On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Barton
Friedland
and
Volker
Frank
October,
2008
ABSTRACT
Market
forces
demand
that
businesses
adapt
both
strategically
and
operationally,
but
effective
results
are
often
difficult
to
achieve.
Healthy
organizational
adaptation
is
inextricably
linked
to
culture,
business
context,
and
the
information
technology
an
organization
rests
upon.
When
organizational
adaptation
is
healthy,
the
result
is
the
creation
of
sustainable
value.
In
this
paper
we
present
our
practice‐based
ideas
around
an
integrated
approach
to
establishing
healthy,
progressively
adaptable
organizations
that
incorporate
organizational,
cultural,
and
technical
aspects
through
radically
simple
approaches
that
minimize
risk
and
investment.
These
approaches
are
intended
for
application
in
context
–
and
not
intended
for
all
organizations
or
all
situations.
Instead,
our
approach
points
toward
a
way
of
thinking
about
solving
business
challenges
iteratively
and
incrementally.
We
argue
that
our
pragmatic
approach
supports
the
creation
of
organizational
cultures
that
can
innovate
and
adapt
to
create
sustainable
value.
We
believe
that
the
trends
we
identify
and
the
solution
approach
we
propose
in
this
paper
will
become
mainstream
practice
within
the
next
10
years.
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
“All
science
is
a
metaphor,
a
hypothetical
description
of
how
to
think
of
a
reality
we
can
never
fully
know.”
Margaret
Wheatley
(2006)
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
ii
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Table
of
Contents
The
Challenge ..............................................................................................................1
Our
Solution
Approach ................................................................................................2
Transparency
supports
Integration...................................................................................................................3
Two
Primary
Goals....................................................................................................................................................3
Detect
Qualitative
Changes
Early........................................................................................................................4
Communication
Arenas...........................................................................................................................................4
A
Context
for
Creating
and
Capturing
Value ..................................................................................................5
The
Dynamic
Learning
Culture ............................................................................................................................6
Solution
Summary .....................................................................................................................................................6
Appendix
A:
Research
Background...............................................................................8
‘Dualism’
and
its
Role
in
Strategic
Planning...................................................................................................8
The
Rise
of
Ethnographic
Methods ................................................................................................................. 10
The
Delta
Model
and
its
Impact
on
the
Culture
of
an
Organization.................................................. 11
Toward
a
Theory
of
Organizational
Socialization .................................................................................... 14
Knowledge,
Strategy,
and
Mission
Bases
of
an
Organizational
Role ................................................ 16
Works
Cited ............................................................................................................... 19
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
iii
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
The
Challenge
Businesses
today
face
markets
and
operating
environments
that
change
at
an
unprecedented
rate.
These
forces
increase
the
demand
on
organizations
to
develop
their
ability
to
adapt
on
two
levels:
closely
managing
their
strategic
vision
with
its
objectives
and
goals,
and
making
improvements
on
the
operational
level,
where
the
organization
executes
and
implements
its
strategies.
Businesses
that
possess
an
organizational
culture
of
learning
coupled
with
the
ability
and
willingness
to
change
behavior
as
required
are
better
positioned
to
adapt
well
on
both
levels.
A
key
component
that
drives
the
fast
pace
of
change
and
allows
organizations
to
manage
it
at
the
same
time,
are
the
information
systems
that
increase
the
amount
of
information
that
can
be
collected,
analyzed,
and
communicated.
These
systems
can
decrease
not
only
the
overall
time
it
takes
to
capture
information,
such
as
orders,
products
and
services
provided,
but
also
when
somebody
learns
about
it
and
the
potential
to
make
changes
based
on
this
feedback.
The
flood
of
information
is
both
a
blessing
and
a
curse.
Who
has
the
time
and
resources
to
work
with
all
the
information
that
is
continuously
created?
How
is
it
shared
effectively?
We
all
know
what
happens
when
information
is
managed
poorly,
yet
this
is
often
not
a
technical
issue;
many
of
the
most
critical
challenges
are
found
in
organizational
and
cultural
aspects
of
the
business
environment
(Lorenzi
&
Riley,
2003)(Yeo,
2002).
Symptoms
of
such
conditions
include
ineffective
meetings,
departments
working
at
cross
purposes,
turf
politics
where
knowledge
and
information
is
used
to
manipulate
decisions,
and
gaps
in
understanding
between
business
management
and
operational
demands.
All
of
these
symptoms
contribute
to
an
environment
that
increases
the
risk
of
falling
short
of
business
objectives
(Upton
&
Staats,
2008).
Out
of
necessity,
companies
invest
significant
assets
into
their
technology
infrastructure.
Unfortunately,
many
do
not
realize
desired
gains
on
that
investment
and
sometimes
have
to
manage
spectacular
failures
(Charette,
2005)(Kotter,
1995)(McConnell,
2006).
While
IT
project
success
rates
have
improved
significantly
over
the
past
10
years,
the
Standish
Group
report
that
15%
of
all
projects
fail
while
51%
are
over
time,
over
budget,
and
/
or
lacking
critical
features
and
requirements
(Standish,
2004).
Getting
technology
investments
right
is
still
a
major
challenge,
but
also
points
to
a
number
of
interrelated
issues:
• • • • •
How
clearly
does
the
technology
group
understand
the
business,
its
strategic
goals,
and
the
overall
direction
of
the
company?
How
well
do
the
business
leaders
understand
available
technologies
and
the
untapped
opportunities
they
represent?
Is
there
the
required
technical
expertise
to
develop
and
implement
new
technology?
Is
there
the
required
business
leadership
established
to
guide
the
required
feature
set?
Is
there
leadership
to
manage
the
organizational
changes
that
technology
invariably
introduces,
so
that
the
technology
is
fully
embraced
and
leveraged
by
the
people
using
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
•
it?
Is
the
technology
itself
designed
for
adaptability,
so
that
it
can
evolve
as
the
business
needs
change?
At
what
point
do
you
abandon
previous
solutions
and
transition
to
new
technology?
While
these
issues
are
complex
enough
in
relatively
stable
situations,
they
become
more
pressing
during
times
of
major
shifts
in
the
market
or
disruptive
organizational
changes,
such
as
mergers,
strategic
partnerships,
or
fast
growth
projections
with
new
products
and
new
territories.
Our
Solution
Approach
Our
solution
approach
can
be
simply
expressed
as
the
following
equation:
We
envision
a
progressively
adaptable
organization
supported
and
enabled
by
complementary
technology
that
creates
radically
simple
business
solutions
in
which
each
step
is
only
as
large
as
needs
dictate,
with
as
little
risk
and/or
investment
as
possible.
The
benefits
of
our
solution
approach
include:
•
The
establishment
of
a
decision‐making
culture
characterized
by
progressive
and
adaptive
incrementalism;
•
Enhancement
of
collective
problem
solving
abilities;
•
Increased
transparency;
•
Increased
organizational
adaptability.
To
meet
these
interrelated
challenges
we
offer
interdisciplinary
services
that
span
the
organizational,
cultural,
operational,
and
technological
aspects
of
an
organization.
An
integrated
approach
to
strategic
planning
that
encompasses
the
organizational,
cultural
and
technical
aspects
represents
a
significant
evolution
from
traditional
notions
of
strategic
planning.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
2
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Research
identifies
cultural
aspects,
such
as
communication
style,
cultural
differences,
organizational
issues,
and
leadership
(Lorenzi
&
Riley,
2003)(Upton
&
Staats,
2008)(Yeo,
2002)
as
the
underlying
factors
behind
failure
to
achieve
results.
With
respect
to
technical
challenges,
Upton
in
particular
argues
that
unless
business
leaders
work
to
develop
relationships
with
Information
Technology
(IT)
as
a
partner
rather
than
an
ancillary
player,
knowledge
transfer
between
the
two
groups
is
diminished,
resulting
in
“missed
opportunities
and
suboptimal
performance”
(2008).
Transparency
supports
Integration
A
critical
aspect
to
maintaining
the
quality
and
relevance
of
information
as
transitions
in
a
system
increase
is
transparency.
Management
needs
to
know
what
information
is
gathered
to
inform
strategies
which
then
guide
and
support
the
process
of
improving
information
gathering
in
strategic
areas.
At
the
same
time,
employees
that
deal
with
the
details
of
operations
and
customer
interactions
need
a
clear
sense
of
the
strategic
direction
of
the
company
in
order
to
identify
relevant
information.
Information
systems
also
often
span
organizational
structures
and
operational
functions,
which
enables
information
sharing
across
product
life
cycles.
Hence,
businesses
depend
heavily
on
the
integrating
qualities
of
information
systems
that
close
the
gap
between
strategic
planning,
decision‐making,
and
operational
realities,
as
well
as
supporting
operational
efficiencies
across
life
cycles.
One
of
the
key
elements
of
managing
information
is
relevance;
which
part
of
it
has
meaningful
impact
on
the
success
of
the
organization
and
who
needs
to
know
about
it?
Information
is
typically
generated
on
the
operational
level,
analyzed,
and
summaries
are
escalated
to
management.
How
quickly
does
this
process
work?
How
well
is
information
prioritized
and
kept
relevant
on
this
journey
upwards
where
it
can
inform
strategic
decision‐making?
Our
intent
with
this
approach
is
to
reduce
the
cycle
time
of
information
flow
from
months
to
days
and
then
moving
as
close
to
real‐time
as
is
sustainably
feasible.
Two
Primary
Goals
Organizations
need
to
develop
capabilities
that
operate
across
strategic
and
operational
contexts
in
support
of
two
primary
goals:
The
first
is
to
identify
and
execute
on
investments
in
technology
that
increase
its
value
as
a
strategic
asset.
The
second
is
to
enhance
the
learning
and
growth
capabilities
of
the
corporate
culture
as
a
whole,
increasing
the
strategic
value
created
by
the
people
in
the
organization.
We
see
these
two
goals
as
having
a
reciprocal
relationship
critical
to
creating
significant
and
lasting
value.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
3
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
We
suggest
looking
at
businesses
primarily
as
organized
human
systems
that
includes
both
strategic
and
operational
aspects.
These
aspects
are
best
viewed
as
concurrent
rather
than
linear
work
streams
because
it
is
then
explicitly
understood
by
all
that
these
aspects
work
together,
creating
an
environment
where
increased
integration
and
coordination
are
the
norm.
One
way
to
leverage
this
concurrency
is
by
effectively
tapping
the
right
feedback
sources.
An
underlying
principle
of
our
solution
approach
is
to
employ
creative,
innovative
methods
whereby
the
organization
monitors
and
utilizes
its
feedback
sources
to
refine
its
strategic
and
operational
activities
at
an
ever‐increasing
velocity.
Detect
Qualitative
Changes
Early
To
achieve
these
two
primary
goals
we
borrow
from
both
lean
manufacturing
and
agile
software
development
traditions.
These
domains
tell
us
that
quantitative
order
of
magnitude
changes
create
attendant
qualitative
changes.
Beck
puts
it
this
way:
“Thus,
the
change
from
the
10
KPH
of
a
horse
to
the
100
KPH
of
a
car
didn’t
just
result
in
faster
transportation,
it
(eventually)
changed
peoples’
attitudes
towards
transportation,
and
the
role
mobility
played
in
their
lives”.
(Beck,
2008)
The
solution
approach
must
therefore
be
able
to
detect
and
integrate
these
qualitative
changes
as
they
occur
so
that
the
organization
can
make
productive
use
of
them.
Here
again,
agile
methodologies
provide
proven
processes
for
addressing
these
requirements,
such
as
increasing
transparency.
By
putting
tools
and
processes
into
place
that
increase
transparency,
rate
of
change
can
be
safely
increased
over
time
in
smaller
increments,
yielding
a
more
dynamic
and
agile
organization.
As
an
organization
maneuvers
through
the
market,
every
action
within
the
organization
provides
an
opportunity
to
survey
the
environment
from
a
new
perspective,
thus
exposing
it
to
more
contextually
relevant
information
from
which
it
may
learn.
Because
competing
organizations
are
engaging
in
the
same
environment,
organizations
that
develop
the
ability
to
learn
more,
faster,
will
create
a
sustainable
competitive
advantage.
Communication
Arenas
We
also
keep
in
mind
that
as
a
business
develops
its
strategic
plan,
it
is
also
defining
the
relationships,
boundaries
and
thresholds
of
the
operational
processes
within
the
organization
such
that
they
remain
congruent
with
key
decisions
made
by
management.
In
general,
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
4
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
operations
personnel
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
information
that
most
meaningfully
tracks
the
operational
activities.
Therefore,
the
organization
needs
to
develop
communication
arenas
in
which
knowledge
transfer
between
operations
and
planning
management
can
occur.
Our
solution
approach
therefore
employs
both
face‐to‐face
and
electronic
communication
arenas
that
greatly
enrich
the
relationship
between
strategic
and
operational
aspects
(Mamykina,
Candy,
&
Edmonds,
2002).
Here
strategy
represents
the
“what”
that
the
business
is
deciding
to
do,
while
operations
represents
the
“how”
the
business
will
do
it.
It
is
within
and
through
the
operational
processes
that
the
strategic
plan
of
the
organization
becomes
actualized.
To
support
the
human
system
of
business,
we
advocate
that
technology
become
an
increasingly
strategic
asset
within
an
organization.
Yet,
a
variety
of
research
points
to
cultural
prerequisites
that
must
be
met
for
this
to
occur
and
which
our
solution
approach
addresses
(Nardi,
1993)(Prahalad,
2002)(Christensen,
2003).
For
example,
it
is
essential
for
business
management
to
be
able
to
creatively
employ
technology
at
the
right
time
for
the
right
reason
in
an
ongoing
process
that
increases
understanding
about
what
such
technology
can
do
for
the
business.
Reflexively,
information
systems
groups
within
organizations
must
have
processes
in
place
to
increase
their
understanding
of
the
business,
its
vision,
strategy,
objectives,
valued
competencies,
structure,
policies,
rewards,
and
corporate
culture.
A
prerequisite
step
toward
creating
a
dynamic
learning
culture
that
can
thrive
in
modern
business
conditions
is
therefore
the
establishment
of
an
organization
with
systems
of
healthy
practices
that
facilitate
ongoing
and
increased
understanding
between
the
business
management,
information
systems
groups,
and
operational
personnel.
In
order
for
a
business
to
create
quantifiable
Return
on
Investment
(ROI)
from
information
systems,
IT
must
be
seen
and
used
as
a
value
center
(Venkatraman,
1997).
A
Context
for
Creating
and
Capturing
Value
Our
solution
approach
provides
a
context
in
which
value
can
be
defined
and
captured
in
an
incremental
and
ongoing
fashion
in
a
way
that
allows
comparisons
across
initiatives
and
projects.
Developing
an
organizational
culture
akin
to
what
we
have
described
will
provide
a
company
a
measurable
competitive
advantage,
an
advantage
from
which
the
ROI
from
IT
will
be
derived
in
its
operational
effectiveness,
customer
targeting,
and
innovation.
As
an
analogy,
imagine
a
business
landscape
in
which
most
businesses
store
records
in
paper
filing
systems.
In
such
an
environment,
possessing
a
more
advanced
technology,
such
as
an
electronic
records
management
system
is
only
an
advantage
if
that
organization
has,
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
5
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
somewhere
within
it,
access
to
an
understanding
of
how
to
use
computers
and
solid
information
architecture.
We
observe
that
new
tools
are
being
developed
to
solve
more
and
more
complex
problems,
but
the
use
of
these
tools
can
only
be
advantageous
to
the
extent
that
they
will
increase
the
organization’s
attendant
capabilities.
Said
another
way,
if
the
organization
does
not
know
how
to
learn
very
well,
adaptation
is
blocked.
Thus,
our
solution
approach
focuses
on
supporting
organizations
in
becoming
increasingly
self‐organized
and
adaptive
to
promote
an
atmosphere
of
learning
and
growth.
The
Dynamic
Learning
Culture
Our
solution
approach
enhances
both
human
and
technology
capabilities
of
an
organization
through
the
establishment
of
what
we
refer
to
as
a
dynamic
learning
culture.
We
use
this
term
to
refer
to
a
culture
actively
engaged
in:
1. Strategic
planning
(“what”);
2. Operational
execution
(“how”);
3. Actively
employing
human
and
technology‐based
feedback
sources
to
enhance
organizational
learning
as
an
integral
part
of
the
previous
activities.
Such
a
culture
operates
within
the
business
context
through
processes
that
support
a
strategic
mindset
as
part
of
the
awareness
of
day‐to‐day
activities.
Solution
Summary
To
summarize,
business
management
is
involved
in
strategy
development,
in
making
key
decisions
about
strategy,
and
in
monitoring
the
successful
implementation
of
such
strategy.
These
dictate
and
inform
operational
activities
that
are
concerned
with
creating
business
value
and
actualizing
return
on
investment.
We
see
the
axes
of
strategy
and
operations
as
a
ripe
intersection
for
enhancing
organizational
learning
by
providing
mechanisms
(both
cultural
and
technological)
to
make
the
planning
process
more
transparent.
In
this
paper
we
have
sought
to
present
our
approach
toward
integrating
the
strategy,
organizational,
and
process
aspects
of
a
business
concern.
The
ideas
presented
here
are
not
prescriptive
but
instead
designed
to
point
toward
a
way
of
organizing
thought
as
well
as
people
in
an
organization
so
that
the
organization
itself
can
adapt
to
the
challenges
it
faces.
We
are
very
much
aware
that
this
paper
does
not
provide
a
specific
solution
approach.
In
fact,
we
don't
apply
these
ideas
in
every
situation
and
for
all
companies.
To
work
well,
these
ideas
and
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
6
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
qualities
of
working
are
contextual
and
need
to
be
applied
as
building
on
each
other
as
well
as
evolving
over
time
at
a
pace
the
people
and
the
organizational
culture
is
adapting
to
them.
Our
attention
always
goes
towards
making
the
smallest
and
simplest
of
changes
that
provide
the
greatest
value
in
effectiveness
and
maximum
return
on
investment
in
the
shortest
possible
time
period.
In
our
experience
every
organization
finds
its
unique
path
by
following
these
principles
and
they
become
its
way
of
life.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
7
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
Our
pragmatic
approach
through
which
businesses
reach
their
goals
and
solve
problems
is
borne
out
of
over
20
years
of
practical,
hands‐on
industry
experience,
and
supported
by
a
wide
range
of
interdisciplinary
research
that
validates
and
informs
our
practices,
providing
useful
frames
for
the
effective
management
practices.
Research
areas
we
draw
from
include:
• • • • • • • • • •
Computer
Science
Cultural
Anthropology
Cognitive
Science
Human‐Computer
Interaction
Information
Theory
Learning
Science
Management
Science
Organizational
Theory
Phenomenology
Sociology
The
relationship
between
these
various
domains
is,
in
our
view,
much
more
than
a
simple
notion
that
blends
ideas
together,
but
instead
provides
a
basis
or
grounding
of
the
understandings
that
each
perspective
employs.
Our
position
is
that
each
of
these
domains
can
play
an
equally
significant
role
in
developing
paths
towards
business
goals
and
in
solving
business
problems.
Our
approach
is
radically
different
in
that
we
draw
from
each
domain,
offering
something
fundamentally
different
than
any
of
the
individual
perspectives.
We
present
below
some
of
the
highlights
of
the
research
that
has
most
substantially
informed
the
development
of
or
confirmed
what
we
had
already
established
in
our
solution
approach.
‘Dualism’
and
its
Role
in
Strategic
Planning
Paap
and
Katz
discuss
“the
paradoxical
challenges
of
‘dualism,’
that
is,
functioning
efficiently
today
while
innovating
effectively
for
tomorrow.
Corporations,
no
matter
how
they
are
structured,
must
manage
both
sets
of
concerns
simultaneously”
(Paap
&
Katz,
2004).
They
assert
that
organizations
more
than
ever
before
are
faced
with
the
apparent
conflicting
challenges
of
dualism,
that
is,
functioning
efficiently
today
to
sustain
the
success
of
their
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
8
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
business
models
while
also
incorporating
the
disruptive1
innovations
that
will
enable
them
to
be
competitive
in
the
future
(Christensen,
2003).
They
believe
that
business
organizations
must
be
concerned
with
the
financial
success
and
market
penetration
of
their
current
mix
of
products
and
services,
but
they
must
also
focus
on
their
long‐term
capabilities
to
develop
or
commercialize
what
will
emerge
as
the
most
customer‐valued
technical
advancements
into
future
offerings
in
a
rapid,
timely,
and
responsive
manner.
According
to
Paap
and
Katz,
corporations
today,
no
matter
how
they
are
structured
and
organized,
must
find
ways
to
internalize
and
manage
both
sets
of
concerns
simultaneously.
In
other
words,
they
must
simultaneously
build
internally
contradictory
and
inconsistent
structures,
competencies,
and
to
some
extent,
cultures:
fostering
more
efficient
and
reliable
processes
while
encouraging
the
experiments
and
explorations
needed
to
re‐create
the
future.
The
challenge
is
that
such
innovative
activities
are
all
too
often
seen
by
those
running
the
organization
as
a
threat
to
its
current
priorities,
practices,
and
basis
of
success.
There
is
usually
much
disagreement
within
a
company
operating
in
an
intense
and
competitive
marketplace
as
to
how
to
carry
out
this
dualism.
Amidst
the
demands
of
everyday
requirements,
decision
makers
representing
different
parts
of
the
organization
rarely
agree
on
the
relative
merits
of
allocating
resources
and
management
attention
among
the
range
of
competing
projects
and
technical
activities;
that
is,
those
that
directly
benefit
the
organization’s
more
salient
and
immediate
needs
versus
those
that
might
possibly
be
of
import
sometime
in
the
future.
Paap
and
Katz
argue
that
the
key
to
avoiding
the
negative
effects
of
disruptive
technologies
is
to
focus
primarily
on
what
is
happening
with
customer
and
operational
needs.
In
our
experience,
ethnographic
approaches
(see
below)
are
an
excellent
fit
to
address
these
concerns
and
to
support
the
prescribed
focus.
1
The
disruption
in
the
term
‘disruptive
technologies’
is
not
an
attribute
of
technology.
Rather,
it
describes
the
effect
that
some
technologies
appear
to
have
on
markets
affected
by
technology
based
innovation
and
the
frequent
downturn
in
the
success
of
major
firms
that
compete
in
those
markets
when
they
fail
to
adopt
the
new
technology
in
a
timely
way.
It
is
a
disruption
in
the
existing
business
model:
what
do
we
sell;
how
do
we
make
it;
how
do
we
sell,
distribute
and
support
it;
to
whom;
and
against
whom?
It
often
is
accompanied
by
a
disruption
in
the
fortunes
of
firms
using
the
old
business
model,
because
they
and
often
their
customers,
fail
to
recognize
that
new
needs
are
driving
the
business.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
9
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
The
Rise
of
Ethnographic
Methods
One
of
the
most
pervasive
trends
in
Human‐Computer
Interaction
(HCI)
research
and
practice
in
the
last
20
years
has
been
the
increasing
influence
of
sociological
perspectives
in
the
design
and
evaluation
of
interactive
systems
(Dourish
&
Button,
1998).
These
perspectives
are
generally
employed
to
study
the
settings
under
which
work
is
conducted,
to
inform
and
guide
the
design
of
systems,
and
to
evaluate
those
systems
under
actual
working
conditions.
Within
HCI,
sociological
perspectives
can
complement
but
have
been
known
to
fundamentally
challenge
the
technical
and
psychological
perspectives
around
which
the
field
was
first
organized.
Dourish
and
Button
assert
that
the
greatest
influence
of
this
trend
has
been
observed
within
the
domain
of
Computer‐Supported
Cooperative
Work
(CSCW),
which,
due
to
its
focus
on
the
interaction
between
individuals
and
groups,
carries
an
inherent
sociological
component.
Sociological
perspectives
and
methods
have
thus
become
increasingly
accepted
and
even
expected
in
these
domains.
From
a
research
perspective,
perhaps
the
strongest
guiding
influences
in
support
of
ethnomethodology
for
use
outside
the
field
of
cultural
anthropology
came
from
work
in
the
late
1980s
produced
respectively
by
Suchman
and
Van
Maanen.
What
is
particularly
interesting
about
the
way
each
scholar’s
work
has
developed
is
that
where
Suchman,
in
her
1987
Plans
and
Situated
Actions:
The
problem
of
human‐machine
communication
focused
and
effected
a
change
in
thought
in
the
space
of
HCI
through
the
injection
of
sociological
and
anthropological
perspectives,
Van
Maanen
in
his
1988
work,
Tales
of
the
Field:
On
Writing
Ethnography,
essentially
wrote
a
manual
for
how
to
write
ethnography
for
fields
other
than
the
one
for
which
it
was
originally
intended
and
has
spent
most
of
his
professional
career
applying
sociological
perspectives
to
the
problem
space
of
business
management.
Van
Maanen’s
work
with
Schein2
on
the
development
of
a
theory
of
organizational
socialization
(Van
Maanen
&
Schein,
1977)
is
a
key
example
of
the
kinds
of
results
that
can
be
achieved
through
the
use
of
sociological
perspectives
in
the
domain
of
Management
Science.
Moeran’s
work
follows
this
up
with
a
more
explicit
focus
on
“strategic
exchanges
between
people
and
things”(Moeran,
2007).
2
Schein
generally
attributed
with
coining
the
term
“corporate
culture”
‐
see
Schein,
E.
H.
(1985).
Organizational
Culture
and
Leadership
(1st
Edition
ed.).
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey‐Bass
Publishers.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
10
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
Suchman,
for
her
part,
presented
in
her
work
a
revealing
and
powerful
critique
of
what,
at
the
time,
were
the
de
facto
approaches
toward
user
modeling
and
planning‐based
approaches
common
between
the
HCI
and
Artificial
Intelligence
(AI)
arenas
of
Computer
Science.
One
of
the
main
arguments
she
presents
in
her
work
is
that
plans
are
but
one
of
many
resources
that
guide
and
influence
sequential
activity
in
the
moment
and
that
they
do
not
lay
out
a
sequence
of
work
that
is
blindly
interpreted
(Suchman,
1987).
Thus,
the
importance
of
not
overlooking
the
“situated
action”,
that
activity
which
occurs
in
situ,
in
order
to
determine
whether
a
design
actually
works,
or
better
still,
truly
meets
the
needs
of
the
users
for
whom
it
is
intended,
has
produced
a
number
of
“fieldwork”
methods
now
common
within
the
field
of
HCI,
including
ethnography
and
participatory
design.
In
contrast,
Van
Maanen’s
work
is
not
so
much
a
different
perspective
on
ethnography
per
se
from
Suchman
or
others
such
as
Nardi’s
interesting
fieldwork
approach
to
answering
the
question
as
to
why
only
some
people
show
interest
in
learning
programming
languages
while
others
choose
instead
to
learn
how
to
understand
other
formal
languages
such
as
knitting
notation
(which
happen
to
be
codified
in
a
manner
quite
similar
to
computer
assembly
language)
(Nardi,
1993).
All
these
works
provide
valuable
qualitative
insight
and
a
view
into
human
culture
that
enhances
our
ways
of
approaching
work.
The
Delta
Model
and
its
Impact
on
the
Culture
of
an
Organization
Hax
and
Wilde’s
Delta
model,
based
on
empirical
research,
reveals
three
potential
strategic
options
for
companies:
Best
Product,
Customer
Solution,
and
System
Lock‐In
(Hax
&
Wilde
II,
1999).
We
further
assert
that
the
choice
of
a
particular
strategic
option
by
a
company
also
sets
into
motion
the
development
of
an
attendant
culture
to
support
it.
The
best‐product
strategic
option
is
based
on
classic
forms
of
competition
through
low‐cost
or
differentiation.
This
strategic
option
is
based
on
an
unending
quest
to
bond
with
the
customer
and
thus
has
an
attendant
effect
on
the
corporate
culture.
It
is
generally
associated
with
the
ability
to
introduce
products
rapidly,
being
the
first
to
market,
and
establishing
a
so‐called
dominant
design.
The
customer
solutions
strategic
option
is
based
on
a
wider
offering
of
products
and
services
that
satisfies
most,
if
not
all
of
the
customer’s
needs.
However,
the
focus
here
is
on
the
customer’s
economics
as
opposed
to
the
economics
of
the
product.
Customer
bonding
is
also
intrinsic
to
this
strategic
option
and
vital
to
its
ability
to
anticipate
client
needs
and
develop
new
products
that
continue
to
meet
their
needs.
Hax
and
Wilde
note
that
this
strategic
option
calls
for
the
development
of
partnerships
and
alliances,
which
can
include
other
suppliers,
competitors,
and
customers
linked
by
their
ability
to
complement
a
customer
offering.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
11
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
The
system
lock‐in
strategic
option
has
the
widest
possible
scope.
Instead
of
narrowly
focusing
on
the
product
or
the
customer,
the
company
considers
all
the
meaningful
players
in
the
system
that
contributes
to
the
creation
of
economic
value.
This
strategic
option
is
particularly
concerned
with
attracting
and
retaining
so‐called
“complementors”
along
with
the
normal
industry
participants.
A
complementor
is
not
a
competitor
but
a
provider
of
products
and
services
that
enhance
a
company’s
offering.
The
critical
issue
for
this
strategic
option
is
to
look
at
the
overall
architecture
of
the
system:
How
can
a
company
gain
complementors’
share
in
order
to
lock
out
competitors
and
lock
in
customers?
What
is
vital
in
our
view
regarding
these
three
strategic
options
is
the
fact
that
the
choice
of
a
particular
strategic
approach
can
and
will
have
cultural
implications
for
the
organization.
We
see
evidence
of
these
cultural
implications
as
Hax
and
Wilde
discuss
three
adaptive
processes3
in
business:
“In
the
early
1990s,
a
powerfully
simple
idea
developed:
businesses
should
be
viewed
not
just
in
terms
of
functions,
divisions,
or
products,
but
also
as
processes.
Processes
should
be
the
central
focus
when
companies
want
to
link
strategy
and
execution.”
(Hax
&
Wilde
II,
1999)
They
go
on
to
identify
three
fundamental
processes
that
are
always
present
and
are
the
repository
of
key
strategic
tasks:
1. Operational
effectiveness
–
the
delivery
of
products
and
services
to
the
customer.
Conceived
in
its
broadest
sense,
this
process
includes
all
the
supply
chain
elements.
Its
primary
focus
is
to
produce
the
most
effective
cost
and
asset
infrastructure
to
support
the
business’s
desired
strategic
position.
It
is
the
heart
of
the
productive
engine
and
the
source
of
capacity
and
efficiency.
Although
it
is
relevant
for
all
businesses,
it
becomes
most
important
when
a
company
chooses
a
strategic
position
of
best
product.
2. Customer
targeting
–
the
activities
that
attract,
satisfy,
and
retain
the
customer.
This
process
ensures
that
the
customer
relationships
are
managed
most
effectively.
It
identifies
and
selects
attractive
customers
and
enhances
customer
performance,
either
by
reducing
the
customer’s
cost
base
or
increasing
its
revenue
stream.
At
its
heart,
this
process
establishes
the
best
revenue
infrastructure
for
the
business.
While
customer
3
Hax
and
Wilde
refer
to
these
processes
as
adaptive
because
the
ratio
of
focus
on
the
three
processes
shifts
based
on
the
strategic
option
a
company
chooses.
Where
one
company
may
emphasize
operational
effectiveness
over
customer
targeting,
another
may
value
innovation
above
all
else.
Thus,
the
balance
of
organizational
process
adapts
to
the
strategic
choices
the
company
makes.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
12
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
targeting
is
critical
to
all
businesses,
it
is
most
important
when
the
strategic
position
is
that
of
total
customer
solutions.
3. Innovation
–
a
continuous
stream
of
new
products
and
services
to
maintain
the
business’s
future
viability.
This
process
mobilizes
all
of
the
firm’s
creative
resources
including
technical,
production,
and
marketing
capabilities
to
develop
an
innovative
infrastructure.
The
center
of
this
process
is
the
renewal
of
the
business
in
order
to
sustain
its
competitive
advantage
and
its
superior
financial
performance.
While
preserving
the
innovative
capabilities
is
critical
to
all
businesses,
it
becomes
central
when
the
strategic
position
is
that
of
system
lock‐in.
For
each
strategic
position,
a
slightly
different
mix
of
these
processes
will
emerge,
resulting
in
a
unique
corporate
“personality”.
The
dynamics
of
that
personality
will
have
ramifications
on
the
business’
ability
to
create
itself
as
a
progressively
adaptable
system
possessing
an
organizational
culture
of
learning.
Understanding
how
strategic
choices
affect
cultural
dynamics
and
moving
toward
a
more
integrated
approach
that
includes
cultural
aspects,
as
part
of
the
strategic
planning
work
very
important.
Finally,
we
find
in
Hax
and
Wilde’s
work
support
for
our
approach
in
their
observation
that:
“Feedback
is
a
core
element
of
the
Delta
model
and
addresses
the
additional
problem
in
linking
strategy
with
execution
mentioned
earlier
–
growing
market
uncertainties
and
the
requirement
for
an
adaptive
strategy.
During
implementation,
managers
need
to
monitor
its
performance
and
intended
results
and
make
corrections
as
needed.
Closely
related
to
feedback
are
learning
and
communication.
As
actions
are
tested
and
their
merits
or
limitations
become
apparent,
managers
can
understand
more
deeply
the
business
issues
they
intend
to
solve.”
(Hax
&
Wilde
II,
1999)
We
are
particularly
intrigued
that
Hax
and
Wilde
have
noted
the
relationship
between
feedback
and
learning.
This
relationship
has
been
well
understood
and
highly
leveraged
in
the
area
of
education
for
some
time.
They
go
on
to
characterize
common
responsive
mechanisms
for
obtaining
and
positively
leveraging
feedback
across
the
three
fundamental
processes:
1. Setting
hypotheses
in
the
context
of
the
vision
expressed
by
the
strategy
and
the
role
each
process
plays
based
on
business
strategic
decision.
2. Identifying
variations
to
reflect
the
drivers
of
cost,
revenue,
and
profit
for
the
business.
Each
adaptive
process
has
its
own
set
of
drivers
that
change
according
to
the
role
of
the
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
13
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
process
as
the
company
moves
from
best
product
to
customer
solutions
to
system
lock‐ in.
3. Admit
that
the
future
is
unpredictable
by
conducting
trials
and
tests.
In
a
basic
sense,
optimization
represents
an
unreachable
ideal
that
can
be
more
destructive
than
helpful;
instead
we
are
committed
to
a
continuous
stream
of
experimentation4.
4. Measure
and
screen
performance
to
allow
the
company
to
separate
success
from
poor
performance
and
learn
from
both.
In‐depth
measures
are
essential;
high‐level
aggregate
indicators
do
not
provide
a
clear
view
into
what
creates
maximal
profitability.
This
also
suggests
that
improvement
processes
are
driven
by
the
people
involved
with
day‐to‐day
level
of
operations.
Toward
a
Theory
of
Organizational
Socialization
Van
Maanen
and
Schein
have
argued
that
the
workplace
is
a
social
system,
with
each
workplace
environment
having
“its
own
rhythms,
rewards
relationships,
demands,
and
potentials.”
Within
each
environment,
there
occurs
the
transmission
of
“information
&
values”,
making
it
a
“fundamentally
cultural
matter.”
They
describe
organizational
socialization
as
“the
process
by
which
an
individual
acquires
social
knowledge
and
skills
to
assume
an
organizational
role”.
In
this
fashion,
they
argue
that
the
entire
organizational
career
of
an
individual
can
be
characterized
as
a
socialization
process.
They
liken
this
process
to
that
of
biological
evolution:
“Metaphorically,
just
as
biologists
sometimes
argue
that
‘gene
pools’
exploit
individuals
in
the
interest
of
their
own
survival,
organizations,
as
sociocultural
forms,
do
the
same.
Thus,
the
devout
believer
is
the
Church’s
way
of
ensuring
the
survival
of
the
Church;
the
loyal
citizen
is
the
State’s
way
of
ensuring
the
survival
of
the
State;
the
scientific
apprentice
is
Physics’
way
of
ensuring
the
survival
of
Physics;
and
the
productive
employee
is
the
Corporation’s
way
of
ensuring
the
survival
of
the
Corporation.”
(Van
Maanen
&
Schein,
1977)
This
evolution
can
take
the
form
of
a
“series
of
transitions”
throughout
a
person’s
career
whereby
upward,
downward,
or
lateral
movement
may
occur.
With
each
transition,
4
The
parity
here
to
agile
software
development
principles,
based
on
an
iterative
and
incremental
approach
to
producing
high
quality
software
in
a
collaborative
manner
which
meets
the
changing
needs
of
its
stakeholders,
does
not
go
by
unnoticed.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
14
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
adjustments
ranging
from
mild
to
severe
may
be
required
on
the
part
of
the
individual.
These
adjustments
are
the
results
of
the
process
of
socialization.
Socialization,
they
say,
is
a
“highly
contingent
and
contextual”
process.
It
entails
the
learning
of
a
cultural
perspective
that
can
be
brought
to
bear
on
both
commonplace
and
novel
matters
that
occur
within
the
workplace.
To
understand
an
organizational
situation
and
act
within
it
implies
that
a
person
has
developed
some
common‐sense
beliefs,
principles,
and
understandings;
they
refer
to
this
as
a
perspective
for
interpreting
one’s
experiences
in
a
given
sphere
of
the
work
world.
This
perspective
provides
the
individual
with
an
ordered
view
of
the
work
life
that
runs
ahead
and
guides
experience,
orders
and
shapes
personal
relationships
in
the
work
setting,
and
provides
the
ground
rules
under
which
everyday
conduct
is
to
be
managed
(Shibutani,
1962).
Their
presentation
of
an
organizational
model
follows
“the
anthropological
line
suggesting
that
any
group
of
people
who
interact
regularly
over
an
extended
period
of
time
will
develop
a
sort
of
unexplicated
or
tacit
mandate
concerning
what
is
correct
and
proper
for
a
member
of
the
group
to
undertake
as
well
as
what
is
the
correct
and
proper
way
to
go
about
such
an
undertaking.”
They
describe
organizations
as
being
made
up
of
people
“each
following
ends
that
are
to
some
degree
unique.
But,
since
these
people
interact
with
one
another
and
share
information,
purposes,
and
approaches
to
the
various
everyday
problems
they
face,
organizations
can
be
viewed
as
arenas
in
which
an
almost
infinite
series
of
negotiated
situations
arise
over
who
will
do
what,
when,
where,
and
in
what
fashion”.
The
results
of
those
negotiations
are
an
emerging
set
of
organizationally
defined‐roles
(Manning,
Talking
and
becoming:
A
view
of
organizational
socialization,
1970).
These
roles
may
or
may
not
be
formalized
and
fully
sanctioned
throughout
the
organization
yet
they
nonetheless
appear
to
have
some
rather
stable
properties
associates
with
them
which
tend
to
be
passed
on
from
role‐taker
to
role‐receiver.
Under
stressful
conditions
where
organizational
role
and
/
or
situation
is
unclear,
they
describe
the
organization
as
a
“situated
activity
space
in
which
various
individuals
come
together
and
base
their
efforts
upon
a
somewhat
shared,
but
continuously
problematic,
version
of
what
it
is
they
are
to
do,
both
collectively
and
individually”.
Schein
has
developed
a
model
of
the
organization
composed
of
three
empirically
discernable
dimensions:
functional,
hierarchical,
and
inclusional
(Schein,
The
individual,
the
organization,
and
the
career:
A
conceptual
scheme,
1971),
which
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
•
Functional:
Referring
to
the
various
tasks
performed
by
members
of
an
organization.
These
are
often
organized
in
an
organization
as
departmental
groupings.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
15
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
•
•
Hierarchical:
Referring
to
the
official
lines
of
supervisory
authority
in
an
organization
and
who,
on
paper,
is
responsible
for
the
actions
of
whom.
Inclusional:
Refers
to
the
level
of
inclusion
afforded
an
individual
by
an
organization
through
their
role
across
a
possible
range
of
positions
starting
with
“outsider”
up
to
“central
figure”.
Simple
examples
of
how
this
dimension
is
formally
granted
can
be
seen
in
the
bestowing
of
titles,
or
in
a
university
setting,
the
notion
of
tenure.
An
individual’s
movement
along
this
dimension
marks
their
relationship
from
the
organization’s
“periphery”
to
its
“center”.
When
these
dimensions
are
combined,
the
model
of
the
organization
helps
to
represent
the
generic
types
of
boundaries
across
which
a
member
may
pass.
These
boundaries
differ
within
and
between
organizations
as
to
both
their
number
and
permeability.
Within
the
terms
of
this
model,
they
postulate
that:
1. Socialization,
although
continuous
throughout
one’s
career
within
an
organization,
is
no
doubt
more
intense
and
problematic
for
a
member
(and
others)
just
before
and
just
after
a
particular
boundary
passage.
2. A
person
is
likely
to
have
the
greatest
impact
upon
others
at
points
furthest
from
any
boundary
crossing.
3. Due
to
the
conical
shape
typically
displayed
by
organizations,
socialization
along
the
inclusionary
dimension
is
likely
to
be
more
critical
to
lower
placed
members.
Knowledge,
Strategy,
and
Mission
Bases
of
an
Organizational
Role
They
then
turn
their
attention
to
the
definition
and
meaning
to
an
organizational
role
within
the
model
they
have
expounded.
Starting
with
the
general,
they
begin
by
defining
a
role
as
a
“set
of
often
diverse
behaviors
that
are
more
or
less
expected
of
persons
who
occupy
a
certain
defined
position
within
a
particular
social
system,
in
this
case,
an
organization”.
This
view,
which
proposes
role
as
social
contract,
is
common
in
research
(Parsons,
1951)(Newcombe,
1958)(Biddle
&
Thomas,
1966).
They
note
that
it
usually
follows
that
if
the
role
expectations
are
met
or
exceeded,
certain
organizational
rights
and
rewards
are
granted
to
the
person
performing
the
role.
Conversely,
it
usually
follows
that
if
role
expectations
are
not
met,
remedial
actions
are
taken
or
penalties
are
meted
out.
Roles,
they
say,
contain
both
content
characteristics
(what
people
should
do)
and
process
characteristics
(how
they
should
do
it).
Content
can
be
depicted
as
an
“ideological
mandate”
and
process
is
generally
described
through
“general
strategies
and
specific
practices”.
Finally,
they
say,
“linked
to
all
of
these
constructs
are
social
norms
and
rules
which
suggest,
for
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
16
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
example,
the
appropriate
mannerisms,
attitudes,
and
social
rituals
to
be
displayed
while
performing
various
parts
of
the
role.
In
synthesizing
these
ideas
about
roles,
Van
Maanen
and
Schein
argue
that
roles
can
be
viewed
to
possess
the
following
qualities:
1. A
content
or
knowledge
base,
which,
if
accepted
by
the
role
occupant,
indicates
a
range
of
existing
solutions
to
the
given
situations
encountered
regularly
while
in
the
role.
2. A
strategic
base,
which
suggests
ground
rules
for
the
selection
of
specific
approaches.
3. Invested
with
an
explicit
and
implicit
mission,
purpose,
or
mandate,
which
is
usually
traceable
to
some
extent
to
knowledge
and
strategy
bases
of
the
role,
but
is
also
grounded
in
the
total
organization
mission
and
in
the
relationships
that
a
particular
role
has
with
other
roles
within
and
outside
the
organization.
These
three
features
of
an
organizationally
defined
role
and
the
norms
that
surround
them
are
highly
intertwined.
Yet,
any
individual
seeking
to
take
on
an
organizationally
defined
role
must
respond
in
some
fashion
to
these
three
elements
–
and
given
this
framework,
such
responses
can
be
characterized.
The
three
general
responses
they
depict
are
custodianship,
content
innovation,
and
role
innovation.
1. Custodianship:
Possibly
the
simplest
response
for
a
neophyte
of
a
given
role
is
to
assume
a
custodial
or
caretaker
stance
toward
the
knowledge,
strategies,
and
missions
of
the
role.
Essentially
this
response
is
to
maintain
the
state
of
the
bases.
Accepting
the
status
quo
without
questioning
is
indicative
of
such
a
response.
2. Content
Innovation:
This
is
characterized
by
change
to
the
knowledge
or
strategy
bases
of
the
role,
such
as
the
inclusion
of
new
or
different
data
sources
for
particular
tasks
or
consideration
of
tactical
alternatives.
As
a
result
of
such
activities,
new
strategies
and
objectives
can
emerge
from
the
activities
of
the
role.
3. Role
Innovation:
This
is
characterized
by
change
to
the
mission
base
for
the
role.
When
a
“genuine
attempt
is
made
by
the
role
holder
to
redefine
the
ends
in
which
the
role
functions”
is
said
to
succeed,
role
innovation
has
occurred.
To
wit,
rejection
of
norms
governing
the
conduct
and
performance
of
a
particular
role,
changing
its
scope
or
objective
would
all
qualify
as
role
innovation
activities.
Famous
examples
of
this
would
be
Guy
Kawasaki’s
creation
of
the
“Software
Evangelist”
role
at
Apple
Computer
in
the
mid‐1980s
(Kawasaki,
1989).
It
is
now
common
for
established
software
companies
to
have
such
a
standard
role.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
17
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
18
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
Works
Cited
Backus,
J.
(1981).
The
History
of
Fortran
I,
II,
III.
In
R.
L.
Wexelblat
(Ed.),
History
of
Programming
Languages
(pp.
25‐45).
London:
Academic
Press.
Beck,
K.
(2000).
Extreme
Programming
Explained:
Embrace
Change.
Boston,
MA:
Addison‐ Wesley.
Beck,
K.
(2008).
Tools
for
Agility.
Three
Rivers
Institute.
Bergstein,
B.
(2007,
March
21).
John
Backus,
82;
Created
Programming
Language.
Washington
Post
.
Biddle,
B.
J.,
&
Thomas,
E.
J.
(Eds.).
(1966).
Role
Theory:
Concepts
and
Research.
New
York,
NY:
Wiley.
Charette,
R.
N.
(2005).
Why
Software
Fails.
IEEE
Spectrum
,
42
(9),
42‐29.
Christensen,
C.
M.
(2003).
The
Innovator's
Solution.
Harvard
Business
School
Press.
