{"title":"企业形象与愿景:新千年的挑战","authors":"Tom Cockburn, Trefor Lewis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3042195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As we approach the millennium, organizations are beginning to work smarter as well as faster. They are using the communications and knowledge technology such as groupware and the web to better effect (Hoffman & Novak, 1995, US Dept of Commerce, 1998). Knowledge networks between companies, customers and suppliers are not only extensive but also intensive in nature. That is not only because of the ubiquity of the Internet and of intranet use but because the process of doing business and organizing work is changing. The hitherto pre-existing boundaries within and between organization and environment will become more permeable as the networks expand with the greater interactivity of the evolving networks. Hoffman and Novak (ibid) suggest that the web’s interactivity is the avenue to greater relationship marketing with customers as well as cost benefits. Equally, the internal layers of organizations have been stripped down throughout the last 15-20 years of downsizing and delayering (Rajan & Van Eupen, 1997). In both the latter descriptions, internal-internal and in the internal-external systems, those engaged in business seek greater collaboration (Horwitch, 1995). Kauffman (1995), relating this to evolutionary theory, describes it as technological co-evolution: one business creating niches for another in the ecological landscape of the new technology market or “technosphere”. Although referring to technological co-evolution, it seems reasonable to infer organizational co-evolution too as a concomitant structural development. Saffo (1995) suggests just such an organizational co-evolution in the “value webs” conceptualization he introduces.The newly emerging organizational forms discussed by Saffo include a diverse range from networked SMEs or cooperatives, like ‘Ocean Spray’ who use a single company name, to giant multinationals like general Motors with EDI links to suppliers. As Saffo notes, boundaries and identities are getting more permeable. It is difficult to determine where one such “entity” ends and another begins since their fates are so closely intertwined. There is increasing evidence of this across all sectors of the economy in advanced countries and with globalization this will increase. The new mindsets required by employees in the changing organizations is that of the self-employed i.e. accepting responsibility for their own marketability, seeing employers as customers and rewards as dependent on individual contribution. There are a number of implications for organizational identity and knowledge management in these changes.","PeriodicalId":154248,"journal":{"name":"Interorganizational Networks & Organizational Behavior eJournal","volume":"199 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corporate Identity and Vision: Challenges for the New Millennium\",\"authors\":\"Tom Cockburn, Trefor Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3042195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As we approach the millennium, organizations are beginning to work smarter as well as faster. They are using the communications and knowledge technology such as groupware and the web to better effect (Hoffman & Novak, 1995, US Dept of Commerce, 1998). Knowledge networks between companies, customers and suppliers are not only extensive but also intensive in nature. That is not only because of the ubiquity of the Internet and of intranet use but because the process of doing business and organizing work is changing. The hitherto pre-existing boundaries within and between organization and environment will become more permeable as the networks expand with the greater interactivity of the evolving networks. Hoffman and Novak (ibid) suggest that the web’s interactivity is the avenue to greater relationship marketing with customers as well as cost benefits. Equally, the internal layers of organizations have been stripped down throughout the last 15-20 years of downsizing and delayering (Rajan & Van Eupen, 1997). In both the latter descriptions, internal-internal and in the internal-external systems, those engaged in business seek greater collaboration (Horwitch, 1995). Kauffman (1995), relating this to evolutionary theory, describes it as technological co-evolution: one business creating niches for another in the ecological landscape of the new technology market or “technosphere”. Although referring to technological co-evolution, it seems reasonable to infer organizational co-evolution too as a concomitant structural development. Saffo (1995) suggests just such an organizational co-evolution in the “value webs” conceptualization he introduces.The newly emerging organizational forms discussed by Saffo include a diverse range from networked SMEs or cooperatives, like ‘Ocean Spray’ who use a single company name, to giant multinationals like general Motors with EDI links to suppliers. As Saffo notes, boundaries and identities are getting more permeable. It is difficult to determine where one such “entity” ends and another begins since their fates are so closely intertwined. There is increasing evidence of this across all sectors of the economy in advanced countries and with globalization this will increase. The new mindsets required by employees in the changing organizations is that of the self-employed i.e. accepting responsibility for their own marketability, seeing employers as customers and rewards as dependent on individual contribution. There are a number of implications for organizational identity and knowledge management in these changes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":154248,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interorganizational Networks & Organizational Behavior eJournal\",\"volume\":\"199 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interorganizational Networks & Organizational Behavior eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3042195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interorganizational Networks & Organizational Behavior eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3042195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
随着千禧年的临近,组织开始更智能、更快速地工作。他们正在使用通信和知识技术,如群件和网络,以更好地发挥作用(霍夫曼和诺瓦克,1995年,美国商务部,1998年)。企业、客户和供应商之间的知识网络不仅是广泛的,而且是密集的。这不仅是因为互联网和内部网的普及,还因为做生意和组织工作的过程正在发生变化。随着网络的扩展,组织和环境之间以及组织内部迄今存在的边界将变得更具渗透性。霍夫曼和诺瓦克(同上)认为,网络的交互性是与客户建立更大关系营销以及成本效益的途径。同样,在过去15-20年的精简和分层过程中,组织的内部层级也被剥离了(Rajan & Van Eupen, 1997)。在后一种描述中,在内部-内部和内部-外部系统中,从事商业活动的人寻求更大的合作(Horwitch, 1995)。考夫曼(1995)将此与进化论联系起来,将其描述为技术共同进化:一个企业在新技术市场或“技术圈”的生态景观中为另一个企业创造利基。虽然指的是技术的共同进化,但将组织的共同进化推断为伴随的结构发展似乎也是合理的。Saffo(1995)在他引入的“价值网”概念化中提出了这样一种组织协同进化。Saffo讨论的新出现的组织形式包括各种各样的网络中小企业或合作社,如使用单一公司名称的“Ocean Spray”,到像通用汽车这样与供应商建立EDI链接的大型跨国公司。正如萨福所指出的,界限和身份正变得越来越具有渗透性。很难确定一个这样的“实体”在哪里结束,另一个在哪里开始,因为它们的命运是如此紧密地交织在一起。越来越多的证据表明,发达国家的所有经济部门都存在这种情况,随着全球化的发展,这种情况还会增加。在不断变化的组织中,员工需要的新心态是个体经营者的心态,即为自己的市场能力承担责任,将雇主视为客户,将奖励视为个人贡献的依赖。这些变化对组织身份和知识管理有许多影响。
Corporate Identity and Vision: Challenges for the New Millennium
As we approach the millennium, organizations are beginning to work smarter as well as faster. They are using the communications and knowledge technology such as groupware and the web to better effect (Hoffman & Novak, 1995, US Dept of Commerce, 1998). Knowledge networks between companies, customers and suppliers are not only extensive but also intensive in nature. That is not only because of the ubiquity of the Internet and of intranet use but because the process of doing business and organizing work is changing. The hitherto pre-existing boundaries within and between organization and environment will become more permeable as the networks expand with the greater interactivity of the evolving networks. Hoffman and Novak (ibid) suggest that the web’s interactivity is the avenue to greater relationship marketing with customers as well as cost benefits. Equally, the internal layers of organizations have been stripped down throughout the last 15-20 years of downsizing and delayering (Rajan & Van Eupen, 1997). In both the latter descriptions, internal-internal and in the internal-external systems, those engaged in business seek greater collaboration (Horwitch, 1995). Kauffman (1995), relating this to evolutionary theory, describes it as technological co-evolution: one business creating niches for another in the ecological landscape of the new technology market or “technosphere”. Although referring to technological co-evolution, it seems reasonable to infer organizational co-evolution too as a concomitant structural development. Saffo (1995) suggests just such an organizational co-evolution in the “value webs” conceptualization he introduces.The newly emerging organizational forms discussed by Saffo include a diverse range from networked SMEs or cooperatives, like ‘Ocean Spray’ who use a single company name, to giant multinationals like general Motors with EDI links to suppliers. As Saffo notes, boundaries and identities are getting more permeable. It is difficult to determine where one such “entity” ends and another begins since their fates are so closely intertwined. There is increasing evidence of this across all sectors of the economy in advanced countries and with globalization this will increase. The new mindsets required by employees in the changing organizations is that of the self-employed i.e. accepting responsibility for their own marketability, seeing employers as customers and rewards as dependent on individual contribution. There are a number of implications for organizational identity and knowledge management in these changes.