Louise Knight

Bio: Louise Knight is an academic researcher from Aston University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Procurement & Purchasing. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 70 publications receiving 2392 citations. Previous affiliations of Louise Knight include University of Bath & University of Twente.

Outsourcing: assessing the risks and benefits for organisations, sectors and nations

Abstract: Purpose - This research aims to assess the risks and benefits of outsourcing for organisations, sectors and nations. The literature on outsourcing contains little evidence of research on holistic issues of its impact at systems levels beyond the firm, notably sectors and nations. Design/methodology/approach - A Delphi study with senior strategists from private and public sectors captured perspectives and specific observations on benefits and risks of outsourcing. Emergent issues on outsourcing policy, strategy and decision-making processes were synthesised into a framework for analysing factors associated with outsourcing. Findings - The findings suggest that a more holistic view of outsourcing is needed, linking local, organisational issues with sector and national level actions and outcomes. In this way, aggregate risks and benefits can be assessed at different systems levels. Research limitations/implications - Future research might address the motivations for outsourcing; currently there is little research evidence to assess whether outsourcing is a mechanism for failing to solve internal problems, and moving responsibility and risk out of the firm. Additionally most outsourcing research to date has concentrated on an activity either being "in" or "out"; there is little research exploring the circumstances in which mixed models might be appropriate. Practical implications - The framework provides an aid to research and an aide memoire for managers considering outsourcing. Originality/value - This paper contributes to knowledge on understanding of outsourcing at different systems levels, particularly highlighting the implications of outsourcing for sectors and nations. Previously most research has focused at the level of the firm or dyadic relationship.

Network Learning: Exploring Learning by Interorganizational Networks

Abstract: The importance of interorganizational networks in supporting or hindering the achievement of organizational objectives is now widely acknowledged. Network research is directed at understanding network processes and structures, and their impact upon performance. A key process is learning. The concepts of individual, group and organizational learning are long established. This article argues that learning might also usefully be regarded as occurring at a fourth system level, the interorganizational network. The concept of network learning - learning by a group of organizations as a group - is presented, and differentiated from other types of learning, notably interorganizational learning (learning in interorganizational contexts). Four cases of network learning are identified and analysed to provide insights into network learning processes and outcomes. It is proposed that 'network learning episode' offers a suitable unit of analysis for the empirical research needed to develop our understanding of this potentially important concept.

Supply management: is it a discipline?

Abstract: Purpose – To examine management literature for guidance on what constitutes a discipline. To examine supply management publications to determine whether the field constitutes a discipline or an emerging discipline. To contribute a structured evaluation to the body of supply management theory/discipline development knowledge. Design/methodology/approach – Literature review of what constitutes a discipline and an initial assessment of whether supply management is a discipline. Development of research questions used to design tests, using combinations of qualitative pattern matching, journal quality rankings, and social science citations index impact factor. Application of the tests, to evaluate field coherence, quality and the existence of a discipline-debate, to determine whether supply management is an emerging discipline. Findings – An initial literature review finds supply management not to be a discipline, as the field lacks quality of theoretical development and discussion, and coherence. Tests for increasing evidence of coherence, quality and impact yield positive results, indicating that supply management is progressing in its theoretical development. The test findings combined with the existence of the start of a discipline-debate indicate that supply management should be judged to be an emerging discipline. Originality/value – Drawing from the management literature, the paper provides a unique structured evaluation of the field of supply management, finding it not to be a discipline, but showing evidence of being an emerging discipline.

Network learning: An empirically derived model of learning by groups of organizations

Abstract: Building on a previous conceptual article, we present an empirically derived model of network learning - learning by a group of organizations as a group. Based on a qualitative, longitudinal, multiple-method empirical investigation, five episodes of network learning were identified. Treating each episode as a discrete analytic case, through cross-case comparison, a model of network learning is developed which reflects the common, critical features of the episodes. The model comprises three conceptual themes relating to learning outcomes, and three conceptual themes of learning process. Although closely related to conceptualizations that emphasize the social and political character of organizational learning, the model of network learning is derived from, and specifically for, more extensive networks in which relations among numerous actors may be arms-length or collaborative, and may be expected to change over time.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.