Biochemical characterization of DprA for chromosomal transformation

In this discussion case at the semantic organizational boundary, the participants discuss how to build a new vision with the help of scenarios in the context of Exurban’s new cross-department strategy process. The discussion includes one facilitator, two strategists from Exurban (E-Strategist 1-2) and one strategist from Metropolitan (M-Strategist). The discussion lasts 9 minutes and 1 second and it includes 20 speech acts.

Speaker Speech Act Code(s) Short

Code(s) Initiate Negotiate Alter Create Validate Outcome REP ASS ASK AGR DIS CLA SYN AGR

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Altered

Facilitator There are different methods for scenario-building, but anyway this was kind of a scenario. Here, the ideas would be driven by the project group, or that the project group would be responsible. Do you have any ideas about how you could maybe...would it be the business of the project group to carry this out, or who should be involved? Any ideas?

ask AK

E-Strategist 1 I think you have to reflect with other actors as well. ask

represent A+R

Facilitator Reflect? ask

clarify AK+C

E-Strategist 1 Discuss issues represent

clarify R+C Facilitator Discuss, with whom? Just tell me some real quick. ask

clarify AK+C E-Strategist 1 I guess at least other departments and the elder committee

and the private service providers. represent

clarify R+C

Facilitator In what kind of fora? ask

clarify AK+C

E-Strategist 1 And employees, of course. represent

clarify R+C Facilitator What kind of for a would be suitable for the discussion? ask

clarify AK+C

E-Strategist 1 I don’t know… represent R

Facilitator Is there something else, what do people from the other cities think? Do you have stages like this in your strategy processes?

ask clarify

AK+C

M-Strategist Well, in Metropolitan we have a change forces analysis

stage. assess M-Strategist Well, the group itself recognizes the forces. They use

experts, but now for example this council vision creation process, the entire city council is included. So it's a little like , when you have these...the alternative future

scenarios… we don’t do it so officially. That feels kind of

”heavy”, I think we’re less bureaucratic and more creative in creating the vision, there’s more feelings involved. This [Exurban's way of doing it] feels a little mechanical, you know, beginning with information gathering. Maybe with more ”heart” and improvisation would be better.

represent R

Facilitator Yeah. I think this is a good point. Here we have the original version drafted so that the vision is created by quite a rational process, in a way you create the vision through analysis. Then the other option would be to include more creative power and intuition. What do others think about this [the original, more rational version of the vision creation process.] Does if feel too stiff, or

mechanical?

assess

agree A+AG

E-Strategist 2 It feels more difficult assess A+R

Facilitator More difficult? ask clarify

AK+C

E-Strategist 2 Yes. represent R

Facilitator How is it more difficult? ask

clarify AK+C E-Strategist 2 I think it’s more difficult to understand for a feelings

person like me. I think the Metropolitan's model is easier represent

clarify R+C

This case discussion begins when the facilitator sums up earlier discussion on the theme, and asks who would be responsible for carrying scenario-building in the strategy process.

Next, a brief nine-speech act dyadic discussion between E-Strategist 1 and the facilitator ensues. In the brief discussion, represented knowledge becomes clarified. During the discussion and prompted by the facilitator’s clarifying questions, E-Strategist tells that, in scenario-building, issues have to be discussed with other actors, such as legislators, employees and service firms. Then, M-Strategist assesses the represented and clarified knowledge:

“Well, in Metropolitan we have a change forces analysis stage ---the group itself recognizes the forces. They use experts, but now for example, this council vision creation process, the entire city council is included. So it's a little like, when you have these...the alternative future scenarios… we don’t do it so officially. That feels kind of ”heavy”, I think we’re less bureaucratic and more creative in creating the vision, there’s more feelings involved. This [Exurban's way of doing it] feels a little mechanical, you know, beginning with information gathering.

Maybe with more ”heart” and improvisation would be better.”

In this speech act, M-Strategist represents her organization-specific knowledge as a concrete example (“in Metropolitan we---”), and suggests that perhaps a vision-creation

process with more “heart” and “improvisation” would produce a better vision. The M-Strategist’s representation of organization-specific knowledge is then assessed by E-Strategist 2, who realizes that Metropolitan’s practice of vision-creation may actually be better that that of Exurban’s. These observations lend support for Proposition (P1). More specifically, E-Strategist 2 states:

“It feels more difficult --- I think it’s more difficult to understand for a feelings person like me. I think the Metropolitan's model is easier”.

In this case discussion, knowledge concerning vision-creation becomes clarified and extended. As a result of the knowledge transforming discussion, E-Strategist 2 admits that Metropolitan’s way of doing things is perhaps better suited for creating a vision than what is currently in use at Exurban. As E-Strategist 2 assesses knowledge represented by M-Strategist by agreeing, knowledge negotiation is initiated. Unfortunately, there is no data available to determine whether the represented and agreed knowledge becomes contested and thus actually negotiated and transformed. Thus, while this case discussion provides no data to address propositions (P2 – P5), it suggests that knowledge clarification alone is not sufficient for knowledge to become negotiated and transformed.). Based on the analysis of Case 2, Proposition (2.1.) stated that: Knowledge clarification, enabled by the sharing of similar thought worlds, mediates knowledge negotiation at the organizational boundary. Now, based on the new evidence that knowledge clarification is not a sufficient condition for knowledge negotiation, I extend Proposition (2.1) and reformulate it as follows

Proposition 2.1. Knowledge clarification, enabled by the sharing of similar thought worlds, mediates knowledge negotiation at the organizational boundary but is not sufficient for knowledge negotiation

It may well be that all participants at the organizational boundary would agree with the statement that Metropolitan’s way of creating visions “with heart” is superior to Exurban’s more “technical” approach. If that were the case, knowledge would not be negotiated and transformed, but rather knowledge would simply be transferred (Argote &

Ingram, 2000) from Metropolitan’s strategy-makers to Exurban’s strategy-makers.

Nonetheless, that knowledge is sometimes transferred at semantic organizational boundaries is consistent with both existing literature (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Carlile, 2002; Carlile, 2004; von Hippel, 1994) and the emerging theoretical framework of this dissertation. I present a summary of knowledge transformation process in Table 11, and a summary of knowledge transformation process elements in Table 12.

TABLE 11. Summary of the analytical story in Case 4

Strategist’s Organization

Old organization-specific knowledge

Transferred knowledge

Exurban _o One should discuss issues with other actors when building scenarios

Metropolitan

o Metropolitan is less bureaucratic and more creative

Metropolitan’s creative model is easier to understand

TABLE 12. Summary of knowledge transformation elements in Case 4