.
Retirei este trecho do arranque do capítulo 13 "Organizational Capabilities in Complex" de Daniel Levinthal que faz parte do livro “The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities”, editado por Giovanni Dosi, Richard R. Nelson, Sidney G. Winter.
.
“For much of its modern history, microeconomics has focused on the behaviour of markets as its units of analysis. (Moi ici: Tema que descobri no artigo de Nelson) In analysing such questions, the field was largely satisfied with relatively trivial characterizations of firms. A central element of the contribution of Nelson and Winter has been the introduction of a new, more microlevel, unit of analysis—that of organizational routines.
…
Recently, the idea that knowledge is largely tacit and embedded in organizational routines (Moi ici: As actividades que constituem um processo são estas rotinas organizacionais. Algo na onda do que referia Porter no artigo de 1996, "What is Strategy?") has been applied to gain insights into the relative competitiveness of national economies.
…
Complementarities are central to the existence and formation of routines, but routines themselves are critical building blocks for broader assemblages of capabilities.(Moi ici: Outra forma de designar o mosaico de actividades que se reforçam e fazem nascer as diferenças de desempenho intra-sectoriais... atractores num mundo complexo e caótico) In some cases, these broader assemblages become a sufficiently distinct and coherent set of practices that they are given a label, such as the Fordist or Toyota production system. A central element of such systems of behaviour is the degree to which they are coherent; the degree to which one element reinforces or complements other elements. (Moi ici: Comecei ontem a ler "The Essential Advantage" de Paul Leinwand e Cesare Mainardi, livro comentado por Ram Charan da seguinte forma "It demonstrates that coherence - treating your internal practives and your external business environment as interrelated and mutually focused - leads to competitive advantage")
…
The presence of complementarities raises important issues for the nature of selection processes. Selection operates at the level of the organization or, in the terminology of biology, at the level of the phenotype. An organization earns a profit or loss. The environment does not directly reward a particular business practice. … While it is possible to make intelligent inferences, there is inevitably some degree of ambiguity.
…
For a system to effectively adapt, whether it be an individual organization or the economy as a whole, actions that are associated with favourable outcomes need to be reinforced relative to those actions associated with less favourable outcomes. At the level of the economy, this is reflected in the flow of financial capital to organizations that succeed, or demonstrate the prospect of succeeding, in product markets.
…
issues of unit of analysis and complementarities raise important questions about the desirability of the identification and transfer of ‘best practices’. Implicit in such efforts is the assumption that ‘best practice’ is independent of the firm's context. Such a perspective not only ignores external contingencies but also ignores issues of internal coherence and consistency. Are ‘best practices’ in fact decomposable from the broader set of organizational processes of which they are a part?
.
By the same token, the identification and measurement of performance of isolated business processes represent a profound change in the unit of selection. Rather than market forces operating on the overall organization, the phenotype, selection-like pressures are brought to bear on a particular practice, the genotype. This fundamental shift in unit of analysis has, in many instances, led to dramatic discoveries on the part of firms regarding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of particular practices”
.
Continua.
.
Continua.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário