View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.6 Conclusion The purpose of this research was to explore Hamel's (1991) determinants of inter- partner learning in an NSO-PSF alliance. Four research questions guided the research. Though once characterised by negative sentiments the relationship between the NSO and PSF has becoming increasingly positive. There was evidence of friendships between employees in each partner organisation. The intent to learn was not high in either of the organisations. The learning intention of the NSO was higher than that of the PSF. Similarly, the NSO seemed to be more willing to share knowledge with the PSF than vice versa. The non-profit status of the NSO is put forward as a key factor underpinning this difference. Neither organisation appeared to have the capacity to learn from each other. Overall, this study confirms that Hamel's (1991) determinants of learning are an effective approach to understanding inter-partner learning. Unfortunately, it seems that organisations in the alliance studied are failing to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the alliance. These alliances cannot be replicated by other PSFs in the Australian sports leagues. Most NSOs are also not able to establish close relationships with a single PSF. Taken together, these NSO-PSF relationships are a yet-to-be realised source of sustainable competitive advantage. To not capitalise upon a resource that is useful, rare, not easily imitable and not easily transferable, is a strategic management sin of the highest order. Sports organisations have developed systems of inter-partner relations that achieve a balance between independent and collective action on one hand, and their simultaneous cooperative and competitive instincts on the other. Thus relationships between and amongst sport organisations provide the ideal context to explore the nature of learning between organisations. 110
REFERENCES Alexander, T., Thibault, L., & Frisby, W. (2008). Avoiding separation: Sport partner perspectives on a long-term inter-organisational relationship. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 3(3), 263-280 Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 295-315. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Assundani, R. H. (2005). Catching the chameleon: Understanding the elusive term "knowledge". Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 31-44. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909-924. Babiak, K. (2007). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: The case of a canadian nonprofit sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 338- 376. Babiak, K. (2009). Criteria of effectiveness in multiple cross-sectoral interorganizational relationships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(1), 1–12. Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Managing inter-organisational relationships: The art of plate spinning. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 3(3), 281-302. Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 117-143. Barnes, M., Cousens, L., & MacLean, J. (2007). From silos to synergies: Enhancing collaboration and integration in Canada’s sport system. International Journal of Sport Management & Marketing, 2(5/6), 555-571. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganisational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367- 403. Basketball New Zealand. (2006). Constitution of Basketball New Zealand Incorporated. Retrieved April 18 2008, from http://www.basketball.org.nz/resources/uploads/2007/08/bbnz-consitution-06.pdf 111
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 and 114: Hamel’s (1991) study that argued
Page 115 and 116: financial issues. However one parti
Page 117 and 118: 5.4 Receptivity of Organisations in
Page 119: 5.5 Future Research There are a num
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?