response

DOC670

How I contacted the site to get their commitment to allow the study:

            
Since I am employed at the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA), it was relatively simple to contact the agency to seek their approval for my project.  I scheduled an office call with my supervisor and discussed the proposed project and its intent.  Since the outcome of the study is intended to assess the current disinterment request process and provide options to improve its efficiency, the agency was more than willing to allow the study.  

            While I was given overall approval to conduct the study, the actual details of how data would be gathered, the population that will participate in the project, and other specifics were not presented, nor known, at the time when initial approval was granted.  A more thorough discussion will take place before the study actually commences, and another agency approval, based on the study’s design and planned methodology, will be attained.

Did I agree to provide them the results of the study in the form of a consulting-type report?

While there was no agreement to provide any sort of a formal report, I did inform the agency that my findings would be made available to them upon the study’s completion. 

Why do I find this firm interesting?

            DPAA has one of the noblest missions within the military.  Providing closure to the families of the missing from our past wars is a fulfilling and personally rewarding job to have.  While my position within the agency does not present me with many opportunities to meet the families of those remains we return to them, hearing of their reactions from those who do meet the families is rewarding in and of itself.  I can’t imagine a more memorable job to have.  Also, being able to provide an opportunity to improve upon the agency’s overall efficiency is just another feather in the cap that I will be able to have pride in.

DOC660

Good day, Classmates!

In Case Study #2, evidently, restructuring an organization’s structure to one that supports innovation does not count as Business Process Reengineering. Did anyone else get “hit” on this? The organization in said scenario (in this researcher’s opinion) needs a complete make-over, many of the daily processes are not officially documented, and productivity is hindered. Several articles support restructuring an organization when productivity is lacking or there has been a shift in external or internal environments (Disney, Haskel & Heden, 2003; Hakkala, 2006; Yuhn & Park, 2010). Along these same lines, there are also research studies on organizational structures that better support innovation and a need for decentralized governance (Daugherty, Chen & Ferrin, 2011; Deschanps & Nelson, 2014; Loukis, Basalos, & Popa, 2017). Perhaps the subject and recommendations were too broad, or the argument was not substantial nor scholarly enough. Appreciate to hear feedback from other doctoral candidates!

In Case Study #3, this student found the background materials confusing to the learning objectives. For example, the second required video was on the Innovation of Diffusion theory, which explained how a product becomes adopted over time in a social setting. How does this relate to product innovation? Unless, however, one considers marketing their innovative product to the early adopters. Arguably so, an innovative product that is revolutionary is rare, many are simple improvements or added new features. Therefore, the continued innovation of Apple lies with the marketeer. The iPhone had one revolutionary invention, the iPhone 3G. All iPhones that followed may have seemed revolutionary, but they essentially were improvements. Again, this student has to give credit to Apple’s marketing team who created a very loyal base (made up of early adopters) who would buy the new iPhone without hesitation.  Did I miss something? I thought innovation and creativity could happen throughout the organization, not just in the research and development department. Love to hear your arguments and counterpoints!

References:

Daugherty, P. J., Chen, H., & Ferrin, B. G. (2011). Organizational structure and logistics service innovation. International Journal of Logistics Management, 22(1), 26-51. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.trident.edu:2048/10.1108/09574091111127543

Deschamps, J. P., & Nelson, B. (2014). Innovation governance : How top management organizes and mobilizes for innovation. ProQuest Ebook Central 

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.trident.edu

Disney, R., Haskel, J., & Heden, Y. (2003). Restructuring and productivity growth in uk manufacturing. Economic Journal, 113(489), 666–694. 

https://doi-org.ezproxy.trident.edu/10.1111/1468-0297.t01-1-00145

Hakkala, K. (2006). Corporate restructuring and labor productivity growth. Industrial & Corporate Change, 15(4), 683–714. 

https://doi-org.ezproxy.trident.edu/10.1093/icc/dtl015

Loukis, E., Kyriakou, N., Pazalos, K., & Popa, S. (2017). Inter-organizational innovation and cloud computing. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(3), 379-401. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.trident.edu:2048/10.1007/s10660-016-9239-2

Yuhn, K., & Park, S. R. (2010). Information technology, organizational transformation and productivity growth: An examination of the Brynjolfsson–Hitt proposition. Asian Economic Journal, 24(1), 87-108. 

https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1467-8381.2010.02025.x