You are on page 1of 10




The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service

Source: Annals.EconomicScienceSeries(Anale.SeriaStiinteEconomice),issue:XIII/2007,pages: 170178,

Abstract: The transition process of Romanian economy towards the market economy and the single European market is extremely complex and requires major changes, at all levels.The management of this major change process also implies organizational transformations and even an innovation of the organization in its ensemble. Analyseing this process in the context of the appearance and assertion of the Informational Society, the paper pleads for the configuration of a new type of organizations, capable to uphold these changes, respective the organizations based on knowledge and innovation. The appearance and function of these can also facilitate a rearrangement of the organizational transformation process management, with visible effects in the change accomplishment plan. The creation (or re-configuration) of the new type of organization assumes an intervention of several plans educational, managerial intervention, organizational culture, work methods and instruments used in this purpose. Key words: Change, organizational transformation, knowledge, innovation, Informational Society.

According to the specialty literature (Marinescu, P., 2003), change administration assumes, among others, the consideration of several elements necessity of transformation recognition, diagnosing the problem, identification of the factors which unleash it, identification of methods and alternatives which will solve it, overcome of change resistance, implementation and coordination, respective the evaluation of the implementation results. At the same time, it is appreciated that change can be conceived like a dynamic equilibrium of forces which, on the one hand, make pressures for change, and on the other hand, establish a resistance at this. From this point of view, there are two categories of factors which influence the change in the organizational frame: External factors, which can be controlled in a small measure, respective changes in technology, life complexity growth or specific external factors. Internal factors, through which changes act in the organizational framework. Independent from these factors, the process cant be accomplished, however, without clear and profound understanding by all members of the organization of the need for change, process which must be encouraged by managers through a complex of activities. In this conditions, it is essential that the members of the organization understand and, most of all, to be convinced that the managerial decisions need an attended foundation, on the route of all stages of the process opening, change and closing. However, to be able to act in this manner, the manager must know very well the situation / problem which imposes the unleash of a change, which assumes, implicit, a diagnosis as real as possible of the state of the organization.

Access via CEEOL NL Germany

According to these, he must identify the type / types of problem which establishes / imposes change (possibly, of the extent area of this) to estimate symptoms (positive and negative) which characterizes it, to establish causes (direct and indirect, principal / secondary) which generates the problem and the effects produced, to specify possible solutions (and involved resources) and, obviously, to estimate the results obtained through resolving the change. As I was saying, from various reasons (personal interest, change foundation misunderstanding, carelessness, fear of consequences of the change, tendance of self-boundary etc.), resistance to change mostly in the public area can constitute the main obstacle, which imposes the initiation of a set of activities, as well as and adequate preparedness encouragement of the ones involved, organization of debates on this matter, inter-personal influence etc. Also, for the unleash of the change implementation, it is imposed the elaboration of a plan of action, with concrete measures, adjusted to the specific realities from inside the organization. On the other hand, the success is also determined by knowledge and accustomed with possible influences that change can generate. Further more as part of these assumes a period of time lapse until the appearance of concrete results, visible, accepted as they are by the organization. Because, until they dont appear or they are unconvincing there can be unleash hostility reactions from the ones that are opposing the change (especially if the stipulated and accepted transformations have also required an increased consumption of resources), reactions that question the unfurl of the entire process. From these perspective, in the change management there are necessary, among others, total transparency of the process, finding some forms of involvement of as many members of the organization and, especially, accomplishment (systematic) of partial intermediary assessments (for the realization if the change is accomplished on the wanted coordinates, as well as to convince the employees that this will offer the expected results). However, the change process involves, automatically, the entrance of the organization in a new faze of its development, called organizational transformation, which implies changes of attitude and behavior at three levels: of the employees of the firm; of the managerial system in its ensemble; in the deep layer of the organization (respective, of the value system, of believes, of the emotional level of the employees community which is the base for all the others). Another feature of the organizational transformation is the fact that changes dont sum up only to the simple maintaining of the organization functionality, but they refer to the renew of it, in its ensemble. From this perspective, there are interesting the preconditions that can influence decisive the succeed of this approach quoted by Marinescu from which part they emphasize the need of knowledge and preparedness, on the availableness, at any moment and at any level, to different types of assistance and / or examination from inside and from outside the firm. In its turn, organizational transformation, assumes, in its essence, a confrontation between the forces that exert pressure for change and the ones opposing it, unfurled on several stages awareness of the need for change and growing of managers interest for the initiation of this, diagnosing the situation, identification of all forces, elaboration of some change alternatives and choosing the best one (respective to the application of the chosen alternative, with all the


imposed measures), tracing out possible drawbacks (and eliminating them), as well as strengthens of the new behavior values. Even though, the orientation towards an ideological change respective towards the concrete unleash of the process is conditioned by the appearance and existence of opportunities or major disfunctionalities in the exterior context of the organization (crises or economic boom, the appearance of a new generation of technologies) or to some mutations in the property and / or its management. Change means, in essence, a transformation or a modification of the status-quo, a passing from a state of thing to another, from one set of conditions to another. In this context, we must notice the fact that up to certain point change resistance also assumes the existence (and manifestation) of a certain degree of stability, which compel the forces of the change to be strong enough to generate unstabilization of the equilibrium and, subsequent, its stabilization at a superior qualitative level. Generally, according to Marinescu, changes can take place at a level or at many levels individually, in teams, group / division or organizational (the duration and the difficulty of the change it depends directly on the level that this takes place). They can be influenced through training and communication, through involvement, facility and support, negociation and agreement, through manipulation and co-optation etc. However, generally, an organization open to change, innovative, must fulfill (according to Peters and Waterman, quoted by Marinescu) minimal the following characteristics orientation to action, approach to customers, autonomy, productivity (through a better administration of the human resources), simple structures, centralization of the essential problems, discentralization of actions / implementation and daily checking and focusing on the forte points. There for, we notice that change isnt possible in any kind of organization and that its members must know how to do this and, in particular, to have the capacity to innovate and to find the most suitable solutions, which lead to the fulfilness of the proposed and assumed objectives. Thus, appears the idea of the extent and functioning of organizations based on knowledge and innovation, which should be dominant especially in a society lying in a full process of transition, of reforming. To analise the functionality of organizations based on knowledge and innovation in the context of the existence of an Informational Society (IS), Ive started from an interesting expose (Dragomirescu, H., 2002). In this, these organizations are considered being intelligent collective actors with a decisive role in the affirmation of IS as a knowledge society. In fact, it is considered that the existence of this kind of organization / society expresses the convergence between two defining phenomenons for the human nature one of knowledge and one of organizing, materialized in a defining construction for the ideas of collective competence, intelligent actions and lasting performance. Anyhow, it is appreciated that for this type of organizations the foundation of all actions on knowledge means reaching the stage of their absolute maturity. Essential and determinant in the function of these types of organizations are in our opinion the generic designated process through the 3I syntagm: innovation (creation of new knowledge); learning (assimilation of new knowledge);

partenerial interactivity referring to knowledge. In their evolution, the concept has registered a series of successive theoretical stages of crystallization, of which a few are significant: appearance of an organizational model for the postindustrial society type; existence and functionality of employees collectivities with conception work, interconnected through computerized infrastructure; affirming of the organizational model of the future (sec. XXI), caracterised, among others, by the following elements: professional dominant composition; reduced number of intermediary levels of hierarchical management; coordination guarantee through means of non-authority types (standards, norms, rules etc.). From these it also resulted, for this type of organization, a multitude of names memory centre organizations, intensive- intellectual firm, intelligent organization etc. but all thought as an alternative of the organizations based on control and authority. In this context, the foundation and functionality based on knowledge becomes systematic and it is being instituted under the following aspects: knowledge substance is understood as being the main resource of the organization; the intensive-intellectual processes become not only prevalent, but also defining for the functionality of the organization in achieving its objectives; the organization structures for its individual and collective actors new parts and responsibilities, relative on the managing of knowledge and the proceses related to it; the organizational culture institutes, concorded, normative marks for the persistence of values related to creativity, competence, learning, communication; aspects referring to knowledge receive an essential role in the affirming of the organizations identity, in providing its integrity and its coherence. Admiting that the organizations become intelligibly through explaining the way they are structured and, respective, how they work in reaching their objectives, the identification of some characteristics of the organization based on knowledge becomes possible and their framing in the type associated for each type of these two criterions (respective, which are found in the model sequence of organizational configurations or in the generations of managerial practices sequence table 1). Table 1 Generation of managerial practices sequence Generation I Generation II (.) Generation V Attributes of the Orientation towards organization technology Strategy Ill-assorted efforts of Researchdevelopment Change forces Unforeseeable Performance Orientation towards Orientation towards projects knowledge Based on basic Interactive activity innovation systems Kaleidoscopic dynamic Intellectual capacity and its impact

Inter-organizational Interdependences ResearchCo-participation on development as an expenses auxiliary activity (of support)


Structure Personnel Functioning

Hierarchy functionally orientated Competitional reports Internal communication anaemic Embryonic

Matrix Proactive cooperation Based on relations between projects Based on data

Symbiosis networks Profesionals which lead themselves Knowledge flux from


towards the exterior Intelligent processors of knowledge Source:

The typology of the organizational models show that these have evolved in a growing direction of their degree of knowledge foundation, also understood as a progressive tendance of humanization. In the place of some rigid pyramidal structures and susceptible of predictable behaviors appears a diversity of non-hierarchical structural forms, generally network kind. To distinguish more clearly the suggestions above, in table 2 it is presented, under the form of a comparative grill, the main attributes of the hierarchic organizational model and of the non-hierarchic alternative (convincingly illustrated through the organizational model based on memory). Table 2 Comparative grill of the organizational models Hierarchic organization Organization based on (H) memory of Vertical (subordination) Multilateral collaboration Professional practice communities Auto systemic organization based on learning / High, with a selfdevelopment effect Proactive


Dominant type organizational relation Dominant way of internal Directive coordination The effect of the stimulus Imposed reactions from top from the environment of the hierarchic pyramid

Authonomy degree of the Reduced at tactic organizational actors operational level Typical behavior of the Reactive organizational actors Synergy of the Based of formal rules; Based on mutual purposes; organizational system security in limited security in high functionality functionality According to the functional criterion, the managerial practices from the organizations based on knowledge are the ones in Generation V. Giving the circumstances, knowledge management can be defined as an approach, strategically oriented of motivating and facilitating hiring the members of the organization in the development and use of their cognitive capacities, through the valorification subordinate of the ensemble objectives of the informational sources, of the experience and of the abilities of every one of them.

In the organization environment, knowledge comes from the transformed information of those who have them in capacity of efficient action, through assimilation and integrated understanding, followed by an operative function of the context in which it happens. Knowledge foundation (Zack, M., 1999) makes present and active new specific strategic stakes in the behavior of an organization, which determines it: to represent integrative and transparent the knowledge accumulations, explicitly and implicitly, existent at individual level, of groups or on artificial supports; continually extend it-s knowledge base, through simulation of learning and innovating organizational simulations and through capitalization of the results; to develop the capacity of transforming in successful actions clever and adequate all the knowledge available; consciousness and administrating self ignorance. To the capitalization process of the intellectual actives is associated with the bases of knowledge process, used here in a wider acception than in informatics . For organizations, bases of knowledge refers to the personalized size of knowledge, present at human careers (individual and groups), as well as to its artificial size, present in intelligent informatics systems. It presents the attributes of an extensive organizational memory, destined to cognitively sustain specific independent projects and, cumulate, of their results. The strategic stakes mentioned above engage the organizational actors in synergic articulated behaviors: of co-elaboration (interactive generated by new knowledge); of co-studying (mutual validation of new cognitive acquisitions) of co-administration of capitalizes knowledge. They refer to the organizational knowledge as a resource, as well as a process. In this type of organization, the dominant relations are the horizontal ones (non-hierarchic), of the interaction between homologues types, generating, coevolution systemic effects of these in cognitive plan. Foundation on knowledge also has an inter-organization dimension. At present, in the contemporary society, the organizations are preoccupied to mutual analyze themselves, to follow the area leaders, to learn one from another (even resorting to imitation), to confront each other and, in need, to alliance in the purpose of creating or using the new ideas. In these conditions, through mutual contribution, the extra-organizational environment becomes more abundant with knowledge and, on consequently way, the organizations which evolve in this perimeter have more learning and developing alternatives, but also more exacting standards of performance (which evolve and become less accessible) Organizations based on knowledge praise not only a new phenomenology, but they induce a different version of conceiving and practicing management (Crisan, Gh., 2006). Reported to the specific of non-organizational configurations, new types of actors and parts appear and the typology of managerial practices changes radically. Further more that in was ascertain that the activities involving knowledge production (innovation), its dissemination (communication) or acquisitions of this (learning) it doesnt lend oneself to a authoritative management and to a strict and exhaustive hierarchic control either.


Automatically, the management method suffers radical changes, the intervention of the superior manager is being extremely limited. From the perspective of knowledge based reforms, finding becomes extremely important, since a certain area cant change or modernize only on law and regulations. As it has been noticed on different occasions, change often assumes, before all especially in the transition conditions a reform in the thinking and employees and managers mentality, a contiguous professional qualification and improvement and a modernization of the procedures (in the bases of a modern and flexible legislation, adapted to the concrete conditions of the community in which organizations unfold their activities). Relatively on knowledge management, it can be noticed that, in this conditions, separation between management and execution becomes almost irrelevant. In fact, the managerial act is concentrated specially on elaboration problems of strategic visions and on facilitating the coordinate action of competent and co-operant actors, which auto-resposabilitate, including under decisional aspect. The manager becomes more a bearer of conceptual responsibility (projection of systems and process architectures, solution validation, ratification of proposals) then one of administrative power. In these conditions, the part of managers is not decisional prevalent, it can be a facilitator, moderator or promoter. The exertion of these parts imposes aptitude of involved actors with adequate types of managerial abilities, specially with strategic conception, interpersonal relations, project managing and administration of changes. Besides, the specific of the studied organizations makes the appearance of some novelty managerial parts in the hierarchic environment: chief knowledge officer; chief information officer; responsible of development of competences projects or of organizational learning etc.; Foundation on knowledge of organizational activities and of actors from this framework makes like specially in the areas associated to this evolution (knowledge management, organizational learning, intelligence systems) the delimitation between the theoretical side and the applicative one to remain pure conventional. The American and West European vision (affirmed in organizational environments with individual prevalent values) situates, on foreground, the dissemination and use of knowledge, in the mean time the Japanese vision focuses on the knowledge production (its dissemination being implicit in an environment focused traditionally on group values). In this context, although universities (specially the European, Americans, Japanese or Australian) have stated remarkably active, they cant assert, for this domain , an absolute priority (which is ascribed traditionally) in promoting new generations of ideas. For a series of companies, not necessarily of large dimension, placed in various economic and cultural spaces, have transformed their current activity in research medium and also learning, as is suggested by the new notions of knowledge center or of corporate university . As a general rule, promotion of this type of development is complied with the principles of knowledge society, through selective application of the regime of public intellectual good (free access), for what they become an informational content for the virtual communities:

availability of new concepts and solutions on portals or dedicated internet sites (with archives of virtual publications and libraries of informatic plans, in demonstrative or experimental versions); support of virtual dictionaries, with the role of unifying the language; creation of forums of the participants involved in dominion development; accreditation of educational plans (including virtual) in the development of competently management knowledge; initiation of partnerships and international projects for actions connection for different centers with preoccupations in the knowledge management area, innovation and organizational learning. From the view of organization based on knowledge performance, the principal motor of the transformation, in this direction, must be promoting either the principle of local incubation, either of generalization of the positive examples of some specific practices for the new type of knowledge society or even creation of new organizations (special concepts, starting from the valences of this type of society). In this way, it is necessary a coherent intervention on several plans: Educational plan development, on members of the organization, of competences of conception, of work in an informatics regime, as well as clever administration of intangible actives; professionalisation of individual parts related to de functionality based on knowledge of the organizations (producers of digital contents and technologies, administrators of the digital work platform, knowledge engineers, competence formators etc.). Organizational culture plan: assume, by the organization members, of an ethic of the responsible legitimacy in their reports and actions referring to knowledge; centering of individual and collective behaviors on the values of the community spirit of professionals, of the recognition of the right to intellectual identity. Managerial intervention plan: assimilation and extinction of the managerial practices of advanced generation, including the ones specific to knowledge management; adoption, by the management factors, of the non-directive intervention style, oriented to the facilitation and articulation of professional actions. Work methods and instruments plan: encourage of knowledge production in organizations, through engaging of a self effort in research-development, time giving in individual reflection, creativity reunions, groups and work shops, intranet networks, electronic cameras of deliberation with assistance facilities of groups, intelligent administration systems of knowledge and competences, extent access on data base and on own knowledge or external, technological and competence watch, marking the best practices from inside and outside the organization, mapping of the organizational knowledge, stimulation of thematic teams creation (on the competence centers principle), resort to experts and external consultance, virtual mail boxes (for new ideas) and support-centers of expertise and assistance; favored of organizational learning process, through dissemination reunions of new ideas, facilitating learning from experience on work posts, adopting of the mentoring system for the transfer of knowledge inter-personal or between the subdivisions of the organization, monitoring needs of professional forming / recycling


of personnel and career planning, periodical balances of competences and professional personnel perfecting stages, temporary detachments in formative purpose; organizational development as a professional community, through interactive exertion of the management, in direct contact with personnel, standards transparency, of the rules and procedures, organization on work on projects, use of recommendation textbooks and procedures, encourage of professional auto-responsible, knowledge capitalization in project archives, supporting invention of professional communication network between members of the organization, as well as its partners. Their application assumes choice discernment, consistency in the effort of learning and receptivity in observation and assimilation of these.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Crisan, Gh., Reforma administratiei locale o provocare pentru managementul 2. 3. 4. 5.

public, Teza de doctorat, Universitatea de Vest, Timisoara, 2006; Dragomirescu Horatiu, Organizatii bazate pe cunoastere,, 2002; Hedlund, G. - A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation, Strategic Management Journal, nr. 15 (summer special issue), 1994, pag. 73-90; Marinescu, P. Managementul institutiilor publice, Editura Universitatii Bucuresti, Bucuresti, 2003; Zack, M. Managing organizational ignorance, Knowledge Directions, nr. 1 (summer issue), 1999, pag. 36-49.