Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative Capability Design: Redundancy of Potentialities

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 15 August 2013

Abstract

In this study we extend the socio-ecological concept of two contrasting design principles applicable to all work systems. Reframing those design principles as strategic as well as operational choices leads us to propose a third design principle, Design Principle 3 (DP3), which has remained undeveloped in social ecology. We call this design principle Redundancy of Potentialities and demonstrate its application in transorganizational work systems. We argue that DP3 is at the core of socio-ecological practice and is therefore appropriate for coping with the highly turbulent environments now experienced in many industries and fields. We offer several illustrations of DP3 in practice and draw implications for enhancing capabilities for creative collaboration in inter-organizational fields through deliberate attention to design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for suggesting this addition.

  2. That is, they are purposeful (Ackoff and Emery 1972; Ackoff 1999).

  3. “Open” and “free” fields have expanded much in recent years. Following on the heels of such celebration of open sourcing come critiques from adjacent fields, e.g., “traditional” newspapers whose content—hard-won and expensive—is being pilfered by bloggers, news consolidators like Google, etc. See Anderson (2009). Perhaps this is the dark side of DP3.

  4. Trist (1983a) found referent organizations to be the de facto “rule makers” of fields, not by “hard” law (Medjad) but through “soft” law influences that come to be adopted. Ramírez and Wallin (2000) relabelled them “prime movers”, and analyzed how companies such as Tetra Pak, Visa, Nokia, and Xerox have acted as referent organizations and have been the de facto designers of their respective fields. We use the working term “catalytic organization” rather than a referent organization because it concerns a latent function that comes to be seen by third parties only when it unfolds (Bohm 1996). Nevertheless, the proper relationship between referent organizations and our term remains to be worked out.

References

  • Ackoff R (1975) Redesigning the future. John Wiley, New York

  • Ackoff RL (1999) Re-creating the corporation: a design of organizations for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL, Emery FE (1972) On purposeful systems. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich H (1999) Organizations evolving. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson C (2009) Free: the future of a radical price. Hyperion, Santa Clara

    Google Scholar 

  • Babüroğlu O (1988) The vortical environment: the fifth in the Emery–Trist levels of organizational environments. Hum Relat 41:181–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babüroğlu O (1992) Tracking the development of the Emery–Trist systems paradigm (ETSP). Syst Pract 5(3):263–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J, Selsky J (2000) Toward an Emery model of management: implications and prospects of Emery open systems theory. Syst Pract Action Res 13(5):705–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J, Emery M, Flood R, Selsky J, Wolstenholme E (2004) A maturing of systems thinking? Evidence from three perspectives. Syst Pract Action Res 17(1):3–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck U, Holzer B (2007) Organizations in world risk society. In: Pearson C, Roux-Dufort C, Clair J (eds) International handbook of organizational crisis management. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlein M, Johnson D, Beyerlein S (eds) (2004) Complex collaboration: building the capabilities for working across boundaries, Elsevier

  • Beyerlein M, Beyerlein S, Kennedy F (eds) (2005) Collaborative capital: creating intangible value, Elsevier

  • Blois K, Ramírez R (2006) Capabilities as marketable assets: a proposal for a functional categorization. Ind Mark Manage 35(8):1027–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm D (1996) On dialogue. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Botsman R, Rogers R (2010) What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Duguid P (2000) The social life of information. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough H (2004) Managing open innovation. Res-Technol Manage 47(1):23–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg S, Pitsis T, Rura-Polley T, Marosszeky M (2002) Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects. Organ Stud 23(3):317–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings T (1984) Transorganizational development. Res Organ Behav 6:367–422

  • Davis G, Marquis C (2005) Prospects for organization theory in the early 21st century: institutional fields and mechanisms. Organ Sci 16(4):332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demil B, Lecocq X (2006) Neither market nor hierarchy nor network: the emergence of bazaar governance. Organ Stud 27(10):1447–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty D, Dunne D (2011) Organizing ecologies of complex innovation. Organ Sci 22(5):1214–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar R, Starbuck W (2006) Learning to design organizations and learning from designing them. Organ Sci 17(2):171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery F (1967) The next thirty years. Hum Relat 20:199–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery F (1969) Introduction. In: Emery F (ed) Systems thinking, vol 1. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery F (1976) The second design principle: participation and the democratization of work. Futures we are in. Martinus-Nijhoff. 1976. Reprinted in Trist E and Murray H (eds) (1993) The social engagement of social science, volume 2, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 214–233

  • Emery F, Trist E (1965) The causal texture of organizational environments. Hum Relat 18:21–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery M (1999) Searching: the theory and practice of making cultural change. John Benjamins, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery M (2000) The current version of Emery’s open systems theory. Syst Pract Action Res 13(5):623–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feibleman J, Friend J (1969) The structure and function of organizations. In: Emery F (ed) Systems thinking, volume 1. Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp 30–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming L, Waguespack D (2007) Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organ Sci 18(2):165–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood R, Miller D (2010) Tackling design anew: getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Acad Manage Perspect 24(4):78–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave T, Van de Ven A (2006) A collective action model of institutional innovation. Acad Manag Rev 31(4):864–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschhorn L (1984) Beyond mechanization: work and technology in a postindustrial age. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Hirschhorn L, Gilmore T (2004) Ideas in philanthropic field building: where they come from and how they are translated into actions. Practice Matters 6, The Foundation Center. http://www.fdncenter.org/for_grantmakers/practice_matters/

