FunctionalAnalysisofBusiness_AylorBonnie_FinalPaper_Unit10a1

MAINTAINING BOUNDARIES DURING IMPROVEMENT
A Functional Analysis of Lockheed Martin Corporation
By: Bonnie Aylor 2030815
For: BMGT8006 / Fall 2014 / Dr. Tracy Elazier / Unit10a1

Maintaining Boundaries - By Bonnie Aylor Thursday, December 18, 2014 Page 1 of 22
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3
What is Lockheed Martin?.................................................................................................. 3
What Does Lockheed Martin Do ........................................................................................ 4
Functional Units inside Lockheed Martin........................................................................... 4
How do Functional Areas Interact and Communicate.................................................... 6
Classical Management System ....................................................................................... 7
Psychic Prison................................................................................................................. 8
Current Trends and Best Practices...................................................................................... 9
External Knowledge Integration..................................................................................... 9
Communities of Practice............................................................................................... 10
Digital Innovations........................................................................................................ 11
Other Trends ................................................................................................................. 13
Improving Business Performance at Lockheed Martin .................................................... 13
Integrating Communities of Practice ............................................................................ 13
Effect on External Knowledge Integration ................................................................... 14
Research and Development vs Communities of Practice ............................................. 16
Integrating Other Trends............................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 17
References......................................................................................................................... 19

Abstract
Lockheed Martin is a top aerospace and information technologies firm among
engineering industries (Lockheed, 2014). The company provides services to a range of clientele,
including local and international governments, military defense programs and common
consumers (Lockheed, What, 2014). The company has one set of business units that produce
specific products and services per unit, while maintaining an entirely different set of functional
departments that hold horizontal positions among geographically separated business units
(Lockheed, Career, 2014). While communication between these units may not be ideal, there are
still specific events and activities within the organizations that encourages minimal levels of
communications.
Current trends in the aerospace industry lean towards the integrations of knowledge
through external communications (Carolla et’al, 2012) as well as internal communities of
practice (Wolf et’al, 2011). These knowledge integration system could be implemented properly
to increase the efficiency of digital innovations among dominant designs (Hylving, 2012), such
as airplanes, spacecraft and missiles. Knowledge integration could also assist with the smooth
flow of sustainability practices, compliance audits, best practice materials locations, lean
processes and just in time delivery, and component security systems (Gao et’al, 2014; Wong,
2013). With the proper boundaries structures in place, Lockheed Martin could benefit from
technologically integrated communities of practice in order to enhance internal knowledge
sharing practices.

Introduction
Lockheed Martin is one of the top engineering firms across the globe (Lockheed, Who,
2014). The company works to provide aerospace and missile defense products to the defense
system. They also work on research and design of technological information products,
nanotechnology, space crafts, some vehicles and other related products servicing multiple sectors
(Lockheed, What, 2014). This paper discusses who Lockheed Martin is, what the company
accomplishes, and what types of functional structures are implemented at the company.
Furthermore, some current trends in functional systems are introduced with a slight discussion
about how these trends could be integrated into the business of Lockheed Martin to improve
processes. Finally, the paper ends with a statement of new procedures that could be implemented
at Lockheed Martin to improve upon current business management functions. The company will
benefit from the implementation of communities of practice within its internal foundations that
can implement automatic information sharing for audit data, new technologies, best practices,
and other integral process design systems, to be shared across global functional units in order to
increase factors of competition within the organization.
What is Lockheed Martin?
Lockheed Martin operates many diverse engineering businesses in multiple geographic
locations that allow the company to provide a broad array of services to the company’s clientele.
The company is an aerospace and securities firm that specializes in five major areas of the field:
aeronautics, information systems and global solutions, missiles and fire control, mission systems
and training, and space systems (Lockheed, Who, 2014). The company has clientele in the
United States Government, mostly the defense system, international governments, and some
commercial consumer sectors (Lockheed Martin, 2014). Lockheed Martin operates service,
manufacturing, and research and design branches all over the world. In 2013, the company

maintained sales of $45.4 billion USD on the New York Stock Exchange (Lockheed, Who,
2014), indicating that Lockheed Martin has gained enough market strength to be able to handle
market flux while operating a healthy portfolio of products and services that will last through
market turbulence.
What Does Lockheed Martin Do
Lockheed Martin provides a large variety of products and services to its clientele. The
company categorizes its functions under five general business areas: aerospace and defense,
information and technology, space, emerging technologies, and contract vehicles and GSA
schedules (Lockheed, What, 2014). In the aerospace and defense sector Lockheed produces
products and services related to aircraft, tactile vehicles, missiles, sensors, security, and other
technologies that are used in defense systems. The information technologies business unit
produces products and services in data analytics and cyber security for a number of different
industries. The space business unit works with space technologies, space exploration and human
space transportation. Lockheed operates an emerging technologies business unit that works to
innovate new products geared towards leading the future in their industry sector. Finally,
Lockheed Martin operates an independent business unit for organizing, tracking and scheduling
eligible contracts related to the company’s products and services (Lockheed, What, 2014). As
evidenced by these varied types of businesses operated by Lockheed Martin, it can be concluded
that Lockheed Martin provides engineering, research and design, and flight maintenance services
for various organizations in the government, defense and commercial markets.
Functional Units inside Lockheed Martin
Even though Lockheed Martin operates specialized business units related to specific
products and services, functional areas are arranged under a completely different organization
through human resources (Lockheed, Career, 2014). These different functional units are re-

arranged so that they also become categories within the business unit each member of a
functional department provides labor for. Functional areas maintain a horizontal categorization
structure as companywide departments that transcend the boundaries of each business unit, while
their placement within business units allows for organization of labor at each separate location.
The functional units are specified as such: aeronautical engineering, business development,
communications, contracts, electrical engineering, energy, environment, safety and health,
facility's, administration and support, finance and business operations, human resources,
information technologies, intelligence analysis, legal; mechanical engineering, operations and
production, quality, science, research and development, security, skilled labor and technicians,
software engineering, supply chain operations, and systems engineering (Lockheed, Career,
2014). There are many different types of functions that provide opportunities for employment at
Lockheed Martin.
While these functional areas are arranged as individual departments for human resources
purposes, individual employee’s placement into separate business units creates large barriers
between the different employees of each functional area (Morgan, 2006; Levin & Gottlieb,
2009). This psychological barrier can be attributed to the fact that each separate business unit
operates in its own individual geographical location (Lockheed, Career, 2014). The separate
product or service area at each location creates a situation such that while each employee is
maintaining duties related to the same type of work, the actual outlet for doing work is different
between each unit (Levin & Gottlieb, 2009; Lockheed, Career, 2014). This means that
employees in each department have individual specializations and can only find common ground
among best practices.

Each separate Lockheed Martin location operates according to a distinct scope of
responsibility for units and functions at specific locations. This distinction creates a separation
of duties between employees in each department, and allows the company to secure information
for each project to only those involved in the tasks required to fill out the project. For instance,
the Cape Canaveral unit specializes in space systems and is the main location offering
employment for mechanical engineering student researchers (Lockheed, Career, 2014). While
the students aren't able to work directly on aircraft and defense systems projects, they are able to
gain the basic concepts associated with flight, flight command and large rocket vessels for future
integration into the defense systems designs produced by the company. Communication of new
research and design specifications between employees of the same functional area proves to be
complicated due to the geographical boundaries of different business units. However, the
company operates liaison positions that allow trusted employees to communicate integral
information from one department to another between units to make sure processes run smoothly
(Lockheed, Career, 2014). Through separation of products and services and placement of
employees in distinct locations, and with the assistance of liaison communication, Lockheed
Martin is able to sufficiently reinforce a general scope of duties among employees of different
specialties.
How do Functional Areas Interact and Communicate
Security of information is a top concern at an engineering firm like Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed competes in the industry by maintaining a unique quality of products and services,
implementing design processes in competitive time frames (Lockheed, 2014). In order to stay
competitive, process, design, and consumer data need to be kept confidential from contender
organizations. The company also has to stay confidential regarding defense mechanisms sold
between regions maintaining separate military forces. Confidentiality is partly accomplished

through the operation of business units within the organizations that the products and services are
being delivered to (Lockheed, 2014; O’Conner, 1999). This way, services that are provided on
the products delivered to client facilities are kept completely separate from manufacturing and
design processes, and clients aren’t able to find out anything about the company’s proprietary
data except the information required for products to be kept in good maintenance. This system is
further backed by the use of liaison engineers that go between the main office and client hosted
offices to share information that is pertinent only to the part of the project being administered at
the client hosted office (Lockheed, Careers, 2014; Metcalf, 2014). Normally, the administered
services at client locations are related to product set up, safety and maintenance (Lockheed,
Career, 2014). This separation of duties between Lockheed Martin facilities and that conducted
at client facilities provides a level of information security that also reinforces the need for quality
in client focused customer service.
Classical Management System
Although this business structure may appear bureaucratic (Morgan, 2006), the fact that
the organization utilizes student researchers, liaisons, and clear communication with client
organizations shows that there is some integration between departments, allowing for a more
flexible structure with some room for the sharing of knowledge within the organization (Gao
et’al, 2014; Zhuo & Li, 2012). The company displays signs of the classical management
organization as in its ability to use strong boundaries of communication between departments
with an apparent hierarchical type structure, yet still integrate some information sharing and
collaboration between functions - while the company does not operate as a tight bureaucracy, it
still operates tight boundaries of communication between employees (Morgan, 2006). Lockheed
Martin also displays some techniques from Morgan's (2006) brain metaphor, which focuses on
the idea of knowledge sharing throughout organizations where knowledge may transcend

through different functional areas according to different ways of seeing the system as a whole.
The company exercises a comprehensive system of knowledge integration throughout the
organization.
This knowledge integration can be evidenced through some basic practices operated
within Lockheed Martin. While most of the individual business units are kept separate from one
another, tools, products, and processes from one unit may be carried over to another to enhance
product design or create more efficient outcomes. Each year Lockheed engages in an annual
open house where employees set up stations for other employees and their families to gain a
small knowledge of what each department does (Lockheed, Employee, 2014). These stations
provide knowledge of tools, work atmosphere, work techniques, and safety measures across
different departments. Sometimes, employees are also able to share information about best
practices (Lockheed, Employee, 2014). This information sharing is clear evidence of knowledge
integration practices.
Psychic Prison
Lockheed Martin can also be compared to the psychic prison metaphor, which looks at
psychoanalytic barriers to change that create natural groupings within an organization so that
boundaries are formed internally rather than just through physical associations (Morgan, 2006).
In other words, the company is able to effectively create impressed boundaries between
employees, outside of the physical boundaries expressed at each specific geographical location
(Carr & Lapp, 2009). Boundaries among groups are reinforced through similar intelligences,
tasks, behaviors, and symbolisms (Manfred & Kets, 2001). Although each business unit is
separate by a geographical boundary, employees are hired under business functions, called work
areas, which transcend those business unit boundaries (Cudwig & Cilliers, 2011). Benefits,
uniforms, employee engagement, training, and other such practices are grouped by those

functional areas rather than by the business unit itself (Allcorn & Godkin, 2011; Lockheed,
Career, 2014). The only difference between the individual employees of each functional
department is the product that they are working on.
Internal boundaries are reinforced a second time by a global lack of knowledge towards
products and services of other business units, drawing a specific kind of togetherness into the
practices of the individual business unit (Cudwig & Cilliers, 2011; Manfred & Kets, 2001).
Effected employees have to wait until annual open house meetings to integrate knowledge within
functions (Lockheed, Employee, 2014). Practices within the business units reinforce loyalty
amongst employees of those individual units and between immediate local functional
departments. There are solid functions related to safety and planning that require each employee
of a single business unit to take circular shifts in which they lay aside regular duties to operate
that specific need during their allocated block of time, sharing that block of time with other
employees of varying functional areas (Lockheed, Leadership, 2014). Boundaries and cultures
are mixed during times of high risk, and internal feelings of security maintain the desire to
withhold unrelated knowledge until scheduled times for sharing allowed intelligences (Carr &
Lapp, 2009). Through the structure of practices at Lockheed Martin, employees are trained to
maintain loyalty to one another within their units while also maintaining barriers regarding their
specific work functions.
Current Trends and Best Practices
External Knowledge Integration
There are a few current trends in business functions that can be useful to a working
aerospace engineering organization like Lockheed Martin. First of all, businesses are
increasingly utilizing knowledge integration through external contacts (Caroll et’al, 2012) as
well as internal communications (Wolf et’al, 2011). In the external knowledge integration

environment, a major concern is in the management of information security. Businesses have to
decide how much and what type of knowledge is going to be shared through external partners
during shared projects (Caroll et’al, 2012). When deciding information sharing techniques,
businesses also have to decide how employees operating in the external platform are to access
proprietary knowledge without sharing information that reaches across company boundaries
(Diamond, 2013). Methods are utilized such as technology boundaries, passwords, employee
codes, functional codes, and information codes (Caroll et’al, 2012). This coding allows
information technologies to be operated in an external atmosphere while still reinforcing
boundaries of the company regarding information sharing among its employees (Diamond,
2013).
Communities of Practice
A second trend deals with the sharing of knowledge through internal communications
among different business units. Trends in internal knowledge sharing can be attributed to many
different areas of employment management (Zhuo et’al, 2012). One common trend that looks to
integrate numerous aspects of internal knowledge integration is that of Communities of Practice
(Wolf et’al, 2011). Communities of Practice are groups of employees that operate the same sort
of function within an organization that periodically meet to go over shared best practices. They
also might utilize a regularly disseminated newspaper to talk about current events related to that
function, changes in company policy, and information about efficiency measures or recent best
practices shared by other employees (Wolf et’al, 2011). Sometimes these communities will also
share practices from outside organizations that might be useful for internal processes. Many
times they will operate an intranet system so that information remains up to date, also allowing
for information databases to be globally updated (Gao et’al, 2014). These communities work
together to share integral information that could enhance the prosperity of the firm.

When managed properly, these communities of practice can enhance the formation of
boundaries, reinforcing current boundary structures within organizations. When engaged in the
communities, mployees are stepping away from their business unit isolation and communicating
through corporate horizontal departments to share integral information related to the enhanced
success of the organization (Morgan, 2006). Research conducted by Wolf et’al (2011) showed
that the best performing communities of practice required flexible boundaries, sharing of best
practices, active participation by all employees, ability of such communities to participate in
decision-making practices, a fun, engaging atmosphere, and the ability to network with external
communities of practice to share ideas about how to integrate internally. Manfred & Kets (2001)
mention these characteristics as integral parts of the group boundary forming process, especially
during times of change. These characteristics could create a new attractor system and allow
knowledge communities to form as non-interrupting groups that continuously evolve with new
information.
Digital Innovations
A third trend related to functional designs within aerospace industry engineering firms is
that of the integration of digital innovations within dominant designs (Hylving et’al, 2012).
Dominant designs are like the airplane structures that are generally updated every five years, or
at least annually. However, digital innovations are more like computerized systems that are
easily programmable, and reprogrammable via computer interactions (Hylving et’al, 2012),
making them more flexible for the quick integration of new designs. The main management
issue within this function deals with the need to have different identifying parts numbers for even
the smallest variation - such as signal color from reprogramming of a digital device. Sometimes
these small changes will even require different identifying marks on the products themselves in
order to specify one product from another (Hylving et’al, 2012). This means that for each small

change in signal coloring, there will need to be new catalogs printed and new updates to
marketing information systems and other data collections systems within the firm.
Another complication of the digital innovation relates to the fact that the varying pretexts
also require the use of different specifications data, resulting in separate marketing data that
effect project development decisions. Some small changes have to be accompanied by changes
in the color of the body of the product in order to match the change, or the use of varied decals
that indicate the differences from one product color to the next. All of these special
customizations can be time consuming and the new innovation turns out less efficient than
originally planned (Hylving et’al, 2012). Digital function management systems are required to
ensure that digital innovations can keep up with market pace without causing systematic chaos or
price barriers (Gao et’al, 2014). Otherwise, integration of all of the extra processes required to
accommodate that small change could cause the actual production to slow, which would decrease
its profitability.
Digital function management systems allow for automation of the procedures required to
integrate digital innovations, simplifying the process for all involved. These systems allow for
more efficient temporal processes in changing fonts, languages, and colors for global innovations
(Hylving et’al, 2012). They also allow for tracking of different practices so that decision-making
processes run smoother and don't unintentionally intermix between separate similar projects
(Gao et’al, 2014). Engineers can use this information to determine global product trends in order
to enhance their creativity towards local project designs (Zhuo & Li, 2012). Many systems are
designed so that when digital innovations occur, employees can be immediately updated on
features of the new design that could affect their work flow (Hylving et’al, 2012). In the age of

digital innovations, these digital management systems have become an integral part of the
product innovation practice.
Other Trends
There are a few other recent trends related to aerospace industry management systems,
however internal and external knowledge integration and digital innovations systems have to be
integrated first in order for these other trends to process smoothly. Other trends include the
newest versions of lean process designs, including just in time delivery of supplies and goods
(Dostaler, 2013). Also, materials innovations - including attempts to reduce the weight of
materials, and the creation of longer lasting materials with productive end-life (Aerospace, 2011;
Bromsgrove, 2012). A common trend across all industries concerns the use of sustainable
business practices (Wong, 2013). Finally, the integration of security among all business
practices, even driving systems such as electrical grids and automatic machine moderator
systems, has become a multi-industry best practice (Lazo & Secundo, 2012). With the proper
system in place to manage smooth processing of these trends, integration of these trends into
common business practices would be an asset to any aerospace organization dealing in the
competitive market of aerospace products engineering.
Improving Business Performance at Lockheed Martin
Integrating Communities of Practice
In light of recent business trends, there are steps that Lockheed Martin could take to
remain more competitive. In order to more effectively discuss these integrative practices, first it
is important to look at Lockheed Martin’s current involvement with these recent trends.
Although the company does not currently operate communities of practice on a large scale
(Lockheed, Career, 2014), there are some similar practices within the organization. During
annual employee festivals, employees of different divisional practices within various business
units have to interact as a small community in order to plan and design for displays (Lockheed,

Employee, 2014). This includes collaborating knowledge from experience, communicating and
making decisions together, and then sharing knowledge with other areas of practice at the actual
event (Wolf et’al, 2011). The sort of knowledge sharing found as functional groups join together
in preparation of displaying at these festivals is similar in design to communities of practice.
Expanding a program like the employee festival would require minimal effort among
company personnel. The only set back would fall in line with the current boundary structure
enacted through Lockheed Martin that ensures the security of information (Allcorn & Godkin,
2013; Lockheed, Leadership, 2014). Engaging in regular meetings and other knowledge sharing
practices within the internal organization might produce a shift in the attractor system related to
information clearance dynamics (Burnes, 2005; Carr & Lapp, 2009). Employees may become
more distant with their separate business units and become engrossed within the horizontal
function. The company would need to integrate new types of boundaries that would reinforce
the current level of attraction towards classification of specific information (Manfred & Kets,
2001). One way to do this is to exercise edge of chaos methods related to the consumption of
that information by requiring supervisor permission for access to certain knowledge programs
(Burnes, 2005; Kay, 2001). Employees would feel insecure about their permissions to join the
information sharing system, unless they complied with company policies already in practice.
With the right management structure in place, current employee engagement features already set
the basic foundation for implementation of communities of practice.
Effect on External Knowledge Integration
The integration of communities of practice could cause an effect on the structure of
communications with external partners. This phenomenon is similar to the idea of autopieosis
mentioned by Kay (2001) in which an action placed towards A will have an equal effect on B, C
and D occurring in the same temporal region. In other words, a change in one system will cause

an equal change in all systems at the same time. Lockheed Martin currently works in various
ways with many external partners for the design of new products (Lockheed, 2014). They work
in external business units in order to integrate products into client facilities, training them in
proper use, maintenance, and safety practices (Lockheed, Career, 2014). For the fulfillment of
ongoing contracts, business units become permanent structures within the external organization.
This allows Lockheed to keep product design practices and manufacturing practices separate
from testing and product maintenance (Santos & Eiswenhardt, 2005). This level of information
security is enhanced by the fact that Lockheed is constantly updating their data analysis and
security systems as new practices are developed through company R&D functions (Lockheed,
What, 2014). An effect like autpieosis on external practices could be detrimental to these
organizational structures, effecting competitiveness levels related to the confidentiality of
information.
While Lockheed Martin currently practices superior information security functions, some
of the systems may undergo change if the company integrates activities such as internal
communities of practice (Kay, 2001). Much of the company's information security systems
exercised during contracts with external partners were originally practiced as systems governing
internal processes (Lockheed, Career, 2014). Shifts in the internal structure of knowledge sharing
may transform management views of information sharing, eventually effecting external
processes (Cacciope & Edwards, 2005). This reinforces the need for edge of chaos practices
(Morgan, 2006) during implementation of communities of practice procedures so that
information sharing attitudes do not foster the sharing of information beyond already established
boundaries. Lockheed will need to use these internal security systems to safeguard sensitive data
about practices, procedures, and new design innovations.

Research and Development vs Communities of Practice
One other important consideration regarding the development of communities of practice
within a firm such as Lockheed Martin has to do with Lockheed’s categorical isolation of the
research and development processes from all other processes (Lockheed, Career, 2014). Many
times the community of practice structure is used to enhance design creativity within functions
using the various techniques that are shared (Wolf et’al. 2011). Since Lockheed Martin has an
independent research and design unit, the company will need to place boundaries within the
knowledge sharing structure so that such creativity is practiced only within the research and
design unit (Gao et’al, 2014). Knowledge sharing should not encourage creative design practices
amongst employees designated for integrating the new designs into product creation.
Communities of practice boundaries should be formed such that the focus is geared more
towards best practices within different functional areas, rather than technological specifications
or resource capabilities - except when working to achieve process efficiency.
Integrating Other Trends
The other emerging trends are already a common part of the work performed by
Lockheed Martin during their research and design process (Lockheed, What, 2014). Once
knowledge communities are formed within the internal organization, digital innovations will
display a much smoother level of integration because employees will have more familiarity using
the information systems required to maintain them (Wolf et’al, 2011; Wong, 2013). Information
security is always at the forefront of program planning at Lockheed Martin (What, 2014) and can
be used to maintain boundaries within the knowledge integration database. Management of
communities of practice will create a knowledge base that could enhance the efficiency of
compliance audit processes without compromising information security systems (Wong, 2013).
This is because knowledge will be collaborated throughout functional areas and practices related

to the compliance audits will have a level of automation of information sharing during
monitoring and control processes. With these sorts of knowledge sharing programs, the location
of best practice materials will be optimized among all business units (Zhuo & Li, 2012). This is
because there will be a knowledge base of information showing what materials generated results
that provided efficient outcomes. Knowledge sharing and digital innovation management
systems are important practices for maintaining the competitiveness of the engineering firm.
These two practices will help to enhance the performance of the other emerging trends as they
are utilized in Lockheed Martin’s design process.
Conclusion
Lockheed Martin is one of the most popular aerospace and technology corporations,
holding 52nd place among Fortune Magazine's top 300 firms (Lockheed, Who, 2014). The
company's first priority, beyond new innovation and customer interface, deals with information
security (Lockheed, 2014). This focus creates an atmosphere inside of the organization in which
business units are geographically separated and employees are bounded to specific departmental
areas that transcend those units (Kundu, 2010). There are currently some knowledge integration
practices that are evident within the internal organization (Lockheed, Career, 2014). However,
these practices are exercised at minimal levels, to a very low degree, with lots of time in between
each integrative activity.
In order to optimize current trends, the creation of communities of practice could
influence the knowledge sharing systems within the organization so that departmental areas are
more capable of practicing process efficiency and LEAN business trends, such as just in time
delivery (Wolf et’al, 2011; Wong, 2013). It is important that systems implemented to support
commonplace Communities of Practice do not affect the company focus on information security
when dealing with external collaborators (Carolla et’al, 2012). Lockheed Martin will need to

integrate boundary techniques - such as edge of chaos initiation of learning programs (Burnes,
2005; Carr & Lapp, 2009). Implemented properly, a community of practice knowledge
integration program will contribute to organizational success through sharing of best practice
techniques, best practice materials, and smoother processing of compliance audits.

References
Allcorn, S., & Godkin, L. (2011). Workplace psychodynamics and the management of
organizational inertia. Competitiveness Review, 21(1), 89-104.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10595421111106247
Bernard, K. N. (1996). Just-in-Time as a Competitive Weapon: The Significance of Functional
Integration. Journal Of Marketing Management, 12(6), 581-597.
Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal Of
Management Reviews, 7(2), 73-90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00107.x
Cacioppe, R., & Edwards, M. (2005). Seeking the holy grail of organizational development: A
synthesis of integral theory, spiral dynamics, corporate transformation and action
inquiry. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 86-105. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/226915956?accountid=27965
Carr, A. N., & Lapp, C. A. (2009). Organization Theory and Organization Behavior: Through the
Lens of Pxyhodynamics. International Journal of Organization Theory and
Behavior, 12(3), 381-405.
Corallo, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in
collaborative NPD projects: Evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 10(4), 354-367.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.25
Diamond, Micheal A. (2013). Repetition and the Compulsion to Repeat: Psychodynamic
Challenges in Organizational Learning and Change. Administration & Society July
2013 45: 499-521, first published on July 5, 2012 doi:10.1177/0095399712451893

Dostaler, I. (2013). Competing in the global aerospace supply chain: The case of the Canadian
aerospace industry. Operations Management Research, 6(1-2), 32-43.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12063-013-0076-3
Floyd, J and Zubevich, K. (2010). Linking foresight and sustainability: An integral approach.
Futures, Volume 42, Issue 1, February 2010, Pages 59-68, ISSN 0016-3287,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.001.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328709001414)
Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E., Wynstra, F., & Moser, R. (2013). Cross-functional integration and
functional coordination in purchasing and supply management. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 33(6), 689-721. Retrieved from
Gao, Y., Yang, W., Gao, S., Page, A. L., & Zhou, Y. (2014). Transfer more, benefit more? An
institutional framework for understanding the use of interorganizationally and
intraorganizationally transferred knowledge. Innovation: Management, Policy &
Practice, 16(1), 106-125. doi:10.5172/impp.2014.16.1.106
Harris, G. L. (2003). The value of integration, measurement systems, and application of
knowledge in supply management to organization performance. (Order No. 3105571,
Nova Southeastern University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 152-152 p.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/305234171?accountid=27965.
(305234171)
Hylving, L., Henfridsson, O., & Selander, L. (2012). The role of dominant design in a product
developing firm's digital innovation. JITTA : Journal of Information Technology Theory

and Application, 13(2), 5-21. Retrieved from
Kay, R. (2001). Are organizations autopoietic? A call for new debate. Systems Research &
Behavioral Science, 18(6), 461-477. doi:10.1002/sres.376
Larson, E. W., & Gobeli, D. H. (1987). Matrix Management: Contradictions and Insights.
California Management Review, 29(4), 126-138
Lockheed Martin. (2014). Career Areas. Lockheed Martin Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/career-areas.asp
Lockheed Martin. (2014). Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
Lockheed Martin. (2014). What We Do. Lockheed Martin Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do.html
Lockheed Martin. (2014). Who We Are. Lockheed Martin Corporation. Retrieved from:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are.html
Manfred F R Kets de,Vries. (2001). Creating authentizotic organizations: Well-functioning
individuals in vibrant companies. Human Relations, 54(1), 101-111. Retrieved from
Material trends intelligence service. (2012). (). Bromsgrove: Aroq Limited. Retrieved from
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nakata, C., & Im, S. (2010). Spurring Cross-Functional Integration for Higher New Product
Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective. Journal Of Product Innovation
Management, 27(4), 554-571. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00735.x.

O'Connor, B. (1999). Matrix management. Works Management, 52(5), 18. Retrieved from
Struwig, H., & Cilliers, F. (2012). Working with boundaries in systems psychodynamic
consulting. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(2), 1-10. Retrieved from
Wolf, P., Späth, S., & Haefliger, S. (2011). Participation in intra-firm communities of practice: A
case study from the automotive industry. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 22-
39. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108675
Zhou, K. Z., & LI, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base,
market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management
Journal, 33(9), 1090-1102. doi:10.1002/smj.1959

FunctionalAnalysisofBusiness_AylorBonnie_FinalPaper_Unit10a1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to FunctionalAnalysisofBusiness_AylorBonnie_FinalPaper_Unit10a1

Similar to FunctionalAnalysisofBusiness_AylorBonnie_FinalPaper_Unit10a1 (20)

FunctionalAnalysisofBusiness_AylorBonnie_FinalPaper_Unit10a1