This paper argues that our approach to managing the implementation of information technologies is often dependent on how we frame the implementation problem. The paper first traces the dominant ways of framing the implementation problem that are evident in the literature, and through this historical analysis, identifies the Leavitt’s diamond for representing organizations as the integrative conceptual model underlying much of the current implementation literature. Next, by drawing on the notions of objective and subjective realities from the arena of sociology of knowledge, the paper further develops the diamond model and uses it as a frame for informing the implementation of code-generators in a hypothetical organization. The richer understanding enabled by the enhanced diamond model proposed in the paper leads to the formulation of some broad guidelines for managing the implementation of “interpretively flexible ” information technologies. These guidelines are summarized in four steps: 1) self-understanding through self-reflection, 2) identification and understanding of all important stakeholder groups, 3) identification of stakeholders who are likely to resist, and 4)modifying the objective or subjective realities as appropriate.

this dissertation involves the development and refinement of a conceptual framework for describing and discussing crossfunctional co-operation and networking within product realisation processes. The conceptual framework, the analysis of the case study and a discussion of the implications and challenges for research and industrial sector are the main results of the dissertation

This paper has not undergone formal review or approval of the faculty of the ILR School. It is intended to make results of Center research available to others interested in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions. Page 2In The Trenches At The Talent Wars CAHRS WP03-05 In this study, I attempted to extend strategic human resource management theory by developing and testing a model of inter-firm competition for human resources. Using the phenomenon of talent raiding as a vehicle to test the model, I examined how degree of threat and firm capability affected firms ’ propensities to respond to rivals ’ actions. Results suggest that attributes of the raiding firm, attributes of the raided human capital, and attributes of the target firm were associated with target firms ’ propensity to defend or retaliate in response to a successful talent raid. The findings have implications for a tactical theory of human resource management and the origins of intra-firm differences in human resource systems.

Although many theories predict strong effects of organizational position on a variety of outcomes, studies that examine the propensity of firms to collectively change positions on the market are rare. We borrow ideas from theories that examine the precursors of organizational change but find that these predictions are often contradictory. Studies of inertia vs. exploration and of imitation vs. strategic differentiation and resource competition offer conflicting predictions. We reconcile the opposing arguments and develop a theory of collective change in strategic position by integrating ideas from established learning, institutional, ecological, and management theories. The core of our theory blends structural and cognitive processes and posits that the properties of the firms ’ external context interact with managerial perceptions of the resource space in which their firms operate. Interpretations of resource availability, competitive forces and collective identities clash as managers try to interpret their firm’s position through the behavior of their peers, as if reflecting in a looking glass. Empirical analyses of changes in strategic position among U.S. automanufacturers support our theory and lay out a framework for further integration among cognitive and structural perspectives. Most sociological and management theories consider market position a primary

Abstract............................................................................................................ 5