  • Hirschhorn L, Noble P, Rankin T (2001) Sociotechnical systems in an age of mass customization. J Eng Tech Manage 18:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer-Dixon T (2006) The upside of down: catastrophe, creativity, and the renewal of civilization. Island Press, Washington

  • Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) Strategy as ecology. Harvard Bus Rev 82:69–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenson J, Saint-Martin D (2006) Building blocks for a new social architecture: the LEGO™ paradigm of an active society. Policy Politics 34(3):429–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keidel R (1990) Triangular design: a new organizational geometry. Acad Manag Exec 4(4):21–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2010) Strategic management of design and innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch R, Vargo S (2006) The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk

    Google Scholar 

  • Marot M, Selsky J, Hart W, Reddy P (2005) Research teams in an Australian biotechnology field: how intellectual property influences collaboration. In: Beyerlein M, Beyerlein S, Kennedy F (eds) Collaborative capital: creating intangible value. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCann J (1983) Design guidelines for social problem solving interventions. J Appl Behav Sci 19(2):177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann J, Selsky J (1984) Hyperturbulence and the emergence of type 5 environments. Acad Manag Rev 9(4):460–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer A, Gaba V, Colwell K (2005) Organizing far from equilibrium: non-linear change in organizational fields. Organ Sci 16(5):456–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan G (2006) Images of organization, New Edition edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Motamedi K (2012) Trans-organizations: managing in a complex and uncertain world. Graziadio Bus Rev 15(2)

  • Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(2):242–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Normann R (2001) Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Normann R, Ramírez R (1989) A theory of the offering: a step towards a post-industrial business strategy. In: Snow C (ed) Strategy, organization, design, and human resource management. JAI Press, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  • Normann R, Ramírez R (1993) Designing interactive strategy: from value chain to value constellation. Harvard Bus Rev (July–August):65–77

  • Normann R, Ramírez R (1994) Designing interactive strategy. Wiley, Chichester

  • Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris Club (2006) Fifty years of orderly sovereign debt restructuring. Proceedings of the International Policy Forum, 14 June, Paris

  • Pascal A, Thomas C, Romme AGL (2012) Developing a human-centred and science-based approach to design: the knowledge management platform project. Br J Manage. doi:10.1111/j.i467-8551.2011.00802.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Pava C (1983) Managing the new office technology. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter HV (1965) Towards a theory and practice of social architecture: the building of indispensable institutions. Tavistock Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter M (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell W, Koput K, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin Sci Q 41:116–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez R (1999) Value co-production: intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strateg Manag J 20(1):49–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez R, Selsky J, Van der Heijden K (2010) Conceptual and historical overview. In: Ramírez R, Selsky J, Van der Heijden K (eds) Business planning for turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios. Earthscan, London, pp 17–30

  • Ramírez R, van der Heijden K (2007) Scenarios to develop strategic options: a new interactive role for scenarios in strategy. In: Sharpe W, van der Heijden K (eds) Scenarios for success: turning insights into action. Wiley, Chichester, pp 89–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez R, Wallin C (2000) Prime movers. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivette K, Kline D (1999) Rembrandts in the attic: unlocking the hidden value of patents. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney M, Prandelli E (2000) Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets. Calif Manage Rev 42(4):24–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky J, Marot M, Hart W, Reddy P (2005) Building field level collaborative capital: the case of an Australian biotechnology consortium, presented at Academy of Management annual meeting, Honolulu

  • Selsky J, McCann J (2010) Managing disruptive change and turbulence through continuous change thinking and scenarios. In: Ramírez R, Selsky J, Van der Heijden K (eds) Business planning for turbulent times: new methods for applying scenarios. Earthscan, London, pp 167–186

  • Selsky J, Goes J, Baburoglu O (2007) Contrasting perspectives of strategy making: applications in ‘hyper’ environments. Organ Stud 28(1):71–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha K, Van de Ven A (2005) Designing work within and between organizations. Organ Sci 16(4):389–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist E (1977) A concept of organizational ecology. Aust J Manage 2(2):161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist E (1983a) Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Hum Relat 36:269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist E (1983b) Pava’s extension of socio-technical theory to advanced information technologies. Reprinted in Trist E and Murray H (eds) (1993) The social engagement of social science, volume 2. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 662–673

  • Van de Ven A, Hargrave T (2004) Social, technical, and institutional change. In: Poole MS, Van de Ven A (eds) Handbook of organizational change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 259–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo S, Lusch R (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo S, Lusch R (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: issues for organization science. Organ Sci 14(2):209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber S (2004) The success of open source. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning as a social system. Syst Think 9(5)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, University of South Florida, 3433 Winter Lake Road, Lakeland, FL, 33803, USA

    John W. Selsky

  2. Oxford University, Oxford, UK

    Rafael Ramírez

  3. Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Oğuz N. Babüroğlu

Authors
  1. John W. Selsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Ramírez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oğuz N. Babüroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John W. Selsky.

Additional information

A much earlier version of this study was delivered at a symposium on New directions in socio-ecological thinking: Legacies of Emery and Trist, Academy of Management national meetings, Philadelphia, August 2007. The authors thank Don de Guerre, Merrelyn Emery, Del Nagy, Bill Starbuck and participants in a USF Tampa Management Department faculty seminar for comments on earlier versions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Selsky, J.W., Ramírez, R. & Babüroğlu, O.N. Collaborative Capability Design: Redundancy of Potentialities. Syst Pract Action Res 26, 377–395 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9257-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9257-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation