marketing, sales, human resources, finance, accounting, and so than on how activities occur OM theory useful on the and of such a COO the role in a or OM focus more on how all the of an enterprise fit rather than on the of course, such as production, and What work products and results do various activities contribute to an enterprise, and what make them more or on we not only in but in the academy as How do organizations and supply How do they And how does this to better I have defined OM broadly as managing work to produce valuable results. The point of this is not to for taking Taylor's or about scientific management to the am I an OM perspective where and managing work is not the of is still of room for our disciplines in the academy to make their work is and to it within and across organization or or and supply all managers must that down What work should be is it What should its result How to do Where to do or what should do should it and How do we what we need to do the many the and of resources to appropriate results even more Meanwhile, we face the of and of both and and productivity must not be to become in benefits to some It is essential to consider not just their on and and but also their appropriate in to and respect for This will require to (e.g., et and of value. Indeed, OM is a more than merely and managing suppliers. OM is an discipline with no shortage of and challenges to so will require integrating across other management disciplines in a more way, and taking on more of the of a The of this is to our community to more broadly about the challenges and A work-based view gives and focus to these it to things an efficient, effective, consistent, and is no better approach than
Blockchain technology has received significant attention following the introduction of Bitcoin in 2008. In particular, the financial services industry has sought to capitalize on the underlying technology, known as distributed ledger technology, to generate new products, services, and innovative business models. In this article, through an in-depth investigation of the technology innovation evaluation process, we utilize a grounded theory approach to study 12 financial service organizations. This article is unique in that it explores the technology evaluation process concurrently as decision makers reacted to the potential uses, as opposed to a retrospective view after a technology innovation had been adopted. Evidence suggests that, organizations applied a specific process to determine the value of blockchain that consisted of understand, organize, and test, which collectively helped create the proof-of-value model. Surprisingly, we find that financial service organizations tend to view blockchain innovation as a lower priority due to the lack of a clear path to value. Additionally, financial service organizations consistently leverage industry consortiums to link to external knowledge and help with the decision-making process. Our findings have direct implications to both innovation researchers as well as practitioners seeking to evaluate blockchain technology.
Holacracy can be seen as a strategy for decentralized management and organizational governance in which authority and decision-making are delivered by means of autonomous and self-organizing groups or teams. Although the topic is not new, its application in software development has not a long history behind it. This study is meant to give an overview on holacracy for software development teams, its features, benefits gained, as well as its challenges. To do so, in this paper, authors present a multivocal literature review in which a panoply of sources including research and grey literature is reviewed. Our study shows that adapting holacracy towards self-organizing software development teams can result in increased product transparency, improved decision making, more efficient progress, and a higher sense of individual responsibility. However, there are reported challenges such as implementation difficulty and increase in employee outflows.
Friedrich Holotiuk, Francesco Pisani, JĂźrgen Moormann
Blockchain is receiving considerable attention among practitioners and academics. However, a detailed analysis investigating how the impact of blockchain is going to unfold is still missing. Our article sets out to assess the radicalness of blockchain at an early stage of its development and substantiates the analysis with evidence from the payments industry. We start by distilling five key aspects of radical innovation from extant literature. Our analysis of blockchain then focuses on the payments industry, which represents a major business field of banking and the cradle of this technology. The results of a Delphi study provide 17 statements about the current development of blockchain. The statements deliver insights into the impact of blockchain on the payments industry and reveal the radicalness of the technology. Based on these insights, we investigate how blockchain affects the five key aspects of radical innovation and develop contributions from an innovation managementâs perspective.