The concerns and interests of practitioners and academics should overlap. Both parties should be concerned that the new strategy is implemented correctly and that it is successful. As stated above a major concern for both parties is the way the new strategy is implemented because if it is not utilised correctly or used to its full potential the strategy will fail. This will reflect badly on both practitioners and academics.However this relationship does not only benefit the particular organisation, the knowledge acquired by both parties can be shared in order for the academics to gain a greater insight into the world of the practitioners and vice versa. What the practitioners learn or have learnt ‘on the shop floor’ can be passed up to academics who then take this information into account when planning a strategy. For example at Peugeot there is a ‘Strategy Committee (Created in 1998) – It deals with issues relating to the Group’s long-term future and its major strategic orientations.It deals with issues relating to the groups long-term future and its major strategic orientations.
It issues opinions and makes proposals and recommendations to the Supervisory Board to prepare for the review of strategic projects, while tracking significant transactions already underway. ‘(http://nile. northampton. ac. uk/) This strategy committee is made up of academic consultants, mangers and factory floor employees. Therefore it is essentially academics and practitioners working together in a symbiotic relationship and as a result.
‘Peugeot Citroi?? n strengthened its position as Europe ‘s second largest carmaker and narrowed the gap with the market leader. Peugeot is currently one of the top four brands in Europe..
Unit sales gave the Group a 5. 8% share of the global market. ( (http://nile. northampton. ac. uk/) I am now going to look at the interplay between academics and practitioners. There are many definitions and variations on the subject of strategic management not only in what it entails but also in what strategy is.
There appears to be a gap between academic researchers and practitioners on the definition of strategic management due to the fact that the term strategy is too generic. Strategy including strategic management is a mixture of different models, tools and techniques, which apply to different organisations in different ways. The gap between academics and practitioners is often due to the fact that the subject of strategy is wide open to constant change and personal opinion, therefore leading to an ever changing, complex and diverse way of thinking for both academics and practitioners.These opinions can work in two ways; they can bring academics or practitioners together in agreement or drive them apart in disagreement over the best form of strategic management.
The main aspect of the theory-practice gap syndrome, which has forced management to turn to other areas to aid with organisational development, is the fact that the interests of academics and practitioners are essentially different even though they are both trying to develop a perfect form of strategic management.The gap between academics and practitioners can sometimes be bridged by an outside, neutral force such as a consultant. The consultant’s theory proposed by Lippitt and Lippitt (1978) assumes that consultants are able to translate academic theory into applicable practice. However, Williams (2003) argues that consultants may only tell managers what they actually want to hear, and Kaarst-Brown (1999) adds that the simple arrival of a consultant acts as an indicator of change to come.Therefore the gap may have been bridged but ideas, knowledge and acceptance of other ways of thinking may or may not have been accepted. So what is the best way to transfer knowledge? Knowledge transfer could represent not only a competitive advantage within a firm but also a less expensive alternative to knowledge creation” (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972). For example, more than one individual can use knowledge at the same time, and shared knowledge allows for the creation of new knowledge.More importantly, this process appears to reduce costs and significantly contribute to overall organisational success by preventing individuals from repeating the mistakes of other individuals (Baum & Ingram, 1998; Gruenfeld, Martorana, & Fan, 2000).
Knowledge transfer is mainly concerned with the process of moving useful information from one individual to another person. In order for this transferred information to have utility, it must be critical to the success of the organisation (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).To fully understand how organisations use knowledge transfer it is necessary to understand what factors tend to the area. A recent literature review within the knowledge domain provided the following five factors that might influence knowledge transfer: Relational channels: Frequency and depth of two-way human-to-human contact (Rulke, Zaheer, & Anderson, 2000) Partner similarity: Degree of similarity (e. g.
, interests, background, or education) between individuals (Almeida & Kogut, 1999; Darr & Kurtzberg, 2000)