Words: 1843
It is no longer possible for organization to get better: hey need to get different (Hammed, 2000). We pose that organizations need to get different in the way they cope with dynamics. One way of doing this is by no longer managing uncertainty but by embracing it. This is what truly agile organizations do. Environmental dynamism has lead to a focus on organizational capabilities as the principle source of competitive advantage in such an environment (Grant, 1996). These organizational capabilities are referred to as dynamic capabilities (Tech e. . , 1997). Dyer and Shafer discuss a growing interest in an entirely new organizational radium – one that views organizational adoption not as a one-time or even periodic event, but as a continuous process. That paradigm is Organizational Agility” (1998: 6). Organizational Agility is considered a necessary dynamic capability for organizations operating in a dynamic environment. Eisenhower and Martin (2000) expand the concept of dynamic capabilities by stating that the effective patterns of dynamic capabilities varies with market dynamism.
This means that organizational agility is not an on/off-switch. Organizations can have a certain level of organizational agility. In this paper we first discuss the organizational practices organizations apply to cope with a dynamic environment, thereby enhancing their level of organizational agility. The organizational practices focused on three agility-competencies will be explored: a scalable workforce (in terms of quantity and quality), fast organizational knowledge creation and a highly adaptable organizational infrastructure.
The second, related issue we discuss and explore in this paper is the institutional setting in relation to the implementation of these organizational practices and more importantly the espouse organizations opt for. Organizations sometimes seem to apply organizational practices that at first sight seem to be incompatible with the objective of coping with a dynamic environment. For example, they continue to hire most employees on a permanent contract thereby creating organizational rigidity. Pawpaw (2004) explains this by stating that contingency factors limit the leeway of both organization and management.
Our paper starts with setting out the characteristics of a dynamic environment and the challenges organizations face in such an environment. Next we discuss the concept of dynamic capabilities and develop this concept towards an heuristic framework for organizational agility. In this framework we focus our attention to three specific topics: the way in which an organization can scale its” workforce, maintain its” knowledge base and is able to balance both control and chaos.
We then turn our attention to the institutional context, which might impact decisions on the adoption and implementation of relevant organizational practices and 6 the attitude and available options towards this institutional context. Finally we apply this heuristic framework and concepts to four case studies of organizations operating in a dynamic environment. By doing so we identify organizational practices and strategic responses to the institutional context aimed at organizational agility.
What are the three main elements of business communication, explain? Communication We communicate all the time, every day. Sometimes we’re even aware of it! We communicate through gesture, body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice as well as through the words we speak. These variables can be Joined in a variety of ways in our communication. Add to this mix: language; cultural and social differences; educational background; physical proximity; and individual fears, insecurities, strengths, and weaknesses. No wonder communication is complex!
There is a huge amount of information on communication and different methodologies for improvement. The following offers one perspective on communication. First of all, being successful in business requires effective communication. This paper focuses on effective business communication, although the information can be applied generally. To untangle the mix described above and to improve communication, we can focus on several key elements: ; Purpose ; Style ; Listening Purpose In business, when we communicate we usually have a purpose.
Sometimes we have not considered that purpose sufficiently before beginning the dialogue, which can lead to confusion and mixed messages. So, first we must clarify our purpose. What do I want as a result of this communication? What would be a successful outcome? As an example, let’s consider dialogue with an employee regarding a new assignment. Initially, we may look at the assignment and consider that its successful completion is the purpose. But let’s break this process further down into smaller steps, with handing off the assignment being the first step. Our desired outcome FOR
THE MEETING to hand off the assignment might be: ; Employee fully understands the assignment ; Responds to questions to ensure understanding ; Is able to paraphrase assignment requirements ; Is aware of consequences of completing or not completing assignment 2 ; Employee has an idea of how to proceed ; Articulates next steps ; Identifies problems, etc; Or we and employee discuss together ; Employee knows resources available ; Employee knows where to go for help ; We and employee agree on a follow-up status check meeting If we have been successful in this first communication regarding the assignment, we have already established a paradigm for communication during the assignment work, including follow-ups to check status, make corrections, and to compliment upon completion. Clarity in the initial communication makes a huge difference. And to back up one step, clarifying our purpose before starting the communication can separate effective communication from that which is unclear, does not have sufficient detail, leaves no room for questions or advice, or does not ensure the employee can gain access to sufficient resources.
A clearly identified purpose can mean the difference between success or failure, and while thinking through a purpose may take time initially, we will eventually form a consistent habit of clarifying desired outcome – which usually leads to better results. Style Style has to do with who we are and how who we are affects our communication. We may engage in dialogue with little knowledge of the impact of individual differences. Some of us may have a higher awareness of style differences and still not use this awareness when communicating. Others of us become aware of stylistic differences only when having a problem communicating. Let’s stop for a moment and further define “style. ” Style is influenced by many factors, some of which were defined at the beginning of this article.
A longer list might include culture, upbringing, religion, gender, age, education, language, race, politics – and this is not a total list. Some of the influences of our early years are mitigated or enhanced during our growth and experience. In all, we become who we are, and who we are influences our communication. What is the difference between idle costing and standard costing? Normal costing is seed to value manufactured products with the actual materials costs, the actual direct labor costs, and manufacturing overhead based on a predetermined manufacturing overhead rate. These three costs are referred to as product costs and are used for the cost of goods sold and for inventory valuation.
If there is a difference between 1) the overhead costs assigned or applied to products, and 2) the overhead costs actually incurred, the difference is referred to as a variance. If the amount of the variance is not significant, it will usually be assigned to the cost of goods sold. If he variance is significant, it should be prorated to the cost of goods sold and to the work in process and finished goods inventories. Standard costing values its manufactured products with a predetermined materials cost, a predetermined direct labor cost, and a predetermined manufacturing overhead cost. These standard costs will be used for valuing the manufacturer’s cost of goods sold and inventories.
If the actual costs vary only slightly from the standard costs, the resulting variances will be assigned to the cost of goods sold. If the variances are significant, they should be orated to the cost of goods sold and to the inventories. Which are the different ways by which the cost can be analytics analysis (also called economic evaluation, cost allocation, efficiency assessment, cost-benefit analysis, or cost- effectiveness analysis by different authors) is currently a somewhat controversial set of methods in program evaluation. One reason for the controversy is that these terms cover a wide range of methods, but are often used interchangeably.
At the most basic level, cost allocation is simply part of good program budgeting and accounting raciest, which allow managers to determine the true cost of providing a given unit of service (Ketene, Monomer, ; Martin, 1990). At the most ambitious level, well- publicized cost-benefit studies of early intervention programs have claimed to show substantial long-term social gains for participants and cost savings for the public (Barrett-Clement, Chinaware, Barnett, et al. , 1984). Because these studies have been widely cited and credited with convincing legislators to increase their support for early childhood programs, some practitioners advocate making more use of cost- infinite analysis in evaluating social programs (Barnett, 1988, 1993).
This information is primarily a management tool. However, if the units measured are also outcomes of interest to evaluators, cost allocation provides some of the basic information needed to conduct more ambitious cost analyses such as cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis. For example, for evaluation purposes, you might want to know the average cost per child of providing an after-school tutoring program, including the costs of staff salaries, snacks, and other overhead costs. Besides budget information, being able to determine unit costs means that you need to be collecting the right kind of information about clients and outcomes.
In many agencies, the information recorded in service records is based on reporting requirements, which are not always in a form that is useful for evaluation. If staff in a prenatal clinic simply report the number of linens served by gender, for example, you might know only that 1 57 females were served in March. For an evaluation, however, you might want to be able to break down that number in different ways. For example, do young first-time mothers usually require more visits than older women? Do single mothers or women with several children miss more appointments? Is transportation to appointments more of a problem for women who live in rural areas? Are any client characteristics commonly related to important outcomes such as birth weight of the the baby?
Deciding how to collect enough client and service data to give useful information, without overburdening staff with unnecessary paperwork requirements, requires a lot of planning. Larger agencies often hire experts to design data systems, which are called MIS or management-and-information-systems. If you are working for an existing agency, your ability to separate out unit costs for services or outcomes may depend on the systems that are already in place for budgeting, accounting, and collecting service data. However, if you are in a position to influence these functions, or need to supplement an existing system, there are a number of texts that discuss the pros and ones of different ways of budgeting, accounting, and designing MIS or management- and-information-systems (see Ketene, Monomer ; Martin, 1990).