Advertisement

An Organizational Activity Framework for Effective Business Practices Implementation in Research-Oriented Organizations in Developing Economies

  • Mohammed-Aminu SandaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 498)

Abstract

This paper explored the constraints to business practices implementation by Research-Oriented Organizations in Developing Economies. Guided by organizational activity, sociotechnical and macroergonomic theories, data was collected from four research-oriented organizations in four developing countries, and analyzed using actions of identified groups in each organization’s activity system as the unit of analysis. It was found that the emergence of multivoicedness in the organizations’ activity systems created misfits among the organizations components which created systemic problems, ruptures, and breakdowns which constrained the effectiveness of the organizations’ business practices implementations. It is concluded that in the process of business practices implementation, an activity in the organization must be understood not as one activity with its peculiarities, but rather as a real aggregate of several activities and relations arising from the interacting components of the organization. A framework for understanding effective business practices implementation in research-oriented organizations is thus formulated.

Keywords

Organizational activity New business practices Practices implementation Research-oriented organization Developing economy 

References

  1. 1.
    Mengu, M., Grier, D.: Best Practices for the Management of Research and Technology Organizations—Special Report. World Association of Industrial and Technological Research Organizations. WAITRO, DTI, Denmark (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanda, M.A.: Combined Micro-Ergonomics, Macroergonomics and Systems Study of the Application and Internalization of WAITRO-Developed Best Management Practices by Research and Technology Organizations. Department of Human Work Sciences, LTU, Luleå, Sweden (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendrick, H.W., Kleiner, B.M.: Macroergonomics: An Introduction to Work System Design. HFES, Santa Monica (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robbins, S.R.: Organizational Theory: The Structure and Design of Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson, J.D.: Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shahnavaz, H.: Macroergonomic considerations in technology transfer. In: Hendrick, H.W., Kleiner, B.M. (eds.) Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shahnavaz, H.: Cultural differences. In: Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety (4th edn.). International Labour office, Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engeström, Y.: Managing as Argumentative History-Making. Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Cleveland, Ohio. http://design.cwru.edu/index.html (2002)
  9. 9.
    Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engeström, Y.: Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics 43(7), 960–974 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sanda, M.A.: Four Case Studies on the Commercialization of Government R&D Agencies: An Organizational Activity Theoretical Approach. Luleå University of Technology Press, Luleå, Sweden (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skoglind-Öhman, I., Shahnavaz, H.: Assessment of future workshop’s usefulness as an ergonomics tool. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 10(2), 119–128 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jungk, R., Mullert, N.: Future Workshops: How to create Desirable Futures. Institute for Social Inventions, London (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engeström, Y.: Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J. Educ. Work 14(1), 133–156 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ghana Business SchoolLegon, AccraGhana
  2. 2.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations