Loading ...
Global Do...
News & Politics
8
0
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008 CREATING AND TESTING A NEW OPERATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY INSTRUMENT THAT PREPARES ORGANISATIONS TO EXPLOIT NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Peter Gall & Janice Burn Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia p.gall@ecu.edu.au; j.burn@ecu.edu.au ABSTRACT This paper describes the creation and testing in the real world of a new instrument that identifies and prioritizes internal preparedness to operate more virtually. This tool has the potential to directly influence research into the interdependent concepts of the Virtual Organisation VO, Living Labs, and Digital Ecosystems. All three of these concepts rely initially on an organisation fully understanding and utilizing their ICT assets internally as a means of exploiting new business opportunities. Self organizing, demand driven, networked sustainable communities offering cost effective value creating digital products and services can only be developed if each organization in the network is sustainable. The paper focuses on the paradigm of internal operational sustainability as a prerequisite for involvement in Living Lab initiatives and seeks to answer the research question; can a new instrument be developed that gives organizations the opportunity to test how operationally sustainable their ICT systems are. Keywords: Virtual Organisation, Living Labs, Digital Ecosystems, ICT, Strategic Alignment, Virtual Preparedness Copyright: © 2008 eJOV. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use and distribution, in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited, and prohibits derivatives. Peter Gall & Janice Burn 1 INTRODUCTION New business opportunities such as the concept of networked sustainable communities can only be developed if each organisation in the network is sustainable. The author defines sustainability as the ability of an organization to fully understand and exploit their Information Communications Technology ICT assets. Opportunities exist for 21st century organisations to join communities that play a significant role in identifying needs, shaping applications and creating effective interactions between inventive producers and users of technology for truly innovative uses (Living Lab Global, 2008) One of the most successful European initiatives is the concept of the Living Lab; defined as an open innovation systems, in which companies governments and industry interact around complex projects in different societal domains (Katzy, 2006). The Australian equivalent is the concept of Digital Ecosystems; defined as a self- organizing digital infrastructure, aimed at creating a digital environment for networked organizations supporting the cooperation, knowledge sharing and development of open and adaptive technologies (Brodie, 2007). This paper focuses on devising a new instrument that has the potential to prepare organisations to operate more virtually. In a hyper competitive, global economy, in which businesses are connected by high-speed, cheap ubiquitous networks, the billion dollar question is how to build an enterprise that really does move, grow and adjust to a changing business landscape. One of these changes is the role that Information Communication Technologies ICT is playing in promoting the notion of organisations being compelled to become more virtual. This paper endeavors to clarify some of the concepts related to the virtual organisation VO; the type of organisational form which has emerged to exploit capabilities of new ICT and emerging technologies and meet the challenges of new marketplaces. VO is just one of the concepts that have figured prominently over the past ten years to twenty years in an effort to find better ways of fully exploiting the evolution in ICT and emerging technologies. Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, (2005) describe the emergence of the VO paradigm as falling into the natural sequence of restructuring processes enabled by the explosive growth in ICT. This view is supported by Zigurs et al (2006) who believe that technology and organisational development are closely related and provide an opportunity for the emergence of new organisational forms. Based on the literature there seems to be a logical timeline that leads from research into VO to more holistic solutions such as Living Labs and Digital Ecosystems. However to fully understand and exploit holistic initiatives, organizations must first be prepared to maximize the value of their ICT assets. The concept of an organization which is ‘virtually organized’ employing ICT for the majority of its communication, asset management, knowledge management and eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 85 Creating and Testing a New Instrument customer resource management, across a network of customers, suppliers and employees is not new in fact this description comes from a paper written in 1998, (Venkatraman & Henderson, 1998). As far back as 1992, Davidow and Malone described creating an economy based on virtual organisations as a new business revolution emerging from the corporate trenches out of pragmatic necessity, the product of a collision between aggressive international competition and breathtaking advances in technology. Organisations that exploit the potential to develop their own automated network are variously described as virtually organizing or virtual organisations. Virtualization allows one organisation to appear as many or many to appear as one, becoming increasingly adaptive, focusing on dramatically improving the speed and economics of business change to meet new market conditions (Yockelson, 2004). One of most recent perspectives that focus on the economics of business change is the concept of Living Labs. Living Labs are defined as firms, public authorities and citizens that work together to create, prototype, validate and test new services, businesses, markets and technologies in real-life contexts. The linkage over time has been the role that ICT and emerging technologies continue to play in the evolution of virtual theory. A Living Lab needs access to state of the art technology not of only one kind but often of competing technologies delivered though different business models (Niitamo et al., 2006). ICT is of critical importance for the effective functioning of a VO (Camarinha-Matos, et al. 2005). A properly functioning VO has the potential to become an integral part of collaborative initiatives such as Living Labs or Digital Ecosystems. Broad continuums of models and strategies using variations on this theme have been developed. But little thought has been given to whether the generic concepts of virtual organisations, virtual organizing and virtual collaboration can be developed into a research model framework and ultimately a new instrument that can be used to evaluate how well placed an organization is to exploit operational integration (the firms level of operational capability (virtual preparedness) to act as a virtual organization. 2 THEORIES OF VIRTUAL ORGANISATIONS The framework introduced in this paper as Figure 1, was loosely devised based on the work of Venkatraman and Henderson (1993) who were among the first to describe virtualness as the ability of an organisation to consistently obtain and coordinate critical competencies through its design of value adding business processes involving external and internal constituencies to deliver differential, superior value in the market place. Their strategic alignment model SAM is regarded as a benchmark in the development of a properly functioning VO and therefore a valid model on which to base the development of a new instrument (Venkatraman & Henderson, 2003). The authors of this paper believe that research into initiatives such as VO, SAM, Living Labs and Digital Ecosystems could benefit from devising a new instrument for medium eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 86 Peter Gall & Janice Burn and large case study organizations to use as a tool for management. The objective is on “creating innovative applications based on existing technologies as well as the creation of future technologies” (Niitamo et al., 2006, p 1). The instrument introduced in this paper was devised by concentrating only on the left hand side; the Operational Integration paradigm of a new research framework model. Internal Domain Virtual Organising (Customer focused) ICT VO E Business Strategy Managing Knowledge Managing Business Processes E Commerce Inter-Organisational Systems Web Services Groupware CRM Internet / Intranet Managing Core Competencies Operational Integration Figure 1 – The Research Model Framework 3 RESEARCH APPROACH Under the paradigm of Operational Integration eight pieces of literature were reviewed; (Manheim & Watson-Manheim, 1999: Porter& Stern, 2001: Balint & Kourouklis, 1998: Venkatraman & Henderson, 1998: Tammela & Salminen, 2006: Guha et al., 1997: Zigurs et al., 2006: Becker & Gerlach, 2006). Three pieces were chosen as the foundations of a new instrument; the Virtual Operations Preparedness Instrument (VOPI). The reasons for selecting these three are first, the authors felt this literature focused most predominantly on the key operational concepts forming the foundations of our research, depicted on the left hand side of the framework model; managing knowledge (Zigurs et al, 2006); managing core competencies (Venkatraman & Henderson, 1998); and managing business processes (Guha et al., 1997). Second, all three are the work of noted authors in the field of VO. Third, all three pieces of literature, as depicted in the following table were relevant to concept of understanding virtual preparedness as means of fully exploiting an organizations ICT and emerging technologies assets. eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 87 Creating and Testing a New Instrument Managing Knowledge (Zigurs et al, 2006) Managing Core Competencies (Venkatraman & Henderson, 1998) Managing Business Processes (Guha et al., 1997) Virtual Operations Preparedness Instrument - VOPI Communications Shared goals 6,26.52, Trust / Cooperation / Coordination 1,29.41,53 Open communications 12,17.57, Asset leverage 5,29,31, Relationship Balance 38. Dialectic of cooperation 39. Dialectic of competition 40. Cooperative behaviour 41. Conflict level 42.Inter organisational linkage Customer Interaction 17. Multi stage distribution 18. Efficiency 19. Linear value chain 20. Innovation 21. Customisation Coordination 1. Trust 2. Competence Based 3. Experts 4. Liaisons Strategic goals 17,31.60, 22. Communities 43. Cross functional cooperation Efficiency Value creation 12,31,60, Organisational efficiency 10,16.43, Effectiveness 9, 35, 44, Knowledge sharing 8,30, 37, Process driven 17,38,58, Viability IT Leverage 44. Information 45. Imperatives 46. Bidirectional relationships 47. Socio/technical relationships Asset Configuration 23. Sourcing 24. Integration 25. Dynamic Portfolios 26. Relationships 27. Assembly Knowledge 5. Attributions 6. Non Linear 7. Complex 8.Intelligence Repositories 28. Co-ordination 48. Coordinated interaction Long / short term ROI 41,30,59, Sustainable profitability 13,33,66, Economic value 12,26,65, Innovation 9. Dynamics Customised 15,22,47, Cultural Readiness 50. Change agents 51.Leadership 52. Shared organisational goals 53. Trust / Cooperation / Coordination 54. Relationships 55. Risk Aversion 56. Open Communications 57. Shared output process 58 Learning Capabilities 10. Web Networked 11. Diverse Culture 12. Adaptive Interfaces Knowledge Leverage 29.Source diversity 30. Value Creation 31. Organisational efficiency Visibility 10,20,25, Supply & Value Linear value chain 13, 41 Innovation 9,42,52, Customisation 16,43,49, Integration 10,25,44, Coordination 6,29,49, Linkages interpersonal behaviour 1,23,53, Inter-functionality 6,25,43, Organisational linkages 12,32,43 Functional cooperation 8, 33, 44, 59. Positive outcomes Interdependence 2,27,52, Competence 13. Emergent Tasks 14. Non Linear 15. Ubiquitous 16. Self Organising Systems 17. System Reorganisation Adaptability 60. Adaptation Work Unit Expertise 32. Distributed tasks 33. Decomposition 34. Effectiveness 35. Knowledge capture 36. Sharing Change agents 9,20,50, 61.Cross functional entities Core competencies 16,25,62, 62. Core competencies Adaptable 12,25, 60 63. Technical gatekeepers Imperatives 5,30,66 Coordinated Interaction 17,26,49, 64. Deutero learning 37.Process driven 65. Causation 66. Adaptability Table 1 Commonalities / New Instrument eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 88 Peter Gall & Janice Burn Table 1, depicts how selected concept headings and dimensions drawn from the three pieces of literature were incorporated into the first three columns and how each of the headings and dimensions were numbered and each number was used to identify commonalities. A number of new headings and dimensions were extrapolated out of each of the three pieces of literature. These headings and dimensions formed the construct of a new instrument on the basis that they most appropriately supported the concepts identified under operational integration. Column four identifies commonalities that were used to create the new headings and dimensions for the new instrument; the VOPI. Commonalities were identified through a rigorous review of the headings and dimensions both across and down. For example the first heading in the VOPI is Communication. The third dimension under Communication is Open communications. The term or a variation of the term ‘open communication’ occurs in all three models. Managing knowledge heading 12; adaptive interfaces was deemed to be similar. Managing core competencies, heading 17; system reorganization was chosen and for managing business processes 56; open communication was identified. A second example looks at the dimension of Adaptability; the sixth heading of the VOPI. The heading chosen under adaptability was Adaptable imperatives. Managing knowledge contained a similarity 5; attributes. Managing core competencies; heading 30 was selected as similar and in managing business processes 66; adaptability was identified. The researcher felt that of the three terms, Adaptability was the most appropriate and should be considered as a dimension. There are many other examples that validate the decisions made in regards to the new headings and dimensions. However it is important to point out that a degree of assumption had to be factored into the decision making process. Across three models that validate the operational integration paradigm, 12 headings and 66 dimensions were selected to be combined into six new dimensions and 30 headings. This could be seen as a limitation of the process, but the real value of the framework and the new instrument are that they were designed as evolving constructs. Another limitation is that a certain amount of subjectivity had to be employed in devising the methodological questions that were created for each dimension and heading. 4 METHODOLOGY – CASE STUDY The authors felt that a case study methodology was the most appropriate process to determine if the questions created out of the dimensions were valid and applicable in the real world. They were fortunate in gaining access to a major GDE (Geographically Dispersed Entity) that agreed to allow them to conduct a case study. This organisation plays an essential role as a critical operational division of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The organisations workforce of 150 is highly trained and disciplined with very specific role designations. eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 89 Creating and Testing a New Instrument Fifteen (15) group managers were chosen as subjects for the case study as these senior managers represented all the key divisions of an organisation charged with responsibility for a broad range of ADF essential services. The case study process consisted of four phases; Phase 1, Pre-Interview Audits, Phase 2, One on One Interviews, Phase 3, Post Interview surveys and Phase 4, Empirical Analysis. 5 THE PROCESS In phase 1 the group managers (respondents) were required to circle the response which most closely reflected how important they felt each of the questions was to their group. Table 2 provides an example of one of the 6 dimensions surveyed in the Pre-Interview audit phase. Each complete audit comprised six dimensions, five questions per dimension making a total of thirty questions per audit. It is important to state that the questions were devised from the enablers of each dimension in the VOPI (See Table 1). The first box in each table identifies the Phase, the acronym of the instrument and its full name. The second area denotes the question that was posed. In the case of Phase 1, all the pre-interview audit questions related to how important a particular dimension and heading was to the organisation. Below this the letters used for the survey are explained, based on a simple Likert scale e.g. SA Strongly Agree, Agree etc. Next is the wording for the dimension. In the case of Table 2 the example given is Efficiency. There are 30 questions for each audit. The questions under Efficiency are numbers six to ten. If the group under my control were to work effectively with other internal groups using Information Communication Technologies it would be important that: KEY (Circle the response below which is closest to your opinion) SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree DK = Don't Know Efficiency 6 I understand my groups value creation strategies 7 Efficiency strategies are effective 8 My group operates effectively and efficiently 9 Knowledge is shared openly and effectively 10 Processes are in place that aid efficiency SA SA SA SA SA A A A A A D SD Table 2 Pre-Interview Audit D SD SD SD SD DK DK D DK DK DK D D PRE-INTERVIEW AUDIT PHASE 1: VOPI - VIRTUAL OPERATIONS PREPAREDNESS INSTRUMENT eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 90 Peter Gall & Janice Burn A simple method was devised to identify the priority from most important to least important. A scale of five being strongly agree down to 1 was used. There were 15 respondents, consequently the highest score achievable was 75 (15 x 5) and the lowest 15 (15 x 1); the higher the score the more the importance. Code Value X 15 Grade Strongly Agree SA 5 75 Agree A 4 60 Disagree D 3 45 Strongly Disagree SD 2 30 Don’t Know DK 1 15 Figure 2 provides the results obtained from the 15 respondents to the 30 questions posed for the VOPI and reflect Phase 1 data analysis. Figure 2 Pre-interview Audits The chart clearly illustrates that the vast majority of the respondents, out of the 15 surveyed strongly agreed or agreed that the dimensions and the questions posed were important. This is a significant initial outcome. The electronic version of these charts provides a colour coding for each of the thirty questions asked. One example of an outcome of phase 1 was that for Question 6 under the Dimension, Efficiency, 1 strongly agreed, 12 agreed and 2 disagreed that this question was important. An equally positive skew in results was obtained for nearly all of the questions posed. This data is significant because it validates the instrument in terms of whether or not the organisation felt that overall, the dimensions and the questions posed were important to this particular organisation. Once this was established phase 2 of the process commenced. The second phase of the process involved one-on-one interviews with each of the respondents. Due to ADF security considerations the interviews themselves all had to be paper based as the organisation was not in a position to approve the use of voice recorders. Consequently, all the transcripts were written up by hand during the interviews and later converted to spreadsheets. An excerpt of the questionnaire is set out in Table 3. eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 91 Creating and Testing a New Instrument The questionnaire was designed to allow respondents to provide feedback. The overarching question remains the same as for the pre-interview audit in asking would it be important, but asks the subject to comment on whether he or she felt that the statement made sense; if not why not. This is followed by the dimension heading. The subject was then asked to comment on the five questions under the dimension focusing on whether they made sense or not, what was missing or the subject would have liked to have seen added. Finally the subject was asked if he or she had any other comments to make about the dimension. Questionaire - VOPI If the group under my control were to work effectively with other internal groups using Information Communication Technologies it would be important that: Did the statement make sense? If not / why not?_________________________________ Efficiency Perception across those surveyed is that “efficiency” is important _______________________________________________________________________ 6 I understand my organizations value creation strategies 7 Efficiency strategies are effective 8 My group operates efficiently and effectively 9 Knowledge is shared openly and effectively 10 Processes are in place that aid efficiency SA A D SD DK SA A A D SD DK SA D SD DK SA A A D SD DK SA D SD DK What was good / made sense about the checklist for this heading? ________________________________________________________________________ What didn’t make sense? ________________________________________________________________________ What would you have liked to have seen covered / or added, felt was missing? ________________________________________________________________________ Any other comments you would like to make about efficiency________________________ Table 3 One to One Interviews The next step was to pool all the input from the interviews and develop a consensus across the respondents of their reactions to the dimensions and the questions posed. One example was that during the interviews a problem was identified in the second dimension; Efficiency. Even though overwhelmingly the 15 group managers felt the questions were important, in this organisation the consensus was that in Question 6, the terminology ‘value creation strategies’ did not mean much to this organisation, consequently the question was changed to ‘efficiency is recognized and rewarded’. Any revisions to the instrument in phase 3 appear in Table 4, in bold type. eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 92 Peter Gall & Janice Burn Phase 3 consisted of the distribution of revised post interview surveys to the 15 group managers, as depicted in Table 4. Again the respondents were required to circle their responses to the 6 dimensions and thirty questions. The critical difference in phase 3 was that the overarching question that was applied to all dimensions and headings, changed to whether the respondents felt that they were actually doing the things they previously agreed was important. PHASE 3: VOPI - VIRTUAL OPERATIONS PREPAREDNESS INSTRUMENT POST INTERVIEW SURVEY How effectively does your group work with other internal groups using Information? Communication Technologies under the following headings? KEY (Circle the response below which is closest to your opinion) SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree DK = Don't Know Efficiency – Competence, Effectiveness 6. Efficiency is recognized and rewarded 7. Efficiency strategies are effective 8. My group operates efficiently and effectively 9. Knowledge is shared openly and efficiently 10. Processes are in place that aid efficiency SA SA SA SA SA A A A A A D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD DK DK DK DK DK Table 4 Post Interview Survey The true power of the instrument is reflected in the Phase 3 results shown here in Figure 3, which provides a very different picture of the organisation. Again the authors were extremely fortunate that all 15 original respondents were available to complete the post interview survey. Especially as in the third phase the overarching question is far more confronting in terms of their specific organisation. In the vast majority of cases across the 30 questions, group managers were less confident that their organisation was actually doing the things it thought were important. Figure 3 Post Interview Surveys eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 93 Creating and Testing a New Instrument The results of the post-interview survey moved from a heavy concentration in the Strongly Agree and Agree columns to Agree, Disagree and in some cases even Strongly Disagree. It is this mixed response which was of most interest to the authors and raised an interesting question; could the gap between Importance and Doing be used to set priorities for organisations to focus on in terms of more effectively exploiting their ICT assets? Table 5 converts the charts provided as Figures 2 and 3 into the top five priorities for the case study organisation. Examples of potential solutions for the top three priorities were also generated in column 7 of this table. VOPI No Importance 15 - 75 Doing 15 - 75 Gap I-D Priority Solutions Communication 1 71 53 18 2 Understanding and implementing a range of new Internet/ Intranet emerging technologies 3 72 57 15 5 5 67 51 16 3 Additional training in how to maximise the mediums effectiveness Adaptability 27 67 48 19 1 Intelligent Software Agents, Enhanced Systems Capability Flexibility, Agility, Procedure models, Open Source Systems, Enterprise Systems 29 65 50 15 4 Supply & Value 16 47 60 -13 30 Table 5 Gaps Identified The Number one priority was question 27 under the dimension of Adaptability. Another significant outcome was that of the top five priorities identified, three fell into the Communication dimension, reflecting the concerns the respondents expressed about how effectively they felt their organisation communicated. The dimension considered as having the lowest priority was Viability with five of the questions falling between 20 and 30 in terms of priority. These were at other end of the scale but the negative scores were still very significant, especially question 16 under the dimension of Supply and Value. The case study organisation regarded this as the least important thing they were doing. Engaging in activities that are unproductive could have a serious impact on overall productivity. The final phase of the process consisted of reporting the results to the sponsor of the case study organisation. An appointment was made and a report submitted detailing the results. The responses given by the sponsor to questions posed during this meeting are detailed in Table 6 and 7 were then used to undertake empirical analysis. The objective was to confirm or refute the validity of the instrument. Table 6 details the questions asked and Table 7 the responses obtained. Doing / not Important eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 94 Peter Gall & Janice Burn 1. Did your organisation think that the process had value? 2. Were the priorities identified relevant to your organisation? 3. Was the time devoted to the process considered time well spent? 4. Do you think your organisation gained anything from undertaking the process? 5. Were positive results achieved? 6. Were there elements missing from the process? 7. Did the recommended changes reflect your organizations needs? 8. Should anything else have been added to the process? 9. Does you organisation intend to do additional due diligence on the priorities identified? 10. Does the process provide you with a tool for identifying organizational priorities? Table 6 Questions No A General Consensus, Observations and Feedback 1 Y The sponsor’s initial reaction was that what had been discovered was common sense and would have been identified over time. However the sponsor did acknowledge that the information regarding priorities was useful, because it enabled him to understand which issues were most important to the groups and also whether or not the groups shared his belief that issues were being addressed to the organisations satisfaction. 2 Y The sponsor grudgingly admitted that some of these issues were important, but clarified this by stating that they were due to a major restructuring. 3 Y The sponsor conceded that although he felt the process had been time consuming the priorities identified were important 4 Y The sponsor felt that he gained an understanding of priorities that concerned staff. However he felt that the restructure was to blame for the negative feedback. 5 Y As far as the sponsor was concerned the results were positive 6 Y The sponsor felt that the in terms of elements that were missing the solutions identified did not go far enough. He felt that a lot of the solutions recommended were already an extension of current plans under the restructure. 7 Y Yes, the changes recommended were significant in recognizing need. 8 N The sponsor was of the opinion that the VOPI covered most of the issues facing his organisation but commented that it was not enough just to identify the issues. The researcher responded by alerting the sponsor to the fact that Phase 4 is just the beginning. Next steps would include due diligence of the problem area and implementation of the solutions recommended. 9 Y The sponsor indicated that based on the information contained in the report he would be following up with the group managers on the priorities they had identified 10 Y The sponsor indicated that the process had been a good first step; however he did comment that as the restructure was a work in progress occurring during the case study, the results might be substantially different were the case study to be repeated after the restructure. Although he did not go as far as to invite the researcher back to repeat the process, he did suggest that he would support initiatives designed to undertake due diligence on the priorities identified. Table 7 Responses eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 95 Creating and Testing a New Instrument 6 FINDINGS The findings support the author’s contention that a new instrument can be developed that gives organizations the opportunity to test how operationally sustainable their ICT systems are. The empirical analysis results indicate that the sponsor overwhelmingly felt that significant priorities had been identified and that applying the VOPI had been of value to his organisation. This is verified by the fact that in Question 10, the sponsor stated that he would support undertaking further due diligence on the priorities identified especially given that the organisation was going through a major restructure at the time the initial case study was undertaken. The findings are also significant in terms of identifying the potential of this tool in determining how prepared organizations are, to join open innovation systems such as Living Labs. If each organization in a networked community can contribute sustainable ICT systems then the network of inventive producers and users of technology are more likely to develop truly innovative uses. A limitation is that the instrument has only been applied to one, albeit very critical globally dispersed entity. Testing in other organisations and retesting in the case study organisation should provide data that will confirm or disprove the significance of ongoing development of this instrument. Initially however these results would tend to verify that the creation of this instrument and the research model framework has the potential to provide a significant contribution for practitioners in the fields of VO, Living Labs and Digital Ecosystems. 7 CONCLUSIONS The most significant conclusions that can be drawn in this paper from applying the four phases of the case study methodology are that the instrument did achieve a number of substantial objectives. Firstly the pre-interview audits did confirm that this part of the process was relevant to the case study organisation. Although it could be argued that all organizations would strongly agree or agree that ICT dimensions that determine ICT operational sustainability are important. What the first phase revealed was that this organization did not place as high a degree of importance on some of the dimensions as it did on others. Secondly, a number of questions became the subject of intense debate during the one to one interview phase when the subjects were given an opportunity to reflect and comment on why some of the questions were not considered as important This resulted in significant changes in terminology and structure of the instrument prior to undertaking the post-interview surveys. Thirdly, as a direct result of the one to one interviews, the post-interview survey results were much more ‘demonstrative’ in identifying the gap between what an organization regarded as important and whether or not it was actually doing the things it felt were important. eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 96 Peter Gall & Janice Burn The authors believe that this instrument is capable of performing similar diagnoses on a range of medium to large organisations across diverse markets and industries. The results have the potential to enable organisations to gauge how virtual they are and how virtual they need to become to exploit opportunities in networked sustainable communities. As discussed in the introduction if an organisation can identify how prepared they need to be to operate more virtually by addressing priorities identified by the instrument, there are a range of business opportunities for 21st century organisations to contribute to new emerging open innovation systems such as Living Labs and Digital Ecosystems. The benefit of applying the VOPI over other models is that most of the data collected to date by other researchers does not reflect how a ‘real world’ organisation itself would have devised a tool specifically related to their organisation, this new instrument does. The four phases of the VOPI methodology can provide a tool for management to ensure that the data collected relates to and supports their organisations specific ICT operational sustainability strategies. This paper introduces a new instrument; the VOPI. This instrument is built on openness and neutrality in respect to technology or business models (Niitamo et al., 2006). It is the first paradigm in a research model framework which can be extended to encompass how ready the networked sustainable community is to exploit global opportunities. The authors believe that if an organisation can understand how virtual it is and how virtual it has the potential to become, it is then in a better position to exploit opportunities in digital environments for networked organisations supporting the cooperation, know- ledge sharing and development of emerging open adaptive technologies in evolutionary domain rich environments (Brodie, 2007). This belief reinforces the author’s future direction strategy for this instrument; to identify additional case study organisations to test and retest the instrument. The purpose is to ensure broad applicability and validity by comprehensively refining the instrument to be relevant in the real world. eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 97 Creating and Testing a New Instrument REFERENCES Balint, S., & Kourouklis, A. (1998). The Management of Organisational Competencies. Paper presented at the Vo-Net Workshop, Bern, Switzerland. Becker, M., & Gerlach, S. (2006). Virtual Site Management for Adaptive and Collaborative Enterprises. Paper presented at the ICE Conference, Milan, Italy. Brodie, M (2007). The End of the Computing Era: Hepaestus meets the Olympians. Keynote Speaker, IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, Phitsanulok, Thailand. Camarinha-Matos, L., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005). Brief Historical Perspective for Virtual Orgnanisations. In L. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh & M. Ollus (Eds.), Virtual Organisations: Systems and Practices. New York: Springer. Chang , E., & West, M (2006). Digital Ecosystems and comparison to existing collaboration environment, in WSEAS, Transactions on Environment & Development, 2 (11): 1396 - 1404. Davidow, W & Malone, M. (1992).The Virtual Corporation: Structuring and Revitalising the Corporation for the 21st Century. New York, Harper Collins. Guha, S., Grover, V., Kettinger, W. J., & Teng, J. T. C. (1997). Business Process Change and organisational performance: Exploring an antecedent model. Journal of Management Information Systems; Armonk, 14(1), 119-154. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organisations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4-16. Katzy, B. R., Loeh, H., & Sung, G. (2006) The CeTIM Virtual Enterprise Lab: A Living Distributed Collaboration Lab. Working Paper Series No 3305 Living Lab Global, (2008). A Global Driver for Innovation. Living Labs Global Your Market for Mobility. Accessed from http://www.livinglabs-europe.com/livinglabs.asp, 21 August 2008. Manheim, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. (1999). Organisational Virtualness and Electronic Commerce. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International VoNet-Workshop, Zurich. Niikamo, V.P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., Hribernik, K.A. (2006) State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks. Italy: Milan. 26 - 28 June pp. 341-357. Nii, J., Earl, M., & Ross, J. (1996). Eight Imperatives for the New IT Organisation. Sloan Management Review; Cambridge, 38(1), pp 43-55. Porter, M., & Stern, S. (2001). Innovation: Location matters. MIT Sloan Management Tammela, J., & Salminen, V. (2006). Modeling Business Innovation Collaboration in Open Infrastructure. Paper presented at the ICE Conference, Milan, Italy. Venkatraman, N., & Henderson, J. C. (1998). Real strategies for virtual organising. Sloan Management Review; Cambridge, 40(1), 33-48. Yockelson, D. (2004, June). The Adaptive Organization. Optimize. Manhasset, S2. Zigurs, I., Evaristo, R., & Katzy, B (2006) Collaborative Technologies for Virtual Management. Paper presented at the CeTIM, Germany eJOV – Volume 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August 2008. 98