Dourish,
P.,
&
Button,
G.
(1998).
On
"Technomethodology":
Foundational
Relationships
Between
Ethnomethodology
and
System
Design.
Human‐Computer
Interaction
,
13,
395‐432.
Friedland,
B.
J.
(2003).
Patterns
of
Thought.
Retrieved
October
18,
2008,
from
http://www.netspheres.net/reference/Patterns_of_Thought.pdf
Hax,
A.
C.,
&
Wilde
II,
D.
L.
(1999).
The
Delta
Model;
Adaptive
Management
for
a
Changing
World.
Sloan
Management
Review
.
Hughs,
E.
C.
(1958).
Men
and
their
work.
Glencoe,
Il:
Free
Press.
Kawasaki,
G.
(1989).
The
Macintosh
Way.
New
York,
NY:
HarperCollins.
Kotter,
J.
P.
(1995).
Leading
Change:
Why
Transformations
Fail.
Harvard
Business
Review
,
74
(4),
59‐67.
Landes,
D.
S.
(1983).
Revolution
in
time:
clocks
and
the
making
of
the
modern
world.
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
19
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
Lorenzi,
N.
M.,
&
Riley,
R.
T.
(2003).
Organizational
issues
=
change.
International
Journal
of
Medical
Informatics
,
69
(2‐3),
197‐203.
Mamykina,
L.,
Candy,
L.,
&
Edmonds,
E.
(2002).
Collaborative
Creativity.
Communications
of
the
ACM
,
45
(10),
96‐99.
Manning,
P.
K.
(1977).
Rules,
colleagues
and
situationally
justified
actions.
In
R.
Blankenship
(Ed.),
Colleagues
in
organizations:
The
social
construction
of
professional
work
(pp.
263‐289).
New
York,
NY:
Wiley.
Manning,
P.
K.
(1970).
Talking
and
becoming:
A
view
of
organizational
socialization.
In
J.
D.
Douglas
(Ed.),
Understanding
everyday
life
(pp.
239‐256).
Chicago,
Il:
Aldine.
McConnell,
S.
(2006).
Rapid
Development:
Taming
Wild
Software
Schedules.
Redmond,
WA:
Microsoft
Press.
Moeran,
B.
(2007).
The
Business
of
Ethnography:
Strategic
Exchanges,
People
and
Organizations.
Oxford,
UK:
Berg
Publishers.
Nardi,
B.
(1993).
A
Small
Matter
of
Programming:
perspectives
on
end‐user
computing.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
Newcombe,
T.
M.
(1958).
Attitude
development
as
a
function
of
reference
groups:
The
Bennignton
Study.
In
E.
E.
Maccoby,
T.
M.
Newcombe,
&
E.
L.
Hartley
(Eds.),
Readings
in
social
psychology
(pp.
117‐129).
New
York,
NY:
Holt,
Rinehart,
and
Winston.
Norvig,
P.,
&
Cohn,
D.
(1997,
Jan
‐
Feb).
PC
AI
Magazine
,
11
(1),
pp.
27‐30.
Paap,
J.,
&
Katz,
R.
(2004,
September).
Anticipating
Disruptive
Innovation.
Research
Technology
Management
.
Parsons,
T.
(1951).
The
social
system.
New
York,
NY:
Free
Press.
Poppendieck,
M.,
&
Poppendieck,
T.
(2003).
Lean
Software
Development:
An
Agile
Toolkit.
Boston,
MA:
Addison‐Wesley.
Porter,
L.
W.,
Lawler,
E.
E.,
&
Hackman,
J.
R.
(1975).
Behavior
in
organizations.
New
York,
NY:
McGraw‐Hill.
Prahalad,
C.
K.
(2002).
The
Dynamic
Synchronization
of
Strategy
and
Information.
MIT
Sloan
Management
Review
,
43
(4),
24‐33.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
20
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
Rigaux,
P.
(2001).
Diagram
and
History
of
Programming
Languages.
Retrieved
October
17,
2008,
from
http://people.mandriva.com/~prigaux/language‐study/diagram.html
Schein,
E.
H.
(1985).
Organizational
Culture
and
Leadership
(1st
Edition
ed.).
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey‐Bass
Publishers.
Schein,
E.
H.
(1971).
The
individual,
the
organization,
and
the
career:
A
conceptual
scheme.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavioral
Science
,
7.
Shibutani,
T.
(1962).
Reference
groups
and
social
control.
In
A.
Rose
(Ed.),
Human
behavior
and
social
processes
(pp.
128‐147).
Boston,
MA:
Houghton,
MIfflin.
Standish.
(2004).
Project
Success
Rates
Improved
Over
10
Years.
Retrieved
August
12,
2008,
from
SoftwareMag.com:
http://www.softwaremag.com/L.cfm?Doc=newsletter/2004‐01‐15/Standish
Strauss,
A.
L.
(1959).
Mirrors
and
Masks.
Glencoe,
Il:
Free
Press.
Suchman,
L.
(1987).
Plans
and
Situated
Actions:
The
problem
of
human‐machine
communication.
Cambridge,
England:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Tedre,
M.
(2006).
The
development
of
computer
science:
a
sociocultural
perspective.
Proceedings
of
the
6th
Baltic
Sea
conference
on
Computing
education
research:
Koli
Calling
2006.
276,
pp.
21‐24.
Uppsala:
ACM.
Upton,
D.
M.,
&
Staats,
B.
R.
(2008).
Radically
Simple
IT.
Harvard
Business
Review
,
86
(3),
118‐ 124.
Van
Maanen,
J.,
&
Schein,
E.
H.
(1977).
Toward
a
Theory
of
Organizational
Socialization.
Retrieved
09
29,
2008,
from
MIT
Sloan
School
of
Management
Working
Papers
Collection:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/1934
Venkatraman,
N.
(1997).
Beyond
Outsourcing:
Managing
IT
Resources
as
a
Value
Center.
Sloan
Management
Review
,
38
(3),
51‐64.
Wareham,
J.
N.,
Bjørn‐Andersen,
N.,
&
Neergaard,
P.
(1997).
Reinterpreting
the
demise
of
hierarchy:
a
case
study
in
IT,
empowerment,
and
incomplete
contracts.
International
Conference
on
Information
Systems.
Atlanta,
GA.
Wheatley,
M.
(2006).
Leadership
and
the
New
Science
(3rd
ed.).
San
Francisco,
CA:
Berrett‐ Koehler.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
21
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
Appendix
A:
Research
Background
Yeo,
K.
T.
(2002).
Critical
failure
factors
in
information
system
projects.
International
Journal
of
Project
Management
,
20
(3),
241‐246.
On
Strategy,
Organization,
and
Process
A
Luminous
Group
White
Paper
Page
22
©2008
Luminous
Group
Consulting
LLC
