Taxonomy org


Published on

Published in: Business, Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Taxonomy org

  2. 2. TAXONOMY ORGANIZATIONS A taxonomy is a subject map to an organization’s content. It reflects the org’s purpose or industry, the functions and responsibilities of the persons or groups who need to access the content, and the purposes/reasons for accessing the content. A taxonomy is an information access tool, and will be implemented in a manual or automated system. It is a communication and training device providing history, expertise and inside information access tool, a taxonomy needs requirements and purposes before it is developed.
  3. 3. Taxonomy is an empirical constructed classification that identifies “clustering among org.l variables that is statistically significant and predicatively useful and that reduces the variety of org.s to a small number of richly defined types.” Mckelvey: advocated the development of taxonomies to understand a number of org.l phenomena such as environmental adaptation, structural design, and change.
  4. 4. Approaches to taxonomic Studies Three approaches 1. Emperical /atheoretical Studies 2. Theoretical taxonomic Studies 3. An Integrated Taxonomic Studies
  5. 5. Empirical / atheoretical Taxonomic Studies Major taxonomic studies in the org.l literature are strictly empirical, i.e., working without a priori conceptions and relying on resulting natural clusters of org.s to establish the classifications system. They cannot, of course, measure or include all possible org.l characteristics to generate the clusters. Thus, some selection of the grouping parameters should be made. This is one of the major issues for any classificatory attempt, but for empirical taxonomist this is probably the most critical issue. However, the rationale for an atheoretical approach is not clear. To begin with, it is not clear at all what is meant by ‘atheoretical’. It seems that the term is used to refer to the broadest, non-selective inclusion of org.l attributes in taxonomic studies.
  6. 6. Critique of empirical/atheoretical studies It attempts such as those by Hass, Pugh and Goronzy were not successful, becz they were inconsistent. Successful empirical classification must be based on a robust theory of org.l differences or on methods that are carefully atheoretical – there is no room in the middle. For an empirical classification to be carefully atheoretical it has to meet a number of guidelines, which include, but are not limited to: 1. Use of a simple probability sampling method for selecting a sample or org.s 2. Definition of the broadest possible population of org.s and 3. Definition of a population of rog.l attributes as inclusive as possible.
  7. 7. Empirical taxonomists shd start with easily identifiable and draw a non-stratified probability sample of org.s from this population. Research shd proceed on a population-bypopulation basis, defining the broadest possible sample of taxonomic characters and randomly selecting them if a computer program limits the handling of them all. Initial definitions of populations would be modified as a result of classification research.
  8. 8. Theoretical Taxonomic Studies This approach is developed by McKelvey. Building on the experience from biology and on biological analogies, McKelvey has proposed a theoretical approach I which evolutionist and numerical taxonomic methods are to be combined to develop a classification system of org.s McKelvey, org.l species shd be defined as, “polythetic groups of competence-sharing populations isolated from each other because their dominant competencies are not easily learned or transmitted.” The idea of polythetic groups, as opposed to that of monothetic groups, does not imply that all the members of a group or class share all and the same characteristics, but just that they share a large proportion of the characteristics defining the group.
  9. 9. McKelvey’s org.l species concept is based on the concept of competence elements, or comps. The comps are defined as, “the elements of knowledge and skill that, in total, constitute the dominant competence of an org.” Dominant Competence is defined, in turn as, “the combined workplace (technological) and org.l kn and skills (e.g. differentiation, coordination, control, measurement of effectiveness and organizing proccesses) that together are most salient in determining the ability of an org to survive.”
  10. 10. From a natural selection, populations of org.s have a set of comps which are held as knowledge and skill by employees of org.s in the population. Selection and retention processes account for the fact that each population of org.s is characterised by a given set of comps. These populations of org.s shd be the starting point for classification studies.
  11. 11. Critique of theoretical approach/Mckelvey’s approach McKelvey’s species concept is based on the notion of dominant competence, which is, in principle, acceptable. However, to be useful, this definition has to be operationalized. He admits that it is impossible to offer precise definitions of directly relevant without having in mind a specific population of org.s This criticism point to the extreme difficult in elaborating an acceptable species concept, which is one of the main lessons from the history of biology and also from almost any other successful classification enterprise in the natural sciences. Researchers are not better-off in coping with the selection of grouping parameters when working from this alternatives classification perspective than when following an empirical taxonomy approach.
  12. 12. An Integrated Taxonomic Studies Ulrich and McKelvey identified a number of business competencies (eg. R&D or engineering, manufacturing/assembly, mktg) and the types of mkts served (components, electric power. Communications) as well as other characteristics (eg: size, diversification, productivity) and used them as taxonomic characters. On the basis of these taxonomic characters, Ulrich and McKelvey identified thirteen populations within the United States. The selection of a particular set of variables as taxonomic characters becomes a matter a of both theoretical discussion and empirical results. In other words, researchers will argue about what are the most relevant variables to be included as taxonomic characters in terms of the literature, but they will also support their selections in terms of empirical results, i.e., whether or not the selection of given set of taxonomic characters leads to the identification of distinguishable, interpretable, and reproductable populations of org.s
  13. 13. Purely atheoretical taxonomic studies seems to be not only without a well developed rationale, but also impracticable. Researchers are better-off building on extant theories and previous research to select certain variables as taxonomic characters, than attempting a blind and indiscriminate inclusion of all the org.l attributes that could be measured and included in a study. Such a strategy implies that the amount of effort and resources required for taxonomic studies are considerable. Any researcher or group of researchers considering a serious taxonomic work must recognize, from the beginning that a long and thorny way lies ahead. Initial results are unlikely to be impressive. The pay-off, would not be appreciable in the short-term.