View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

seemed to indicate that the alliance relationship seemed to be a long term objective, rather than a quick fix. In this alliance, it was clear that the NSO was not at a stage where it was totally dependent on the PSF’s resources, though it was clear that the NSO would never be able to develop those resources themselves without greater financial input. Therefore, in the future it was a possibility that the NSO would become dependent on these resources. In summary, whilst both alliance partners have intent to learn from the other, the intention cannot be regarded as being strong. 5.3 Transparency of Organisations in a NSO-PSF Alliance Both organisations seemed to have initially felt they demonstrated high levels of transparency. It would seem that because of the NSO’s non-profit status and the responsibilities that came with being a NSO, that served a number of stakeholders, they were a naturally open organisation. This supports Hamel’s (1991) perspective that there are certain reasons why some organisations may be more transparent than others. The PSF displayed a limited level of transparency. Many participants commented on the fact that they had a media friendly policy. They implied that by giving the media access this supported that they were an open organisation. However when pressed to understand what areas it would protect from the NSO, PSF interviewees were able to give a number of examples without hesitation. These included financial information, player contract details and team tactics, basically anything that related to the success of its team in the Australian competition. This to a certain degree may also suggest that the PSF was not trusting of the NSO. However, this was a completely different story with the NSO. Participants were unable to think of anything that they would specifically protect from the PSF and only when pressed a few participants listed player contracts and any delicate 104
financial issues. However one participant mentioned sponsorship issues, saying they would be reluctant to share sponsorship intelligence, however it was another participant at the NSO that saw both organisations in the future securing separate sponsorship deals for each other. Both organisations were able to articulate what their alliance partner would protect and indicated their unwillingness to seek anything on this list. While the PSF was quite specific in the areas it would protect, the PSF had demonstrated in their partnership draft document that it was willing to share with the NSO. Examples from the draft document include: coaching assistance, technical analysis, player scouting and a training facility. However apart from this, there seemed a willingness in both organisations to share information with each other. It was apparent that the PSF was sharing information while protecting some of its competitive advantages. While there was willingness, there was no actual evidence to support anything tangible being transferred between both organisations. There however seemed to be the transfer of intangible ideas that would best benefit the common sport. For example one idea that developed was the joint junior development programme. While both organisations showed willingness to share information with each other, showing willingness and being able to deliver on those promises remains to be demonstrated. Participants from both organisations said they were willing to share with each other. It seemed there was a willingness to share, though both organisations needed to take each other up on the offer and ask. However, while the NSO said it was sharing information with the PSF, the PSF disagreed and would have liked the NSO to share more information that it brought back from international tournaments with them. As alluded to previously, there seemed to be an open door policy that existed between both organisations. For example, PSF and NSO employees would be involved in each other’s coaching clinics. NSO members were utilising the PSF facility, and having the 105
Page 1 and 2:
Determinants of Inter-Partner Learn
Page 3 and 4:
3.3 Data Sources...................
Page 5 and 6:
INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1: Case Stu
Page 7 and 8:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to of
Page 9 and 10:
DEDICATION I would like to dedicate
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Backgrou
Page 13 and 14:
Harvey, 1997). However, the study o
Page 15 and 16:
take over management of the Knights
Page 17 and 18:
“to be New Zealand’s leading pa
Page 19 and 20:
transparency and receptivity to lea
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Int
Page 23 and 24:
To summarise this section, transfer
Page 25 and 26:
separated into internal and externa
Page 27 and 28:
least some form face-to-face contac
Page 29 and 30:
experiences with a view to improvin
Page 31 and 32:
are amongst the most important fact
Page 33 and 34:
Whether learning becomes self-susta
Page 35 and 36:
alliance. Organisations with a pref
Page 37 and 38:
uncontrolled access. Organisations
Page 39 and 40:
additional factor influencing recep
Page 41 and 42:
The rationale for this research was
Page 43 and 44:
the organisation and the relationsh
Page 45 and 46:
By keeping accounts of the research
Page 47 and 48:
number of questions where developed
Page 49 and 50:
interviews. Not only was there the
Page 51 and 52:
The next section focussed on the se
Page 53 and 54:
the opportunity to archive the data
Page 55 and 56:
3.4.4 Communication A major factor
Page 57 and 58:
three determinants of learning deve
Page 59 and 60:
the type of organisation but not th
Page 61 and 62:
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1. Introductio
Page 63 and 64: een one of the factors that had res
Page 65 and 66: Interestingly NSO3 made this commen
Page 67 and 68: some duplication, then, there’s c
Page 69 and 70: [I]t’s mainly the management, but
Page 71 and 72: Other participants supported this b
Page 73 and 74: [the sport] in the country. And tha
Page 75 and 76: communication, April 18, 2008). Thi
Page 77 and 78: [W]e’ll come back from the intern
Page 79 and 80: [PSF1], and [PSF2] and ... the owne
Page 81 and 82: When probed further as to why this
Page 83 and 84: In certain areas the NSO1 thought i
Page 85 and 86: However in an unusual move, likely
Page 87 and 88: Since I’ve come on board, and cer
Page 89 and 90: obviously doing it. So on that leve
Page 91 and 92: PSF6 also reiterated this, wanting
Page 93 and 94: with them, you never know what you
Page 95 and 96: the answer: I think as I said, we
Page 97 and 98: access....so, in return for univers
Page 99 and 100: important.....we’re opening up ou
Page 101 and 102: It was clear that there had been so
Page 103 and 104: When questioned about who was the t
Page 105 and 106: We have three full time coaches her
Page 107 and 108: wanting to know more, I guess, yes,
Page 109 and 110: CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Introducti
Page 111 and 112: Both organisations are collaboratin
Page 113: Hamel’s (1991) study that argued
Page 117 and 118: 5.4 Receptivity of Organisations in
Page 119 and 120: 5.5 Future Research There are a num
Page 121 and 122: REFERENCES Alexander, T., Thibault,
Page 123 and 124: Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (2
Page 125 and 126: Inkpen, A. C. (2002). Learning, kno
Page 127 and 128: New Zealand Companies Office. (2008
Page 129 and 130: Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K.-M. (199
Page 131 and 132: Area Research Question Appendix 1:
Page 133 and 134: Appendix 2: AUTEC Ethical Approval
Page 135 and 136: Appendix 3: Participant Information
Page 137 and 138: How do I agree to participate in th
Page 139 and 140: Appendix 4: Participant Consent For
show all

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?