Your response must be 650- words, must include the integration of at
1-Reponse to the post below:
Your response Must be 650- words, must include the integration of at least 3 peer-reviewed source citations and the scripture (the Bible) in current APA format, outlined in each respective Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical principle.
Discussing Networks and Their Impact (Marshall)
Organizing, while primarily an act of bringing means to an end, is complex work that involves constant learning and adapting to changing environments (Scott & Davis, 2016). A part of wisely leveraging resources involves understanding when financial resources are necessary, or when other types of resources will serve the organization better (Zardini, Ricciardi, Ludovico, & Rossignoli, 2018). One method, as posited by Zardini, Ricciardi, Ludovico, and Rossignoli, (2018), of navigating uncertain and ever-changing environments, is to leverage business networks and the fortitude of opportunities which follow. Networks function by establishing ties that connect groups and individuals into relationships where resources and support may be shared across the network structure (Barratt & Smith, 2018). The purpose of this discussion is to describe various type of networks, how these networks react to environmental stimuli, and the facets of a biblical worldview that ought to be applied to network thinking.
Types of Networks
Scott and Davis (2016) provide a simple definition of networks, describing them fundamentally as groups which assume many different forms and operate like open systems where interdependent parts interact, sharing in the exchange of resources of many kinds. These networks have a shape and structure, and link directly to the value chain of a firm, they in some ways act like organizations themselves (Scott & Davis, 2016). This section aims to highlight the basic details about various types of networks, and the roles they play in making an organizational impact.
Over time, organizations have shifted from individualistic ideas of capitalism, to a narrative that promotes a collaborative capitalism or rewards that are shared across relationships rather then kept to oneself as in the competitive state (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018). Loosely defined, interorganizational networks are described as groups of two or more organizations who collaborate by sharing information and resources to reach common goals (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018). Accountable care organizations (ACOs), for example, are organizations comprised of several healthcare organizations which collaborate to care for share populations of patients by sharing resources in a way that creates effective cost savings, but also meeting high-quality standards (Trombley, Fout, Brodsky, McWilliams, Nyweide, & Morefield, 2019). The AIM ACO posited a $48.6 cost reduction as a result of the care organization collaboration (Trombley, Fout, Brodsky, McWilliams, Nyweide, & Morefield, 2019).
Scott and Davis (2016) suggest that there are numerous ties that make interorganizational networks possible. Ties can be seen as the exchange or flow of work or information, board directors, authority, and even affiliations across the organizations (Scott & Davis, 2016). Two models of interorganizational networks include exchange and interlock networks (Scott & Davis). To better understand interorganizational linkages, it is important to understand both exchange and interlock networks.
Exchange networks are described by Scott and Davis (2016) as the quintessential network forged by a free market economy. Exchange networks allow for growth to occur within evolving environments by allowing for informational exchange in various modes and formats (Dominguez, Mayrhofer, & Obadia, 2017). Powerful ties of these networks are built upon loyalty and trust, and strong information (Scott & Davis, 2016). Similarly, these ties serve as an asset in aiding organizations in expansion activities such as globalization (Dominguez, Mayrhofer, & Obadia, 2017).
Interlocks most commonly occur when an individual holds board positions across multiple different organizations at the same time consequently creating access to important business information (González, 2019). Among the highest, elite, levels of organizations have been common across the decades, but have been declining (González, 2019; Scott & Davis, 2019). Although interlocks occur at the highest of levels, little supports the notion that these networks posit any kind of valuable control over one organization or another – these networks are about gaining knowledge (Scott & Davis, 2016). A downfall of interlock networks can present in the form of negative corporate practices that are inadvertently spread from one organization to another because of the common leadership at the board level (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Network organizations occur where social relationships are used to for the free-flowing of information across what would typically be seen as a formal boundary (Scott & Davis, 2016). Relationships like this can occur within an organization, creating an internal network organization, or they can happen outside of the network, among, organizations, as external networks. Internal linkages take advantage of social ties within a system, casting influence over-involved groups and partners in a group (Scott & Davis, 2016). External networks, conversely, take advantages that exist outside of the organization, but contribute to the value stream of the organization (Scott & Davis, 2016). External networks have led to valuable strategies, like outsourcing, which present a unique flexibility amid changing environments, to scale productivity up or down rapidly in response to changes in the environment (Scott & Davis, 2016).
A third form of network organization is known as an alliance network. Alliances serve to create opportunities for an organization to control its ability to scale operations, reduce risk, and gain foresight about the market ahead of competitors (Scott & Davis, 2016). Alliances can form out of situations such as joint ventures, and they posit to the relationship a measure of centrality, or positional advantage, over the other organization(s) in the alliance (Macaulay, Richard, Peng, & Hasenhuttl, 2018). While there appears to be greater yield from alliance networks, they are similar to interlocks, but are seemingly more desirable due to positive associations with benefits and outcomes such as diversification, which is necessary in times of tension and uncertainty (Scott & Davis, 2016). While there are benefits to alliances, some drawbacks include threats to financial performance due to increased social performance (Macaulay, Richard, Peng, & Hasenhuttl, 2018). Scott and Davis (2016) unintended negative consequences may present in the form of undesirable structural gaps within the organization, or new barriers in the market caused by increases in patenting.
Other Network Forms
Networks described by the inputs and outputs cultivated throughout an industry with structural autonomy can be referred to as sectoral networks (Scott & Davis, 2016). Structural autonomy can be measured as the amount of freedom and organization has available to engage in operations within an industry without constraint imposed by competitors or substitutes (Scott & Davis, 2016). These networks can be powerful enough to create influence formal policy within both the public and private sectors, shedding light on how political interests are served through networks (Scott & Davis, 2016).
Economic and Business Networks
Two other network forms are the structure of the economy and business networks. Economic structures differ globally, driven by how inter-industry networks form and propagate throughout the area (Scott & Davis, 2016). In the United States, the intersection of various industry propels the economy forward because there is an interdependence across industries that affects their business (Scott & Davis, 2016). These relationships vary in different economies as their networks have different sources of power, such as the standardized operations seen in France (Scott & Davis, 2016). Business networks, on the other hand are posited by Scott and Davis (2016) to have sway and political power. Similar to how inter-industry networks can affect economies, similarly business contributions, even seen through interlocks, can affect policy and political outcomes (Scott & Davis, 2016).
With the rapid expansion and growth of technology, another form of network emerged known as social networks (Daft, 2016). While also described by the hardware, cloud, and software technologies that make social networks possible, organizations take advantage of the connections inside and across systems that allow for the sharing of codified and tacit knowledge across people and groups (Daft, 2016). Stakeholders have an important role in their organizations and are considered by Scott and Davis (2016) to be the actors across their networks. Similarly, each stakeholder has a different role or responsibility throughout their respective social network as hubs, peripheral players, or brokers (Daft, 2016). Hubs serve as information centers – they’re the people with the knowledge (Daft, 2016). Peripheral players have few connections, but they form boundaries for the social network (Daft, 2016). Finally, the brokers form connections between people (Daft, 2016).
A good example of a social network comes from the New Testament. Jesus and his disciples created a powerful social network. Jesus, humbled as a man, served as the hub, because of His Station and oneness with God. He was able to espouse truth, bringing the word to life, and tenaciously sharing knowledge. The disciples served as brokers who connected people to the Gospel, and inevitable Jesus himself. They’re role as disciples, was to make connections back to the gospel so that more disciples were made. Finally, the limitless people reached by the gospel formed the periphery of the social network. They at a minimum engaged and shared their valuable niches, but overall formed the boundary of believers and non-believers.
Establishing a project charter is a key first step in any project. Just as an organization defines its roles and boundaries, the charter defines objectives, roles, and expectations. In the charter is typically outlined the financial impact expected from the project based on baseline data or estimates. In healthcare, networks can play a fundamental part in the financial impact in various ways. One glaring opportunity comes from the use of interorganizational networks as a resource whereby benefits of being in the group bring along financial benefits to the organization (Scott & Davis, 2016). Organizations who participate in ACOs work closely together to carefully coordinate care, and they are incentivized to bring in the highest quality of care, and they share in savings offered by payers, like Medicare, because of that care (Wang, Abby, Qiu, Kim, & Chen, 2018). Understanding the role accountable care organizations may play in the project, either from a care perspective, information perspective, or even a purchasing perspective, in fact, helps to establish key players and potential solutions throughout the course of the project.
Other networks also influence organizational effectiveness as well. When selecting projects as an organization, understanding the stakeholders, and establishing their buy-in is critical to project success. A threat to this type of work can come from organizations where interlocks or other ties create structural gaps or perhaps poor practices into the business. Scott and Davis (2016) suggest that one of the downfalls of interlocks is that they can spread poor practices across the organization, infecting one organization with poor standards, just as an ill person might infect a healthy person with a virus. These concerns should be accounted for and addressed during a project, either as noise or as barriers to which a resolution should be established before moving forward. If these factors are not addressed, a project manager may encounter resistance. Resistance is natural, but understanding a network is part of what it takes to completing the necessary step of addressing resistance by first understanding where the resistance is coming from and using it as an opportunity to learn (Spector,2013).
The network structures at play in scripture are profound and complex. However, one does not have to look far to see these structures at work. One of the most apparent and powerful networks seen throughout the Gospel is a social network. Centuries before technology, the internet, and social media came to fruition, Christ leveraged social networks to accomplish his work, which was to spread the good news of salvation and to be a light throughout the world. One way Christ did this was by performing miracles, and doing them at the right time. “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4) Jesus tells his mother while attending a wedding. Shortly afterward, Jesus performs the miracle of turning water into wine. After this, more miracles were performed, and word of His glory irreversibly spread throughout the land due to word of mouth of the people and His disciples. The efficacy of His social network is easily demonstrated by the woman who grasps at him in the crowd, by the laying of palm leaves, and by the fury of the religious leaders whose pomp and circumstance were degraded and challenged by Christ teaching. It was through a viable social network, empowered by God, that a humble carpenter could elicit such a following.
Network structures are prevalent throughout organizations and even across entities. Networks can take the form of interorganizational relationships, internal or external linkages, and even as social institutions. Other forms of networks include interlocks, economic structures, and business networks where power at the highest levels of an organization have reach across organizations, creating ties that allow for the shifting of power and influence over political matters and even policy. Networks, specifically social networks, were an important part of biblical history. Through connections made by Jesus and His disciples, the gospel was effectively permeated across populations, and still exists today. Network thinking is important because networks allow for flexible means of navigating organizational environments.
2-Reponse to the post below:
Your response Must be 650 words, must include the integration of at least 3 peer-reviewed source citations and the scripture (the Bible) in current APA format, outlined in each respective Discussion Board rubric. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical principle.
Network Organizations (Casey)
The network metaphor is often used in describing numerous structures ranging from social groupings, the brain network, global computer networks, and other coordinated structures (Scott, 2015). A network is explicitly defined as a system of interrelated nodes. From an organization perspective, these nodes may include stakeholders such as employees, owners, suppliers, HR management, and consumers (Scott, 2015). These stakeholders form ties that make an interdependent organization system with a continuous flow of information, materials, and people. Scott and Davis (2015) compared a network organization with living systems that range from cells to organs and work together to make the whole-body function. Interpersonal networks within organizations determine hiring’s, firings, promotions, etc. Additionally, they decide the organizational networks shape by exchanging alliances, shared directors, and resources.
Network integration brings stakeholders together to form an interdependent system that functions as a unified organization. Significant studies on networks in organizations replicate the nature of theories that existed before the development of network systems. Network organization refers to a social network that is incorporated within formal boundaries (Scott, 2015). In reality, the resource dependence concept describes the value of exchange ties among enterprises and how they shape dependence relations and formalized networks, such as those with alliances and shared directors. Institutional theorists have also applied imagery to stipulate constructs like the materialization of allied organizational structures and the interlinking of organizational fields.
Network organization types
While discussing organization networks, Bhattacharya et al., (2007) highlighted three critical networks. These included a stable network, dynamic network, and internal network, as presented in the subsequent section.
This is the category of a network in which corporations establish market-based ties to a constrained number of downstream and upstream partners who serve corporate in separate networks to retain competitiveness (Bhattacharya et al., 2007). A stable network is mainly present in relatively mature organizations. For instance, Nike, which directs its internal resources to market and R&D, outsources the entire production process to manufacturers in Asia, allowing them to work for competitors like Puma and Adidas to retain competitiveness. These ties are somewhat long-term.
The dynamic network involves temporary alliances of independent enterprise elements in the value chain (Bhattacharya et al., 2007). They are evident in firms whose products have diminished product cycles. For instance, most high-end fashion enterprises, like the Garment District in New York City, which connects a group of specialist enterprises to create seasonal clothing fashions, applies the dynamic network. The subsequent season retains or changes the product line. Thus, each product line is taken as a project with a rather limited duration. Hollywood production undertakes the same formula with directors, actors, cinematographers, and producers building partnerships to launch movies (Bhattacharya et al., 2007). In the next production, they may decide to work under a different partnership or retain the partnership. The film industry was traditionally vertically oriented, and they reserved actors, directors, producers, and writers on long-term partnerships. In the fast-progressing high-tech corporate, lead firms are concentrating on design with other contractors focusing on manufacturing. Electronic manufacturers like Jabil Circuits, SCI Systems, and Flextronics that were formerly aligned under Box Staffers have recently engaged in performing widespread high-tech manufacturing (Bhattacharya et al., 2007). This means that an enterprise with limited investment capital adopts a saleable product approach while stilling retaining the ability to expand. Such companies can also either retain production capacity without owning production facilities or scale down during low production phases.
In this network, firm units trade commodities among themselves by adopting prices set up in the market (Scott, 2015). Its structure brings transactions inside the boundaries of the enterprise. Staff departments may encounter competition brought by external vendors who may bring in advanced services at a reduced cost. Computer manufacturers are a perfect illustration in which disk drive units may share their products with internal consumers and external clients. In contrast, other corporate units may approach external drive producers to obtain supplies (Kowalski et al., 2015). Comparing the value string for the conventional computer production model in which producers assembled computers delivered by distributors, internal networking involves customizing orders received from clients before setting up the production process. Organizations using internal networking create a partnership with suppliers who provide real-time market data on consumer orders across different segments to facilitate harmonization and communication. Enterprises also work together with significant corporate clients who offer critical services like the preloaded software or work with on-sight consumers in other organizations (Kowalski et al., 2015). The system allows network segments to cooperate as a unified organization while sustaining inventories at minimum prices and deliver customized commodities to final users.
Impact on Various Environmental Processes
Creating New Organizations
Start-up processes in a network organization design are influenced by multiple factors such as diversity of operations, company size, and the operation setting (Scott, 2015). Several theories stipulate that consideration of the business environment is central to the design of the organization. Such considerations may include the way enterprises address uncertainty conditions, compete with similar firms, and procure resources (Kowalski et al., 2015). The network structure has several implications on the life cycle of products in an organization. In a dynamic network, critical problems may arise in production phases. Kowalski and Jenkins (2015) suggest that such problems may be solved using intelligent organizational structure designs. Daft design stated that the startup stage demands competent leadership to address issues related to a product’s life cycle. This suggests that decision making is supposed to be supported in a way that every partaker is empowered to deploy creative ideas. During the collectivity phase, momentum should be added by creating functional teams that would enable leaders to delegate specific tasks to specialized employees.
As the enterprise expands towards the formalization phase that requires more bureaucracy and advanced leadership to approve critical decisions, they start producing at extensive scale levels (Kowalski et al., 2015). At this stage, organizations are necessitated to avoid falling into rigid structures that inhibit efficiency, decision-making, and communication. The elaboration phase is where the life cycle of enterprises plays a critical role (Kowalski et al., 2015). At this stage, the enterprise must maintain its significance in the particular field by creating advanced products and reinforcing competitiveness to deliver unique and acceptable products. This phase requires expansion into industrial markets and organized creativity in achieving marketing goals. Divisional structures and functional teams are created in the broadened firm structure to enable teams to explore and respond quickly to new business strategies while the whole enterprise retains operative efficiency within the expanded markets (Kowalski et al., 2015).
Network organizations can participate in ecological management by linking actors at distinct management echelons as well as across sectors to uphold decision-making (Sikdar et al., 2014). Enterprises apply definite, collaborative mechanisms such as establishing working groups that join diverse actors and a common environmental purpose. Network organization forms an arena for trust-building, knowledge coproduction, conflict resolution, learning, and sense-making. Although network enterprises vary in formalization, size, and scope, they largely encourage interaction between partnerships, individuals, and teams to bridge environmental gaps (Sikdar et al., 2014). These working groups are boundary formulations to support collaboration between decision-makers and scientists. They partake in the governance processes and overall management by identifying environmental issues to formulate a plan for addressing science and policy issues.
Nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) serve as environmental advocates in resource governance. Considerable financial, human, and technical resources allow NGO’s to link up with actors across multiple institutional boundaries. Working groups in partnership with NGO’s can facilitate ecological-based efforts by delivering structures and formal mechanisms in which various stakeholders interact (Sikdar et al., 2014). By founding partnerships, network organizations support research and other scientific endeavors focusing on the discussion of theory, processes, and information by utilizing interdisciplinary groups. This improves scientific impact and productivity. The collaborative environment also builds trust, facilitate creativity, and address conflict. Overall, with the escalating global ecological concerns, companies under stable, dynamic, and internal network topologies are taking responsibility for their products. For instance, Microsoft Corporation agreed to reduce approximately 50% of its total greenhouse gases by 2025, with the focus of encouraging companies to take responsibility for their ecological waste (Sikdar et al., 2014).
Organizations are now capitalizing on technological tools to increase production scale and design new and sophisticated organization structure (Scott, 2015). The technology has become the chief basis of competitive gain and economic value. In-network, virtual organizations are the recent organizational structures in which different organizations are systematically interlinked using the internet. Inside this structure, organizations are entirely relying on computer-supported communications. The conventional corporate structures have advanced through the integration of virtual systems. Managers can now pass information more efficiently using virtual tools such as email, online presentations, calendars, and emails. According to Tkaczyk (2015), organizational design is a strategic process of shaping responsibilities and structure to optimize competition capabilities. Technology plays an invaluable role in organizational design. A technological organization is viewed as a complex system that combines human resources and technological provisions. Technological tools are being deployed in initiating more robust structural designs and enhance productivity for organizations, therefore, adding potential infrastructure of competitive advantage and economic value. Using technological tools such as the internet, SME’s can expand globally to gain market leadership around their niche (Tkaczyk, 2015). For such a firm, this means reducing overhead costs, enable small and dynamic teams, remove the requirement of building a large office, and communicate globally.
The network structure is heavily reliant on technology. The modern sophisticated and affordable logistics technologies and telecommunication networks have escalated the viability of network structure (Tkaczyk, 2015). In a stable network structure, technology has influenced supply chain operations by interconnecting business partners involved in the supply or manufacturing of product packages demanded by consumers. The supply chain managers can now track, predict, refine, and forecast outbound logistics, thus creating logistical advantages such as reducing warehouse expenses, negative ecological impacts, packaging requirements, and fuel consumption. Besides, the demand for advanced ways of collecting data, managing reports, and sustaining communication enable managers in the network structures to manage more staff members (Tkaczyk, 2015).
Internationalization in SME’s
Internationalization for SME’s is the process of expanding the business involvement into the international arena. Shrestha and Lama (2011) stipulated that direct investment, exporting, joint venture, and licensing are the principal barriers that businesses face when entering the international markets. Traditionally, internationalization mainly involved large companies, while SME’s were considered as local investors. However, the investment capacity for SME’s has increased under networking organizations. Using dynamic network or stable network structures, SME’s have taken a significant ladder towards internationalization (Shrestha et al., 2011). The reason for this expansion is the advanced opportunities associated with partnerships and joint ventures that increase the investment opportunities without the need of owning significant assets. For instance, the stable structure allows businesses to outsource production, which reduces the investment required. Partaking in the international markets brings new possibilities for SME’s to expand markets, which could be limited for domestic markets (Shrestha et al., 2011).
Additionally, research has found that knowledge assets can either strengthen or weaken enterprises in the internationalization journey. It suggests that knowledge aspects, management, or R&D have the capability of pushing the enterprise to the international arena, whereas the redundant of knowledge aspects pull the SME’s in the course of internationalization (Shrestha et al., 2011). In the internal network business, firms try to assess the challenges in the knowledge aspects and relate these challenges with networking solutions. Financial limitations have also been identified among the principal barriers to internationalization. Besides, enterprises lack adequate information pertaining to markets they want to enter, limiting the possibility of winning new customers. However, SME’s can address the highlighted barriers using networking. Since most enterprises are limited in a management capacity, finance, information sources, experience, and time, working alone in the global markets could deepen their revenue capacity. However, business networks allow SME’s to combine their strengths to scale-up production and expand markets (Shrestha et al., 2011).
The cultural concept is the extent to which cultural values differ across different people depending on their physical environment. Cultural distance is the reason why organizations struggle to identify and interpret consumer tastes in new markets (Redondo, 2013). Greater cultural differences may produce misunderstandings. In order for firms to exploit opportunities presented in new markets, they have to interpret the cultures to succeed and take the lead in across their niche. The creation of business networks entails the creation of direct contact between different companies that understand consumer culture in their locations. Network companies have developed new ways of communicating with consumers through a language and style that suits the target groups. Thus, while designing adverts or developing a marketing plan, the culture becomes the core element that decides the success of marketing efforts (Redondo, 2013). Local SME’s and foreign enterprises have also transformed the communication culture by adopting virtual communication systems.
The primary aim of this discussion was to identify the types of network organizations and discuss how they influence environmental processes. The network organizations discussed include stable, dynamic, and internal types. The environments covered include technological changes, ecological processes, cultural influences, creating new organizations, and internationalization. The research noted factors that entail firms to participate in networking activities. With the escalating global ecological concerns, companies under stable, dynamic, and internal network topologies are taking the responsibility of their products to reduce pollution. During the business startup phase, enterprises’ life cycle plays a critical role since the enterprise must maintain its significance in the particular field by creating advanced products and reinforcing competitiveness to deliver unique and acceptable products. The study concluded that networking influences the culture, but most organizations fail to consider cultural variations while exchanging information with foreign partners. It also established that using technological tools such as the internet, SME’s can expand globally to gain market leadership around its niche. Additionally, the research found that knowledge assets can either strengthen or weaken enterprises in the internationalization journey.
Merida, T. (2015). Christ-centered exposition: Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Kings. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group. ISBN: 9780805496703.
Scott, W. R. (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. London, England: Routledge. ISBN: 97801319589371-Reponse to the post below: