Towards Integration in the Multi-Business Tourism

Organisation

Mini-dissertation by

Harry Gavin Reynolds

(RYNHAR001)

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters in Business Administration on the Executive Level (eMBA)

Graduate School of Business

University of Cape Town

Supervisor: Associate Professor Tom Ryan December 2015

Copyright UCT

ii | P a g e

Plagiarism Declaration

I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and

pretend that it is your own.

I have used the APA referencing convention for citation and referencing. Each

significant contribution and quotation from the works of other people has been

attributed, cited and referenced.

I certify that this submission is all my own work.

I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy this essay with the

intention of passing it off as his or her own work.

I have run my assignment through a plagiarism check.

Harry Gavin Reynolds

04 December 2015

Copyright UCT

iii | P a g e

Abstract

This study attempts to broaden our understanding of integration in the context of a

multi-business tourism organisation that calls itself an integrated tourism group.

Multi-business tourism organisations implement business integration as one of the key

strategies to maximise their resources and create competitive differentiation.

This paper seeks to bridge the gap between traditional and progressive management

thinking on integration in the multi-business tourism organisation by looking at

integration from a systems thinking perspective. In the context of this paper, systems

thinking refers to an approach that views systems as wholes rather than compilations

of individual components. It reveals the interconnectedness and interdependencies of

agents within systems, to frame problems as patterns, and understand underlying

causality (Davis, Dent, & Wharff, 2015).

The paper draws on research into the resource-based view of the firm, organisational

capabilities, dynamic capabilities and organisational learning, to develop a new theory

of integration in multi-business tourism organisations. An analysis of the mechanisms

through which knowledge is integrated within firms to create capability is central to

the theory.

It uses a case study of the largest multi-business tourism organisation in Southern

Africa. It seeks to gain a better understanding of what drives integration in multi-

business organisations, as a way of improving integration within the organisation.

The study looks beyond a definition of integration based on centralised asset

ownership and the costs and benefits of integration. Instead it looks at the organisation

as a social system as conceptualised by Ackoff (Ackoff, 1994) and links the concept

of integration to organisational behaviour.

In this study I draw a distinction between once-off acts of integration and integration

as a systemic capability. I show how culture and shared organisational identity impacts

on organisational behaviour and future integration strategies and how it can overcome

the structural limitations of integrative conversations as entrenched by traditional

hierarchical models. In addition, I explore the importance of change and learning in a

Copyright UCT

iv | P a g e

successful integration strategy. I argue that knowledge integration is a critical strategy

to sustain organisational competitive advantage under dynamic market conditions, and

is a key capability for the multi-business organisation.

In closing, the study briefly explores possible interventions as design propositions that

could increase informal integration in the multi-business tourism organisation.

Copyright UCT

v | P a g e

Executive Summary

This study aims to improve understanding of integration in the context of the multi-

business organisation. It uses an integrated tourism organisation as a case study, and

can potentially be applied to other multi-business organisations.

Traditional tourism organisations are struggling to remain relevant. They are under

pressure to survive and excel in an increasingly uncertain and complex environment

characterised by the rise of e-tourism and network orchestrators like Uber and Airbnb;

the democratisation of travel; and existential regulatory threats to the industry. As an

example of this changing environment a recent report by Grant Thornton (Grant

Thornton, 2015) suggests that the hotel industry is undergoing a period of

unprecedented, irreversible change. It will look very different in 2020 from the

industry we see today. The report suggests that the hotel industry is increasingly

consumer-led, with digital technologies shifting the balance towards the consumer. To

stay relevant, the industry must be able to compete in a digital world.

These factors are particularly relevant to integrated tourism organisations. Synergy

has always been one of the key reasons that the multi-business company exists, but

this been notoriously challenging to capture. (Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000).

The largest tourism organisation in Southern Africa claims to be an integrated tourism

organisation, and yet it struggles to translate that claim into improving synergies and

efficiencies to ensure it remains competitive and relevant. “The pursuit of synergy is

at the heart of corporate strategy in the multi-business firm. Indeed, the promise of

synergy is one of the key rationales for the existence of multi-business firms, as well

as a primary reason for strategic moves like acquisitions, diversification and alliances.”

(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002).

Traditional integrated tourism organisations are typically organised using legacy

structures based on linear thinking about hierarchy and top-down, command-and-

control structures evident in siloed structures and processes. Business units are

generally managed to maximise individual business unit profits and organisational

structures are built around efficiencies. Collaboration is often a matter of forced

compliance achieved under threat of punishment, and not a systemic capability that

Copyright UCT

vi | P a g e

flows from integration. The level of integration between the various businesses in the

organisation underlies the ability to produce benefits for the whole organisation.

The key question is what drives integration in multi-business organisations? If we

understand the drivers, how can they be applied to the integrated tourism organisation

and incrementally improve its level of integration? Can we produce a theory about an

alternative way of looking at the integrated tourism organisation that will enable us to

achieve a different outcome based on the organisation’s inherent structural

integration? Why does that matter? Organisations can use integration as a competitive

differentiator in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing environment.

With this in mind, the research concern is focused on understanding “what drives

integration within multi-business organisations”. The study asks and will answer the

following research question: “What influences the level of integration in multi-

business environments; and, how can the level of integration be improved?

The tourism industry is the specific context for this study. The study uses the largest

integrated tourism organisation in Southern Africa to provide a coherent case study.

Ackoff says: “The environment of any system consists of the set of variables that can

affect the behaviour of the system.” (Ackoff, 1994, p.175). The study asks the

following two research questions to help improve our understanding of integration:

1. What dynamics do we have to manage in an integrated organisation?

2. What are the properties of an integrated organisation?

The research findings indicate that organisations with qualitatively high levels of

shared organisational culture and identity are likely to achieve greater integration as a

systemic capability, as opposed to businesses that implement once-off integration

strategies. The study suggests that, on a low level of abstraction, integration physically

combines businesses to improve process flow and achieve efficiencies. On a higher

level of abstraction, integration is a perception, mind-set, philosophy or culture based

on the quality of conversations generated within the business.

The practical implication of this study is that it provides a potential framework for

various organisational stakeholders, including investors, to improve the capabilities

that are more likely to lead to long term sustainable integration strategies.

Copyright UCT

vii | P a g e

The value of this research study is that it leads to a better understanding of integration

within multi-business organisations, which could improve the integration in multi-

business organisations in general.

The limitations and implications of this research study is that a hypothesis is only an

initial step in improving integration. To translate this understanding into tangible value

will require input from multiple stakeholders within a specific organisation.

This paper is a qualitative study of organisational behaviour and the design of

integration systems in a large multi-business tourism organisation. The study aims to

develop a new hypothesis that indicates what drives and improves integration. It also

seeks to develop a number of design propositions to help multi-business organisations

achieve and reap the benefits of greater integration.

Why should we care about this? Integrated tourism organisations typically provide

stable permanent employment on a large scale in the sector, as well as seasonal

temporary employment. They offer long-term training for multi-skilled workers,

opportunities for advancement, and good structures for training, motivation and

corporate social welfare. By comparison, the new technology-based disruptors employ

fewer people, despite – and because of – technology as an enabler. This raises a critical

need for the long-term survival of integrated tourism organisations. But to do that they

have to improve their competitive differentiation.

Copyright UCT

viii | P a g e

Format of Paper

This paper is written in the first person in conversational style. Images and diagrams

are used where relevant to help explain concepts and theories.

The purpose of the dissertation is to demonstrate my understanding of the key systems

concepts and underlying theory used, and an independent and critical ability to analyse,

interpret and synthesise material; to construct and evaluate arguments; and to make

and defend judgements.

Copyright UCT

ix | P a g e

Table of Contents

Plagiarism Declaration .............................................................................................. ii

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... v

Format of Paper ...................................................................................................... viii

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... ix

List of Diagrams ....................................................................................................... xii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................... xiv

1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Situation and overview / background ........................................................................... 1

1.3 Development of the problem concept .......................................................................... 3

1.3.1 Rich picture .............................................................................................................. 3

1.3.2 Holons ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.3.3 Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................... 8

1.3.4 Articulating the problem concept ........................................................................... 10

1.4 A Theoretical perspective – development of the conceptual framework ................... 10

1.5 Development of the research question ....................................................................... 12

1.5.1 Intellectual Research Goals .................................................................................... 13

1.5.2 Practical goal .......................................................................................................... 13

1.5.3 Personal goals ........................................................................................................ 13

1.5.4 Relevant theory ...................................................................................................... 13

1.5.5 Research questions ................................................................................................. 15

1.6 Argument for relevance ............................................................................................. 17

1.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 19

2. Research Methodology.................................................................................. 20

Copyright UCT

x | P a g e

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 20

2.2 Theoretical and conceptual foundation of the research methodology........................ 20

2.3 The phases of the integrated research framework ...................................................... 22

2.3.1 Interviews ............................................................................................................... 23

2.3.2 Initial Literature Review ........................................................................................ 25

2.3.3 Proposition log ....................................................................................................... 25

2.3.4 Comprehensive literature review ........................................................................... 25

2.3.5 Construction of an interrelationship digraph (ID) and CMO ................................. 26

2.3.6 Personal experience ............................................................................................... 26

2.4 Identification of the threats to validity ....................................................................... 26

2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 28

3. Research Results............................................................................................ 29

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 29

3.2 Application of the research framework – outcomes of each phase of data gathering 29

3.2.1 Interviews ............................................................................................................... 29

3.2.2 Observations .......................................................................................................... 29

3.2.3 Documentary research............................................................................................ 29

3.2.4 Proposition log ....................................................................................................... 30

3.3 Discussion of the research results .............................................................................. 32

3.4 Evaluation of the threats to validity ........................................................................... 34

3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 36

4. Literature Review.......................................................................................... 37

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 37

4.2 Overview of the Literature review process ................................................................ 37

4.3 Level 1 literature review ............................................................................................ 39

4.4 Level 2 literature review ............................................................................................ 41

4.5 Level 3 literature review ............................................................................................ 41

4.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 46

5. Theory Building ............................................................................................. 47

Copyright UCT

xi | P a g e

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 47

5.2 Theoretical and conceptual foundations for the theory building process ................... 47

5.3 The phases of the theory building process ................................................................. 49

5.4 The application of the theory building process .......................................................... 50

5.5 The practical adequacy of the theory ......................................................................... 56

5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 59

6. Conclusion and Evaluation .......................................................................... 60

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 60

6.2 Implications and consequences of the research results .............................................. 60

6.3 RUVE evaluation ....................................................................................................... 63

6.3.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................... 63

6.3.2 Utility ..................................................................................................................... 64

6.3.3 Validity .................................................................................................................. 64

6.3.4 Ethics...................................................................................................................... 65

6.4 Limitation of the results and the need for further work ............................................. 67

6.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 68

References ................................................................................................................. 69

Appendix A: Interview Log ..................................................................................... 72

Appendix B: Proposition log ................................................................................... 73

Appendix C: Literature review references ............................................................ 76

Copyright UCT

xii | P a g e

List of Diagrams

Diagram 1: Rich picture of the integrated multi-business tourism organization ......... 4

Diagram 2: Structure of typical Toulmin model of arguments ..................................17

Diagram 3: Interrelationship digraph (ID) of initial core variables ............................32

Diagram 4: Interrelationship digraph (ID) of refined core variables ..........................46

Diagram 5: Qualitative behaviour of my concern variable - Limits to Growth Archetype

(Braun, 2002, p.2). ..................................................................................................51

Diagram 6: Limits to Growth Archetype applied to problem situation.......................51

Diagram 7: Qualitative behaviour of the concern variable – Limits to Growth Archetype

(Braun, 2002, p.4) ...................................................................................................52

Diagram 8: Shifting the Burden Archetype as it applies to the problem situation .....53

Diagram 9: CMO for Integration ..............................................................................55

Copyright UCT

xiii | P a g e

List of Tables

Table 1: Sample of proposition log ............................................................................ 30

Table 2: Literature review references and keywords ................................................. 39

Copyright UCT

xiv | P a g e

Acknowledgement

This dissertation is the final act in obtaining my eMBA qualification. While it is widely

acknowledged to be a political act that serves to meet the requirements of the course

and is unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to any body of knowledge, it

nevertheless represents a rite of passage that came with no small personal sacrifice or

support.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Associate Professor Tom

Ryan for his patience, motivation, immense knowledge and pragmatic advice.

My sincere thanks goes to Mary Lister for her valuable and patient assistance in the

library, and to Hilary Alexander for taking care of the editing of this paper.

Lastly and most importantly I would like to acknowledge my fiancé Keira Lee Powers

for her love and support. I love you wildly.

Copyright UCT

1 | P a g e

1. Introduction and Overview

1.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the empirical perspective of my research context. It clarifies the

conceptual and theoretical understanding of my research problem and topic, and

provides an argument for relevance.

It does this by using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to describe the background, to

define the situation and the problem concept, and develop the conceptual framework

and the research question. SSM is an approach to organisational process modelling

that can be used to solve problems and manage change. It is primarily used to analyse

complex situations where there are divergent views about the definition of the

problem. The methodology allows for a comparison between the ‘real world’ and some

models of the world as it might be. This gives rise to a better understanding of the

situation and also possible solutions.

The chapter concludes with an assessment of relevance of the dissertation topic.

1.2 Situation and overview / background

Typically, integrated tourism organisations are created to take advantage of synergy,

maximise efficiencies by doing things right and harness economies of scale with the

intention to secure as much of the traveller’s wallet as possible. The subject of this

dissertation is the largest tourism integrated organisation in Southern Africa. The

organisation’s founding vision was to own as much of the tourist value chain as

possible. Simplified, that meant selling the tourist their flight ticket, accommodating

them in an owned or managed hotel, providing them with a rental car, providing meals

at their restaurants, inviting them to shop at owned curio or jewellery stores, and so

on. The objective was to own as many of elements of the value chain as possible to

maximise the revenue gained from visitors to the country. The primary target market

was inbound travel.

The organisation grew primarily through acquisition. The premise behind this

approach was that the organisation could add value through organic growth by

bringing new customers to the acquired businesses. Typically, management would

retain a shareholding in the business, creating a generation of owner-managers with

Copyright UCT

2 | P a g e

skin in the game who would share in profits together with their corporate majority

shareholders.

In the process the organization applied all three types of standard business integration

strategies: horizontal, vertical and conglomerate integration. Corporate management

structures were kept lean and there was minimal interference from head office,

requiring only that the businesses had to report financial results to head office every

month.

Over time however the new multi-business organisation became more corporatised.

Business divisions were formed to create structure and improve control. The owner-

managers gradually moved on, often frustrated by the organisation’s inability to

deliver on the new customers it promised as part of the initial value proposition and

the increased demand on their time by what they considered non-strategic business

processes, which distracted them from their core business – the very element that made

their business an attractive target for acquisition at the outset.

Professional managers replaced the departing owner-managers. As some of the

businesses experienced an erosion of their initial competitive edge, they were merged

with other entities and brands were rationalised. Efficiencies and size became the key

competitive differentiators. But the innovation that came from the original business

founders – the owner-managers – was stifled under shareholder pressure to keep

growing the bottom line. And while synergy was a founding premise, it was never

instilled as a systemic capability. Instead synergy was – and continues to be –extracted

from the business units under threat of penalty for non-compliance.

As the business grew in size and geographic presence, so the physical separation

between businesses grew, blurring the divisional lines. In addition, the organisation

began to establish mini integrated tourism businesses in key foreign markets. This

further blurred the divisional structure as reporting lines began to evolve around

geographic practicality rather than structural similarity. Today, the organisation is the

largest tourism organisation in Southern Africa, employing around 4,000 people,

mostly in South Africa. It comprises five divisions:

- Destination management

- Travel services

Copyright UCT

3 | P a g e

- Financial services

- Accommodation and activities

- Travel retail

During the research, my access to the organisation was conditional. The organisation’s

name and interviewee names could not be disclosed. The interviewees were restricted

to the Executive Committee (EXCO) and one level down.

I am currently employed by the organisation as the CEO of one of their divisions.

Previously I was Group Synergies Executive, reporting directly to the group chief

executive officer (CEO).

1.3 Development of the problem concept

1.3.1 Rich picture

The rich picture is a way to capture information flows, communication and human

activity to express the situation. It is a powerful diagnostic tool because it forces the

user to think deeply enough about the problem situation to be able to express it

visually. This is an arbitrary starting point which may shift as more information is

gained. It is intended to express the ‘richness’ of the situation.

The objective is to express the situation in an ‘unstructured form’ by identifying the

key structures, processes, climate conditions, people, issues and conflicts.

Copyright UCT

4 | P a g e

Diagram 1: Rich picture of the integrated multi-business tourism organization

This rich picture applies to the integrated multi-business tourism organisation used as

a case study. The rich picture features the following tensions and contradictions:

- The business is organised into divisional silos based on similar business focus

areas: destination management, travel retail, financial services, travel services

and accommodation and activities

- Some of the business units are based outside South Africa and some are

integrated organisations in their own right. Within this structure, different

worldviews exist relating to associated branding issues and organizational

structure

- While integration within business silos is mostly maximised, there is limited

integration between silos, with the notable exception of travel services and

financial services which both report into the same EXCO member

- The business organogram is complex, with structural anomalies relating to the

treatment of businesses based outside the country

- While the structure is decentralised and head office is small, the shadow of the

Group CEO looms large over the entire organisation

Copyright UCT

5 | P a g e

- Distributed information technology (IT) and communications platforms make

it difficult to communicate with all employees, and also impairs

communication across silos

- The business’s IT and communications platforms are fragmented. Most

businesses run their email separately

- Reservation platforms are not sufficiently integrated. Instead, many standalone

and bespoke systems are used

- Communication gatekeepers have significant influence

- While there are some exceptions, a top-down command-and-control structure

is firmly entrenched

- IT, human resources, marketing and other support functions are decentralized

and non-standardised

- Ineffective communication means that not all employees have a holistic view

of their business’s place in the larger organisational structure

- The senior executive level is very competitive and incentive schemes are

biased towards short term business performance

- Problem-solving is mostly done in silos and not collaboratively, with little

reliance on institutional knowledge about what has worked in the past

elsewhere in the organisation

- Decisions are made at the top level and cascaded down to the business units in

the form of instructions or directives

- Planning is mostly reactive

- The branding strategy is complex and multiple anomalies exist within the

current strategy. A key issue is whether the organisation’s name is a brand

- Recognition tends to be extrinsic rather than intrinsic

- The management approach has a greater focus on pushing products out as

opposed to drawing customers in

Copyright UCT

6 | P a g e

- Decision-making is far removed from the operational and customer-facing

centres

- Measurement is budget-driven as opposed to purpose-driven

- There has been mixed success in implementing an organisation-wide synergy

strategy. After some initial gains, the strategy has been reduced to forced

compliance of group support and a series of once-off events as opposed to a

systemic capability

- Short term incentive schemes drive executive behaviour which is at risk of

being motivated by short term self-interest

- Different cultures and work practices exist between the different divisions and

business units, with no shared organisational culture or identity

- The EXCO faces intense shareholder pressure. Compliance issues absorb

significant management effort

- Structural changes are mostly resisted

- Collaboration strategies are hatched at the top level with limited consultation

with front-line staff and managers

- No specific integration strategy exists, and existing integration efforts are

mostly motivated by efficiencies and cost saving

- The business is organized around internal operational efficiencies.

- It does not tolerate failure.

- There is no organisation-wide focus on users’ needs and experience.

- Silo way of organizing and thinking and focus on individual business unit

profitability creates the opposite of integration, i.e. the organisation is not

integrated.

- Rule following is valued over exploration and experimentation.

- There is tension between innovation focus and deep rooted efficiency-focused

management practices.

Copyright UCT

7 | P a g e

- A risk-averse culture (predominantly especially in middle levels of the

organisation) tends to not accommodate experimentation and occasional

failure.

- A non-design approach typically involves thinking that the organization can

make good profits by using existing technology to make existing products a bit

better.

- Risk of any innovation process being hijacked by decision-making downstream

motivated by different priorities and the strong tendency to steer the process

towards the safety of small incremental change rather than the risky territory

of radical innovation.

1.3.2 Holons

Checkland (Checkland, 1981) uses the concept of holons, which are plausible, relevant

and purposeful perspectives that can describe real world activities to help understand

the different perspectives that make up the rich picture.

Here are some possible integration holons:

- Creating a seamless and superior holistic experience for the customer

- A vehicle for maximising efficiencies and achieving economies of scale across

the organisation

- Solving succession planning issues by combining like businesses under a

single point of management

- Consolidating non-strategic business processes in a centralised structure to

save money

- Extracting synergies from the organisation

- Creating a superior customer service experience

- Maximising value extracted from each customer

- Reduce audit fees by combining entities to reduce the number of businesses

that need to be audited

Copyright UCT

8 | P a g e

- Reduce back-office costs by streamlining business processes

- Meeting the original premise of why the organisation was created in the first

place

- Absorbing dying businesses

- Reducing costs and headcount by eliminating duplicated functions

These perspectives may not all be recognized by management or openly discussed in

the organisation, but they remain valid.

1.3.3 Stakeholder Analysis

It would be a very complex exercise to address each of these so I have separately

addressed only the key perspectives. Doing so will help me understand the

implications of these perspectives and how they inform my evaluative conclusions

towards understanding integration. The key stakeholder perspectives in this study are:

- The organisation

- Customers

- Employees

I will start by creating a CATWOE, which is a mnemonic device used to identify the

people, processes and environment and their different perspectives that contribute to

the situation. The six elements of the CATWOE are:

- Customers - who benefits from this transformation?

- Actors - who facilitates the transformation, who will be involved in

implementing solutions and what will impact their success?

- Transformation process - what is the transformation that lies at the heart of the

system?

- Weltanschauung, or Worldview - what is the big picture and what are the wider

impacts of the issue? What gives the transformation some meaning?

Copyright UCT

9 | P a g e

- Owner - who owns the process or situation being investigated and/or could

cause it not to exist?

- Environmental constraints - what constraints and limitations will impact the

solution and its success? What influences but does not control the system?

A CATWOE analysis for each key stakeholder perspective is as follows, starting with

the transformation process:

Perspective #1: Integration streamlines processes and reduces cost with increased

efficiencies

Customers – the organisation and businesses within the multi-business organisation

Actors – divisional and individual business unit heads

Transformation – transforming separable parts, which are the stand-alone businesses,

into an integrated whole, which is the integrated organisation

Weltanschauung – structural business combinations that make sense and solve

underlying management issues

Owner – the organisation’s EXCO

Environment – the need to remain competitive in the industry under performance

pressure from shareholders

Perspective #2: Integration improves the organisation’s ability to provide seamless

travel solutions

Customers – the organisation’s customers, who are individual travellers, tour

operators and travel agents

Actors – front-line staff and management who deal with customers

Transformation – transformation of multiple client interfaces into a simplified

interface

Weltanschauung – customer knows what he or she wants, and is looking for

convenience and smart, seamless solutions

Owner – businesses delivering the service

Copyright UCT

10 | P a g e

Environment – technology constraints, geographical dispersion of businesses

Perspective #3: Integration reduces costs by eliminating duplicated functions and

reducing headcount

Customers – employees of the various businesses within the organisation

Actors – managers and business heads

Transformation – small teams transformed into larger teams

Weltanschauung – customers will purchase products and services from us if we can

offer a differentiated service

Owner – managers and business owners

Environment – human resources issues including staff morale and mixing different

cultures

1.3.4 Articulating the problem concept

The problem concept is articulated as follows. Stuck in a legacy hierarchical divisional

structure, how does the multi-business tourism organisation move towards further

integration, both as a philosophy and action, towards creating a sustainable

competitive advantage?

1.4 A Theoretical perspective – development of the conceptual framework

This section describes my current understanding of the issues, settings and people that

are the focus of the research. I will develop a conceptual framework that will offer the

best insight into the situation. The conceptual framework will help me answer the

following questions:

- What theories, beliefs, and prior research findings will guide or inform my

research?

Copyright UCT

11 | P a g e

- What literature, preliminary studies and personal experiences will I draw on

for understanding the people or issues that I am studying?

My conceptual framework is based on Ackoff’s Systemic Management theory

(Ackoff, 2013) which has the following characteristics:

1. It defines a system as a whole that cannot be divided into independent

parts without losing its essential properties or function.

2. When the performance of separate parts of a system improves, the

whole may not – and usually does not – improve. This is because the

system’s properties are derived from the interactions of its parts rather

than their separate actions taken.

It follows that a fundamental function of management is to manage:

(a) the interactions of those units and individuals for whom they are

responsible;

(b) the way their units interact with others within the organisation;

and

(c) the way their units interact with other organisations or units

within other organisations.

3. The theory distinguishes between:

- Efficiency and effectiveness

- Systems analysis as analytical thinking, and synthesis as a systems

thinking concept

- Absolution, resolution, solution and dissolution as approaches to

problem solving

- Deterministic, or mechanistic, animated, or organismic, social and

ecological systems and models

- Reactive, inactive, preactive and interactive types of management

4. It provides us with an interactive planning process methodology

Copyright UCT

12 | P a g e

I will draw on my personal experience in the following roles in the organisation to gain

a better understanding of the situation. From 2007 to 2010, I was Group Synergies

Executive. During that time I developed a collaboration strategy focused on identifying

and developing collaborative links between business units, developing reporting

systems for group support, and multi-business teams.

I am currently CEO of an adventure activities business within a resort environment at

Sun City.

My conceptual framework, which is the lens through which I will view this project, is

articulated as follows:

Integration is a concrete concept that refers to the organisational structure and the way

it organises its business processes and physical infrastructure to achieve a better or

differentiated outcome. Ackoff’s Systemic Management Theory applies here.

Integration and being integrated is a way of thinking or being for the organisation. This

refers to behaviour and could refer to culture, or a common organisational perspective.

If we view an organisation as a system of conversations, it follows that we can change

the system behaviour by changing the conversations, without having to change the

structure of the organization. Maintaining high level discourse within the organisation

is key to this.

1.5 Development of the research question

My research question is developed in an iterative process. It starts with answering the

following questions to establish my research goals (Maxwell, 2009):

- What, specifically, do I want to learn or understand by doing this study?

- What don’t I know about the things I am studying that I want to learn?

- What questions will my research attempt to answer, and how are these

questions related to one another?

My goals are formatted in the context of the conceptual framework. My aim is to

achieve coherence between my practical and intellectual goals and conceptual

Copyright UCT

13 | P a g e

framework. The answer to my research question must help me realise my goals, which

are as follows:

1.5.1 Intellectual Research Goals

The reason why this study is important from a research point of view is to improve my

understanding of integration in a multi-business environment. The multi-business

environment is the context. The mechanism is the way we manage, or organize or

design, the organisation. And the outcome is greater integration by an increased ability

to think integratively.

My sub-goals are:

- Disrupt the entrenched pattern of organisational thinking around

integration by liberating thinking from a narrow-minded paradigm, with

hopefully far-reaching systemic consequences that will make a positive

change to improve the human condition of the organization.

- Make a contribution to the integrated tourism organisation by developing a

new hypothesis about integration and the ability to think and behave

integratively.

- Understand the role of conversations in changing the system’s behaviour.

1.5.2 Practical goal

My practical goal looks at what type of interventions I can design to bring about

change. These interventions will look at the structure of the organisation as well as the

behaviour of the system. I aim to identify a number of design propositions that will

contribute towards improving integration in the organisation that I work for.

1.5.3 Personal goals

My personal goals are to develop a better understanding of organisational behaviour

and practice around integration; and to meet the criteria for the research assignment

towards obtaining my degree.

1.5.4 Relevant theory

This section articulates what I am intending to contribute through this study. I aim to

answer the following questions:

Copyright UCT

14 | P a g e

- What theory do I intend to produce?

- What kind of theory am I creating?

My theory will impact my literature review.

The tourism organisation I work for calls itself an integrated tourism group and it

proposes this as something of value to its agents, customers and suppliers. The

organisation comprises a collection of diverse tourism businesses, under a common

ownership structure. Although my case study is limited to this context, the hypothesis

developed in the study may well apply to organising diverse tourism businesses under

autonomous separate ownership, who may share common customers.

Looking at integration from a customer experience perspective, the concept of a

holistic customer experience is essentially a systems thinking concept characterised by

the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only

by reference to the whole. The underlying hypothesis is that the level of integration

determines the quality of holistic customer experiences. The research assignment will

aim to understand and challenge the “deep generative processes and structures”

(Easton, 2009, p.122) that underpin integration in a multi-business environment.

Hostyn (2010) expresses the new way of thinking, saying “We need to collaborate

across our silos to design for, prototype, and deliver the experiences we hope to

invoke.”

The resulting conceptual model of systems thinking leadership posits that leaders

within the integrated tourism organisation can improve organisational performance by

engaging and enacting the adaptive and participatory practices of discovery, framing,

and action (Davis et al., 2015).

My contribution will be to use systems thinking to develop a theory around

organisational practice that will help achieve greater integration in a multi-business

tourism organisation. I will further build a theory about how a focus on customers and

people will create a new sustainable competitive advantage, ultimately contributing to

the greater success and survival of the integrated tourism organisation. This paper will

propose a conceptual model for systems thinking leadership in the integrated tourism

organisation.

Copyright UCT

15 | P a g e

Based on stakeholder perspectives, the following concepts are articulated from the

work above and binds together the goals, the theoretical lens and the research

questions:

1. The organisation sees itself as integrated. This perspective would refer to the

people and processes between business units. There is verifiable proof that this

is not true for the case study organisation. The people and processes are not

equally integrated and so this does not apply equally to all the businesses. For

example, financial services and retail travel are well integrated in that they

report into a single member of the EXCO, have their head offices located in

the same building and so on. By contrast, travel services is not connected to

the accommodation and activities division in any way, whether physically or

technologically.

2. Others, such as the customers, other tourism businesses and organisations, see

the organisation as integrated. This is a perspective held by people and/or

other organisations who deal with the organisation.

3. I don’t need to be familiar with the organisational structure to improve the way

the organisation solves problems. I only need to know how it makes decisions.

The concepts are still quite messy at this stage of the study, which reflects the general

messiness of qualitative research as an approach.

1.5.5 Research questions

Maxwell suggests that early, initial questions generated from experience and

theoretical knowledge, help frame the study, guide decisions about methods and are

the basis for further focusing and development of more specific questions. He further

suggests that “Well-constructed, focused questions are generally the result of an

interactive design process, rather than the starting point for that process.” (Maxwell,

2009).

My preliminary primary research questions that follow from these two concepts and

which will guide my research are:

- What variables do we have to manage in an integrated tourism

organisation?

Copyright UCT

16 | P a g e

- What are the properties of an integrated tourism organisation?

Additional questions that may influence my research are:

- How else can we increase the level of integration without physically

merging businesses or radically changing the structure?

- What if we pursue informal integration as opposed to formal vertical,

horizontal and conglomerate integration strategies?

- How does / would integration improve the customer’s experience and

creates competitive differentiation?

- How does a systems thinking approach change the way we think about

integration in a multi-business tourism organisation?

- What are the most valuable practices encompassed in systems thinking for

leaders of integrated tourism organisations, and how might we approach

integration differently through the lens of this new conceptual model?

- What does it mean for one firm to be more integrated than another?

From an organisational behaviour perspective the study asks:

- What causes the organisation to behave the way that it does?

- How do we use that knowledge to change the way the organisation behaves

to produce the desired effect?

- What drives our expansion strategy?

- What can we learn from other sciences to deepen our understanding of

organisational behaviour around integration?

Copyright UCT

17 | P a g e

1.6 Argument for relevance

My argument for relevance is based on the Toulmin model of argument (Toulmin,

1958):

Diagram 2: Structure of typical Toulmin model of arguments

Introduction of the problem or topic

The multi-business tourism organisation under study presents itself as an integrated

tourism group and proposes this as a competitive differentiator despite being only

partially integrated, and without being able to clearly articulate how that translates into

an enhanced value proposition for the customer. A systems thinking perspective might

result in improved integration that will create tangible competitive differentiation.

Data – the reasons or evidence – to support the argument

Only some of the businesses are integrated through mostly once-off vertical, horizontal

or conglomerate integration strategy decisions taken over time. These integration

decision decisions would typically have been taken at the point of acquisition or

subsequently towards maximising synergies, reducing costs, increasing benefits

derived from economies of scale, securing a market for products, or diversifying risk.

For the most part however, the organisation remains unintegrated. This current state

has not translated into tangible points of differentiation other than size, which often

Copyright UCT

18 | P a g e

doesn’t translate into a benefit to the customer, and only serves to achieve better

buying power. With few exceptions where the organisation holds strategic leases or

monopoly concessions, the organization’s products and services remain

commoditised, forcing it to compete on price as opposed to a sustainable competitive

advantage.

Warrants that show how logically the data is connected

From the customer’s perspective, the organisation is not integrated. Rather it is

perceived to be merely a holding company for diverse tourism businesses that uses its

bulk to gain a competitive advantage. From the management’s perspective, the

organisation is as integrated as it could be and this creates a competitive advantage

which benefits the customer but, more importantly, maximises profitability.

Factual backing to show that good logic is used in the warrants in terms of both

realism and theory

From a customer’s perspective, integration would imply a single point of contact

towards a holistic experience with a high degree of consistency in service and a

tangible price benefit. From the management point of view, integration is the result of

top-down decisions based on the wisdom of the executives who have all the answers.

Typically, the main driver behind integration decisions is to maximise profits for

individual business units in the belief that this will maximise profits for the

organization as a whole.

This does not mean that the organisation should force business integration without

strategic alignment. That said, it should consider the possibility that, if viewed

systemically, integration could be an ongoing process of patching and co-evolution

that will create competitive differentiation. In other words, integration is something

that cannot easily be replicated in the highly commoditised environment of travel and

tourism.

Counter-arguments rebuttal

Systems thinking suggests as an alternative theory firstly that maximising the

performance of individual business units as parts of a system does not necessarily

maximise the performance of the organisation as a whole (system). Secondly that if

Copyright UCT

19 | P a g e

the individual business units do not view themselves as meaningful parts of a whole,

then any form of forced integration is likely to lead to a suboptimal customer

experience with a high degree of inconsistency in service levels and experience and no

tangible price benefit.

Conclusion

The argument suggests that if we think differently about integration it could become a

systemic capability towards creating a sustainable competitive advantage for the multi-

business tourism organisation in the highly commoditised tourism sector.

1.7 Conclusion

This chapter raises traditional management practice on and the understanding of

integration as a concern in a multi-business tourism organisation. It develops a

theoretical perspective of the problem concept and develops two key research

questions:

- What variables do we have to manage in an integrated tourism

organisation?

- What are the properties of an integrated tourism organisation?

The chapter concludes with an argument for relevance based on integration as a

competitive differentiator for the multi-business tourism organisation.

Copyright UCT

20 | P a g e

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the research methodology used to produce my core variables.

My research methodology describes what I will do in conducting this study; what

approaches and techniques I will use to collect and analyse my data; and how these

constitute an integrated strategy (Maxwell, 2009).

The chapter draws in critical realism, grounded theory, action research, systems

methodology and data collection methods to construct a research process that I will

follow in Chapter 3.

It starts with a description of the theoretical and conceptual foundation of the research

methodology, and concludes with a description of the phases of the integrated research

framework.

2.2 Theoretical and conceptual foundation of the research methodology

Ho describes research as a “systematic inquiry to describe, explain, predict and control

an observed phenomenon” (Ho, 2013). The research design is based on the intention

of the research study, and because the intention of this research study is to better

understand a particular phenomenon, it is a qualitative study.

The construction of my research paradigm starts with my ontological position, which

is my set of ideas about how the world works. Researchers typically choose one of a

number of perspectives to ground their reality and emphasise certain elements. They

also argue that certain phenomenal reality can be expected and observed from this

perspective of reality. My chosen perspective for this research assignment is critical

realism.

Easton says that “Critical realism assumes a transcendental realist ontology, an eclectic

realist/interpretivist epistemology and a generally emancipatory axiology.” (Easton,

2010, p.119).

Critical realism is a philosophical system developed by Roy Bhaskar in collaboration

with a number of British social theorists including Andrew Sayer. According to

Copyright UCT

21 | P a g e

Bhaskar there is a layered reality, consisting of 3 primary layers: the real, the actual

and the empirical.

The real is the underlying mechanisms or structures that are responsible for what we

can observe. It cannot be seen but we can speculate on them. For example gravity –

nobody has ever seen gravity but we know that it exists and what it does.

Below the real is the actual. The actual refers to events which are caused by

mechanisms in the real. We can’t observe the real but we can observe the actual. E.g.

we cannot observe gravity but we can observe the effect of gravity. Another example

is human nature – we have various positions on human nature but we cannot see human

nature and therefore it is the real. The events that are supposedly caused by human

nature is the actual.

The third level of reality is the empirical and refers to observable experiences and is

the position of the scientist who is actually observing the events in this actual level and

then speculating on the real.

Critical realism therefore provides me with a methodology that presents a framework

for identifying and understanding causal structures in my study, termed mechanisms.

The framework consists of steps involved in identifying structural components of a

mechanism, how these components interact to produce to an outcome, and contextual

influences on this outcome. The application of the framework and the mechanism

approach provides ontological depth, creative thinking and more precise explanations.

Applying this perspective allows me to understand both what happens as particular

events and the underlying mechanism that produces these events. This leads to an

understanding of the underlying mechanism in the real world that I experience in the

theoretical world.

Critical realism draws a critical distinction between transitive and intransitive

knowledge: the transitive is the changing knowledge of things; and the intransitive is

the relatively unchanging things which we attempt to know (ICCR (International

Centre for Critical Realism), n.d.).

The thread that holds my research together is systems thinking and grounded theory.

Copyright UCT

22 | P a g e

This assignment will draw on grounded theory as an established research paradigm in

designing the study, towards building a coherent well-developed approach to my

research (Maxwell, 1995). Using grounded theory also meets one of the practical

criteria for this assignment.

Grounded theory is a type of qualitative research that uses a prescribed set of

procedures to construct systematically generate a theory from data that contains both

inductive and deductive thinking. Inductive research methods analyse an observed

phenomenon and identify the general principles, structures, or processes underlying

the observed phenomenon; while deductive methods use observations to verify the

hypothesised principles or theory. Each method has a different purpose: one is to

develop explanations, and the other is to test the validity of the explanations.

The grounded theory process starts with the identification of a research question,

followed by the collection of qualitative data. By constantly reviewing the data as its

being collected, repeated ideas, concepts or elements become apparent, which can be

grouped into categories. These categories may then become the basis for new theory

which is grounded in the original empirical data.

The concept of emergence means that the theory emerges out of the data itself, i.e. it

is inductive, while the research questions are informed by the phenomena under

investigation (Yates, 2004).

2.3 The phases of the integrated research framework

The intention is to analyse the concept of integration by looking at it from three key

stakeholder perspectives:

- Organisation

- Customer

- Employees

The qualitative research process is by nature messy. The approach here is to improve

understanding of the problem concept or situation through an iterative process. The

data collection process will use the following techniques:

Copyright UCT

23 | P a g e

- Proposition log

- Personal experience

- Observation

- Interviews

- Documentary research and literature review

The integrated research framework is planned in phases, as follows:

2.3.1 Interviews

The objective is to conduct semi-structured interviews with key executives to gain an

understanding of how the business currently sees integration. Interview opportunities

are limited because of the geographic separation between me and the interviewees, and

also because of the limitations imposed by the CEO of the organisation.

Interview questions will be semi-structured and at a very high level of abstraction to

capture mood and context. I will have some key questions planned, but will also allow

other questions to be raised. While I will offer supplementary questions to collate

people’s different viewpoints, all interviewees are expected to answer the main

questions. The semi-structured interview provides a holistic, systemic account of the

flow experience in a real-life context (Nakamura & Csilcszentmilzalyi, 2000).

In terms of our research methodology I would prefer to conduct three cycles of

interviews to allow for an iterative process and to achieve saturation. However, due to

the constraints around interviews mentioned earlier, I will attempt to cover all three

cycles in the same interview. I plan to approach them as follows:

- Cycle 1: towards a holistic view of the organisation

- Cycle 1 of the interview process will be to formulate a holistic view of

the organisation. The interviewee will be asked to define his or her

current view of integration within the organisation.

- Cycle 2: towards constraints

- During Cycle 2 I construct the mess (Ackoff says “Every organization

is faced with a set of interacting threats and opportunities, a system of

problems that we call a mess.” (Ackoff, 2001)) and identify the self-

Copyright UCT

24 | P a g e

imposed constraints that limit the number of consequences considered.

I will take the approach of “the system was destroyed last night”. This

is critically important because referring to the existing system restrains

designers from thinking about what they really want (Ackoff,

Magidson, & Addison, 2006).

- I will ask interviewee to imagine that the system was destroyed last

night: what would they consider to be the self-imposed constraints that

limit the number of consequences or alternatives we consider?

- In terms of culture, the interviewee will be asked to consider that all

cultures function not only to meet needs but also to reproduce the

conditions of their functioning (Ackoff et al., 2006). In other words,

cultures reinforce themselves. I will ask the interviewee how this

influences the way they see the organisation.

- I will propose that there is a theory of organisation that we have come

to accept as the only way that the multi-business can be organised

(Ackoff et al., 2006). I will ask the interviewee how else we could

organise the business.

- Cycle 3: towards new ways of organising

- This cycle would be to establish the preferred organisational structure

to successfully achieve integration

- In a bid to design the 'unbounded organisation', I will ask the

interviewee what changes they would make to the organisation, in

terms of self-imposed constraints

- Finally, I would ask: if they could have anything they wanted today,

what would it be?

The approach will be based on Ackoff’s Idealized Design process (Ackoff et al., 2006),

because it:

• promotes understanding of that which is designed;

• transforms the designers’ concept of what is feasible;

Copyright UCT

25 | P a g e

• simplifies the planning process;

• enhances creativity; and

• facilitates implementation.

2.3.2 Initial Literature Review

I will conduct an initial high level literature review focused on integration and

institutional theory to understand how the organisation behaves and identify what

management behaviour it displays. The logic of the initial literature review is to

identify key concepts that will form the basis of my interviews for capturing

propositions.

2.3.3 Proposition log

Following the thread of grounded theory, the objective is to collect propositions about

what happens in the empirical domain concerning the nature of organisational

integration, the link between integration and capability, and the determinants or

properties of integration.

The primary source of propositions will be interviews, but I will also gather

propositions from my literature review and personal experiences. The propositions will

be captured in a proposition log. From there repeated or similar ideas, concepts or

elements will be categorised into seven to nine core categories to develop an initial set

of core variables. The proposition log will be updated to record each proposition, place,

relevance, impact, report, inference or judgement, and validity.

These initial core variables will be analysed through an iterative process and further

developed through a series of literature review cycles to produce a final set of core

variables. The core variables will demonstrate the underlying causality that leads to a

satisfactory understanding of the concept of integration, by improving our

understanding of the problem concept. It will also answer the research question.

2.3.4 Comprehensive literature review

The objective of the grounded theory process is to continue through the research cycles

of the research process, refining my initial categories with each cycle. The cycles will

develop and evolve until I get to a point of saturation. The comprehensive literature

review happens in Chapter 4 once I have my initial core variables.

Copyright UCT

26 | P a g e

2.3.5 Construction of an interrelationship digraph (ID) and CMO

The objective is to identify the properties of an integrated organisation through the

lens of my conceptual framework, and to identify the underlying causality between

core variables that emerge from my data.

The propositions collected will be grouped into categories and finally core variables

which will be captured in the form of an interrelationship digraph (ID). The ID will

show cause-and-effect relationships between the core variables and in so doing help to

analyse the natural links between different aspects of a complex situation.

The final step towards developing my theory will be the creation of a CMO, which

establishes the problematic context (C), and the generative mechanisms (M), that

delivers the outcome (O)).

2.3.6 Personal experience

Throughout the study I will draw on lived experiences during my career with the

organisation, specifically in the roles of Group Synergies Executive (2007 – 2010) and

CEO of an outdoor adventure activities business (2013 – present). This is in line with

the conceptual framework as proposed by Maxwell’s (Maxwell, 2009) interactive

qualitative design model.

2.4 Identification of the threats to validity

Maxwell (2009, p.216) poses the following questions in terms of validity of the

qualitative study: “How might your results and conclusions be wrong? What are the

plausible alternative interpretations and validity threats to these, and how will you

deal with these? How can the data that you have, or that you could potentially collect,

support or challenge your ideas about what’s going on? Why should we believe your

results?”

This section identifies the threats to the research validity. These threats are evaluated

in Chapter 3 with a final reflection in Chapter 6.

Threats to research validity:

1. Credibility

Copyright UCT

27 | P a g e

a. Awareness of potential of self-report bias: how credible are my

observations as an employee of the organisation?

b. Sources of propositions: who did I canvas and interview for

propositions and how credible are they as sources? How credible are

my documentary research sources?

2. Dependability

a. Reliability of data sources: will the data change from one day to the

next or is it consistent, and will it remain so? There is the risk that as

questions are posed and awareness increases, points of view or attitudes

might shift. This could elicit a different response in subsequent

research.

3. Confirmability

a. Are the data sources still available – for example, has the data been

obtained from executives who are no longer contactable?

4. Transferability

a. To what extent can the lessons learned be transferred or applied to a

different context or environment? Can the results of my study be

applied to other multi-business organisations, whether in the tourism

industry or others?

b. “The explanatory power of the grounded theorist is to develop

predictive ability – to explain what may happen to, for instance, a

business or organizational sub-unit or manager – given incidents that

tend towards replicating previous grounded theories.” (Douglas, 2003).

This relates to whether the lessons can be transferred to other

organisations.

Copyright UCT

28 | P a g e

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter described my research methodology as the process I will follow in

Chapter 3. It shows how critical realism, grounded theory, action research and systems

methodology and data collection methods constitute an integrated research strategy.

It described how I will use a proposition log, personal experience, observation,

interviews and documentary research to collect data towards producing my core

variables. These are expressed as an ID which shows cause-and-effect relationships

between the core variables. The ID helps analyse the natural links between different

aspects of a complex situation. It will be used to construct a CMO: in case of the

problematic context (C), what are the generative mechanisms (M) that deliver the

outcome (O).

The chapter concluded with the identification of potential threats to validity. These

threats will be evaluated in Chapter 3.

Copyright UCT

29 | P a g e

3. Research Results

3.1 Introduction

This chapter follows and documents how the research process outlined in Chapter 2

will be applied. It also follows the process of gathering propositions and using them to

discover my initial core variables, which I refine in Chapter 4.

It describes the application of the research framework and the outcomes of each phase

of data gathering, followed by a discussion of the research results. Finally, it assesses

the validity assessment of the process.

3.2 Application of the research framework – outcomes of each phase of data

gathering

The outcome of each data gathering phase is described as follows:

3.2.1 Interviews

Due to the constraints of accessing interviewees, I only interviewed nine individuals.

Two are female, seven are male. Seven were from within the organisation, and two

were from outside the organisation but they work within the tourism industry. I also

interviewed at least one person from each of the organisation’s five divisions. The

interview log is attached as Annexure A.

The interviews lasted between forty-five and ninety minutes. Seven were recorded. I

made notes of key concepts and comments from the interviews which were not

recorded. I later analysed the recorded interviews and captured key concepts and

comments data in a proposition log, which is described later.

3.2.2 Observations

I extracted observations from class notes and memos as part of the grounded theory

approach, and captured these as propositions in a proposition log (see below).

3.2.3 Documentary research

The initial data gathering process included an initial review of literature focused on

business integration. It explored the traditional reasons why businesses merge or

integrate, outlined as:

Copyright UCT

30 | P a g e

- Cutting costs through economies of scale

- Reducing waste – albeit that this was less applicable in the context of a tourism

organisation than within a manufacturing concern

- Lower prices

- Improved customer service

- Increasing market share

- Increasing profits

It further refreshed my knowledge on the three traditional types of integration for

organisations:

- Horizontal integration: when one organisation integrates with another at a

similar stage of work, e.g. one travel agent takes over another

- Vertical integration: when one organisation takes over another at an earlier or

later stage of work, for example, when an inbound travel service takes over a

destination management organisation

- Conglomerate integration: when an organisation integrates with another to

produce a completely different product, for example, when a hotels business

integrates with a transportation supply business

3.2.4 Proposition log

The following is an extract from the proposition log, attached as Appendix C:

Table 1: Sample of proposition log

Propos i tion Place (source) Relevance Impact

Report (factua l ) /

Inference / Judgement

Val idi ty (H/M/L)

There i s no organization-wide focus on users ’ needs and experience

Interview High High Judgement High

Organization i s set up for the convenience of those who run the s tore, as opposed to for the convenience of our customers

Interview High High Judgement High

The concept of a bounded organization – to what extent i s divis ional i zing the bus iness caus ing i t to be “bounded” and unable to think integratively

Interview High High Inference High

Integration often an afterthought after acquis i tion of s trategic bus inesses

Interview High High Inference High

Centra l i zation i s seen as a requirement for integration Interview High High Inference HighInternal integration doesn't trans late into customer viewing the bus iness as integrated

Interview High High Judgement High

Customer looking for seamless experience and creation of a va lue chain in integration

Interview High High Inference High

integration doesn't imply a one-stop shop Interview High High Inference Highintegration impl ies a golden thread through bus inesses Interview High High Inference Highcommon va lues are centra l to creating an integrated cul ture Interview High High Inference High

Copyright UCT

31 | P a g e

The objective was to collect propositions concerning the nature of organisational

integration, the linkage of integration to capability, and the determinants or properties

of integration, from the following perspective:

- What variables need to be managed in an integrated multi-business

organisation?

- What are the properties of an integrated organisation?

In total I created 100 propositions from the various data sources, recording the following

for each proposition:

- Place, or source

- Relevance

- Impact

- Report, inference or judgement

- Validity

- Comments or memo

The propositions were grouped into initial categories based on their relevance to the

research questions. These categories were then further refined and reduced using five

to nine categories as a rule-of-thumb. As part of the iterative qualitative research

process, the final step was to convert each category into a variable to create the core

variables that would be refined in Chapter 4. The core variables are expressed in the

following ID:

Copyright UCT

32 | P a g e

Diagram 3: Interrelationship digraph (ID) of initial core variables

3.3 Discussion of the research results

The ID above shows cause-and-effect relationships between the core variables

constructed from the propositions collected from the initial literature review, the

interview process, and personal observations. It helps to analyse the natural links

between different aspects of the research situation, which is integration in the multi-

business tourism organisation.

Interestingly, none of the interviewees identified the three traditional types of business

integration of vertical, horizontal or conglomerate business integration as a strategy

that contributed to the current organisational structure; or as underpinning current or

future strategies to expand or structure the organisation. This was contrary to evidence

that that was the case. For example, after it was initially formed the organisation did

Degree of

knowledge

sharing

Ability to think

integratively Technology

capability

Level of shared

organisational

identity

Degree of

customer

orientation Dynamic

capability

Degree of

bureaucracy

Quality /

frequency of

interactions /

conversations

In: 3

Out: 4

In: 7

Out: 0

In: 2

Out: 5

In: 5 Out: 2

In: 7

Out: 0

In: 3

Out: 3

In: 0

Out: 7

In: 2

Out: 5

Copyright UCT

33 | P a g e

go through a process of horizontal integration in the destination management and travel

services divisions. However, no further traditional integration has taken place since

then. The impression was that everyone was grappling to find a solution to a problem

they did not understand, which was how to continue to use its diversity to gain a

competitive advantage in the industry.

There was a tendency to confuse integration with a branding strategy. This led to an

assumption that integration pre-determined a branding strategy, which made it difficult

to separate the two concepts. By failing to recognise the different integration strategies,

the interviewees also failed to recognise that the three primary types of business

integration could exist in the same organisation at the same time.

The interviewees also struggled to identify that integration strategies could exist at

different levels, such as pricing integration by “setting prices for goods or services of

each revenue-producing department so that together they optimize the firm's net

income.” (“businessdictionary.com,” n.d.)); or as a general concept that involves a

“process of attaining close and seamless coordination between several departments,

groups, organisations, systems, etc.” (“businessdictionary.com,” n.d.).

It is clear from the initial core variables identified that the level of perceived

bureaucracy in the organisation impacts materially on most of the other variables. It

also impacts directly and indirectly on the concern variable which is the ability of the

organisation to think integratively, or towards further integration.

Integration is generally viewed as a concrete concept evident in physical structural

rearrangements as opposed to a conceptual attribute as a way of being and managing

the organisation.

A key driver of organisational behaviour is the degree of organisational identity

created through a common culture. Another driver is the quality of interactions and

conversations that are restricted by the formal organisational boundaries.

Copyright UCT

34 | P a g e

3.4 Evaluation of the threats to validity

This section evaluates the validity of this study against the threats to validity identified

in Chapter 2. In doing so it describes how my plan, as articulated in Chapter 2, has

changed and how that affects validity. Chapter 6 contains a final reflection on validity.

In order of the threats identified in Chapter 2, my evaluation of the threats to validity

is as follows:

1. Credibility

a. Awareness of potential of self-report bias. Donaldson & Grant-Vallone

suggest that: “In general, research participants want to respond in a way

that makes them look as good as possible. Thus, they tend to under-

report behaviors deemed inappropriate by researchers or other

observers, and they tend to over-report behaviors viewed as

appropriate. Self-report bias is particularly likely in organizational

behavior research because employees often believe there is at least a

remote possibility that their employer could gain access to their

responses.” (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002, p.247). I have partially

mitigated the risk of self-report bias by not revealing interviewees’

names in the proposition log attached to the study. This was disclosed

to them at the time of the interview.

b. Sources of propositions. Who did I canvas or interview for propositions

and how credible are they as sources? How credible are the sources of

my documentary research? The seven individuals interviewed from

within the organisation are all senior executives at EXCO level and one

level down. They have all been with the organisation for more than five

years. The two individuals interviewed from outside the organisation

have been in the industry for more than 10 years and are both managing

directors of tourism businesses, one of which is a smaller integrated

tourism organisation in its own right. Consequently, the propositions

obtained through the interviews have high credibility because the

research subjects are credible. While only a few interviews were

conducted with interviewees from within the organisation, the

Copyright UCT

35 | P a g e

interviewees are all senior executives representing each of the five

divisions within the organisation. This means they represent

sufficiently diverse perspectives to meet the validity requirements of

this study.

2. Dependability

a. Reliability of data sources. Will the data change from one day to the

next or is it consistent, and will it remain so? As questions are posed

and awareness increases, there is a risk that points of view or attitudes

might shift. This could elicit a different response in subsequent research

cycles.

3. Confirmability

a. Are the data sources still available – for example, has the data been

obtained from executives who are no longer contactable? Data sources

are still available. That said, I have been restricted from disclosing the

name of the organisation or the names of the internal interviewees. This

has a negative impact on the data confirmability. This is partially

negated by the confirmability of the data gained from the sources from

outside the organisation.

4. Transferability

a. To what extent can the lessons learned be transferred or applied to a

different context or environment? Can the results of my study be

applied to other multi-business organisations in the tourism industry, or

others? Due to the high level of abstraction selected and the broad

application of the conceptual framework used, the results of the study

should be transferable to other multi-business organisations. The results

are not necessarily confined to the tourism industry.

b. “The explanatory power of the grounded theorist is to develop

predictive ability – to explain what may happen to, for instance, a

business or organizational sub-unit or manager – given incidents that

tend towards replicating previous grounded theories.” (Douglas, 2003).

This relates to transferability of the lessons to other organisations.

Copyright UCT

36 | P a g e

3.5 Conclusion

This chapter produced an ID of my initial core variables, which I will refine further in

the next chapter. It shows the causal relationships between the variables and shows

how the variables impact on organisational behaviour and thinking around integration.

Copyright UCT

37 | P a g e

4. Literature Review

4.1 Introduction

This chapter produces a far more developed set of core variables than the initial core

variables developed in Chapter 3 by getting rid of the ‘so what’ questions. This is done

largely by changing attributes rather than changing variables. The variables that

emerge at the end of this chapter must still capture my core propositions.

The chapter describes the literature review process in detail, starting with an overview

of the process, and followed by the detail of every stage of the process.

4.2 Overview of the Literature review process

Search Strategies

I used several search strategies. I first performed a keyword search using electronic

databases for the themes of business integration, organisational identity, organisational

democracy, customer focus, strategy, design thinking, multi-business organisations,

systems thinking theory and systems thinking in tourism.

I used Google Scholar as the primary database as a simple way to broadly search for

scholarly literature. I used broad search terms initially and then narrowed these down

to specific contexts of interest. In addition, I also examined reference lists of articles

for literature that had not been uncovered in the keyword searches. And I identified

and studied key journals in detail.

Where possible, I referred to academic articles to back up concepts and theory

extracted from Harvard Business Review articles.

Inclusion Criteria

I considered both empirical and theoretical literature, but specifically only qualitative

literature studies that explored systems thinking theory.

Copyright UCT

38 | P a g e

Limitations

I did not find articles focused specifically on integrated multi-business tourism

organisations, but this is not perceived as a material limitation because the study relates

to management practice and organisational behaviour.

Theory-based or theoretical sampling

The last cycle of the literature review was theoretical sampling which is an important

component in the development of grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) describe

an iterative sampling process that is based on emerging theoretical concepts. This

sampling approach seeks to develop a rich understanding of a concept’s dimensions

across a range of settings and conditions. This method is best used when the research

focuses on the development of theory and concepts that are connected to, grounded in

or emergent from real life events and circumstances (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).

The following table shows the literature reviewed in alphabetical order and the key

concepts extracted from each piece of literature:

Copyright UCT

39 | P a g e

Table 2: Literature review references and keywords

4.3 Level 1 literature review

The first level literature review focused on researching the concept of business

integration as understood in traditional business literature and strategy – that is,

integration as a consequence of a specific management strategy in pursuit of specific

objectives or outcomes. The primary strategies are:

- Horizontal integration: relating to reducing costs, bringing together like

resources and people, and improving customer service

Org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

tity

Inte

grat

ion

Org

aniz

atio

nal

dem

ocra

cy

Cust

omer

focu

s

Stra

tegy

Syst

ems

thin

king

Dyna

mic

ca

pabi

litie

s

RBV

Know

ledg

e in

tegr

atio

n

Tech

nolo

gy

capa

bilit

y

Com

petit

ive

adva

ntag

e

Desi

gn th

inki

ng

Man

agem

ent

theo

ry

Org

aniz

atio

nal

theo

ry

Syne

rgy

Inno

vatio

n

Viab

le s

yste

ms

Soci

al s

yste

ms

theo

ry

Hol

istic

(Ackoff, 1989) X(Ackoff, 1989) X(Ackoff, 1993) X(Ackoff, 1994) X(Ackoff, 1999) X(Ackoff, 2014) X(Ackoff, Magidson, & Addison, 2006) X(Andersson & Richards , 2012) X(Barney, 1991) X(Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001) X(Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009) X(Bonaccors i , Pammol l i , & Tani , 1996) X(Bower, 2003) X(Brown & Martin, 2015) X X(Carrei ra , Patrício, Nata l Jorge, Magee, & Van Eikema Hommes, 2013) X(Chang, 2014) X(Checkland, 1981) X(Chris tensen & Raynor, 2003) X(Cohen & Levinthal , 1990) X(Cornel i ssen & Durand, 2014) X(Davis , Dent, & Wharff, 2015) X(De La Luz Fernández-Al les & Val le-Cabrera , 2006) X(Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000) X(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000) X(Ford, 1998) X(Gao, Song, & Zhu, 2013) X(Grant Thornton, 2015) X(Grant, 2015) X(Hamel , 2012) X(Haynes , McGregor, & Stewart, 1997) X(Hendry & Seidl , 2003) X(Hoebeke, 2000) X(Hohl , 2009) X(Hostyn, 2010) X(Kauffman, 1980) X(Kim, Park, & Prescott, 2003) X(Kolko, 2015) X(Li tz, 1996) X(Magidson & Addison, 2006) X(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002) X X(Mentzas , Apostolou, Young, & Abecker, 2001) X(Nisbett, Peng, Choi , & Norenzayan, 2001) X X(Obenour, Patterson, Pedersen, & Pearson, 2006) X(Otto & Ri tchie, 1996) X(Paroutis & Pettigrew, 2007) X(Porter, 1996) X(Prahalad & Hamel , 1990) X(Rubenstein-Montano et a l ., 2001) X(Rughase, 2006) X(Shuen & Sieber, 2015) X(Si lverman, 1999)(Smith & Kel ly, 2006) X(Teece, 2007) X(Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) X(Tussyadiah, 2014) X(Van der Stede, 2003) X(Volo, 2009) X(Winter, 2003) X(Zeng & Venjara , 2015) X

Copyright UCT

40 | P a g e

- Vertical integration: securing where and how the product is sold – forward

integration, or securing supplies and quality of supplies – backward integration

- Conglomerate integration: spreading risk by diversification

These formal integration strategies often result in once-off structural reconfigurations

of the organisation. From experience, these strategies are revisited only when the

organisation faces impending crises and either needs to mitigate the impact of an

external event, cut costs or absorb into another larger unit an entity which no longer

delivers a differentiated value. The latter also often either leads to or is specifically

aimed at brand rationalisation.

This review explored the structural limitations of the organisation and the impact of

organisational boundaries on bureaucracy; the ability to think integratively; and why

this should be important.

Christensen & Raynor (2003) wrote “Such systems are best designed, sold, and

serviced by employees who are not hindered from coordinating their interdependent

interactions by being separated into unconnected units” (Christensen & Raynor, 2003,

p.68). Although they were referring to a specific business case in a different context,

the principle applies to the organisation’s ability to think integratively and the degree

to which its structural limitations impact on that ability.

Prahaldd & Hamel (1990) talks about how, by their nature, strategic business units

underinvest in core competencies, imprison resources and bind innovation.

A key feature of the multi-business tourism organisation under study is the strategy to

drive and maximise profits of individual business units as the way to achieve the best

outcome for the organisation. According to Ackoff (1994) “It can be shown that when

each part of a system taken separately is made to perform as well as possible, the

system as a whole cannot perform as well as possible” (Ackoff, 1994, p.180).

Larger tourism organisations typically contain elements of all three types of traditional

integration, and the organisation under question is no exception. Importantly, the

research reveals that traditional integration is often a once-off event, rather than a

systemic capability of the multi-business organisation to reorganise and adapt in

response to changing environments.

Copyright UCT

41 | P a g e

4.4 Level 2 literature review

The Level 2 literature review focused on understanding organisational behaviour in

the context of physical and structural limitations, as explored in the first level literature

review.

Davis (Davis et al., 2015) refers to how “having evolved out of the bureaucratic

frameworks of the past, community college leadership remains deeply-rooted in

traditional hierarchical patterns of decision-making…” (Davis et al., 2015, p.334).

Traditional tourism organisation leadership is not dissimilar. He also refers to “the

limitations of hierarchical top down models for meeting the increasing complexity of

educational leadership and scholars are advocating for more participatory and

collaborative styles of leadership….Systems thinking offers a potential means to help

leaders respond to growing organisational complexities and move leadership to a

more adaptive model better suited for today’s organisations”.

Ackoff (1994) calls bureaucracies “mechanistically conceived organizations” of

which “the behaviour of its parts is physically determined; they display no choice.”

(Ackoff, 1994, p.181).

This part of the literature review process surfaced how hierarchies limit conversations.

This in turn limits the organisation’s ability to adapt naturally to a changing

environment unless instructed to do so from the top of the hierarchy. The more

autocratic the hierarchy is the more limited is its ability to naturally systemically

integrate.

The research also revealed a distinction between integration as a mostly permanent

organisational restructuring, rather than a continuous process of linking and delinking

business units as part of a collaborative strategy.

4.5 Level 3 literature review

The third level literature review explores the organisation as a social system (Ackoff,

1994).

Copyright UCT

42 | P a g e

The system’s structure affects its performance.

It explores the organisation’s ability to think integratively and considers integration as

a systemic capability that facilitates collaboration through concepts such as knowledge

sharing, co-evolving and patching (Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000). These may lead to

more formalised and permanent integration decisions that change the organisational

structure.

Grant (2015) talks about how organisational capabilities have become the primary

basis upon which firms establish their long-term strategies. One of these capabilities

is knowledge integration. He proposes the importance of knowledge: “This emphasis

is justified by the assumptions that, first, knowledge accounts for the greater part of

value added, second, barriers to the transfer and replication of knowledge endow it

with strategic importance.” (Grant, 2015).

“However, if market structure is in a state of flux, and if monopoly rents quickly

succumb to new sources of competition, approaches to strategy based upon choices of

product markets and positioning within them are unlikely to yield profit advantages

that are more than temporary. …First, under dynamic competition, superior

profitability is likely to be associated with resource and capability-based advantages

than with positioning advantages resulting from market and segment selection and

competitive positions based upon some form of "generic strategy"; Second, such

resource and capability-based advantages are likely to derive from superior access to

and integration of specialized knowledge.” (Grant, 2015).

Ackoff (1994) defines social systems as systems in which people individually and

collectively played the major roles. He expands on social systems as “open systems

that (1) have purposes of their own, (2) at least some of whose essential parts have

purposes of their own, and (3) are parts of larger (containing) systems that have

purposes of their own.” (Ackoff, 1994, p.176). It follows that a system is a function of

the interactions of its parts. Extrapolating from this, I suggest that integration is a

function of the way the business units interact as parts of the organisation, that is, we

can view integration as the action that leads to ‘integratedness’.

In Ackoff’s view, “systems in which people play an essential role cannot be well

understood, hence managed, if viewed other than social” (1994, p.176).

Copyright UCT

43 | P a g e

The consequences of a system being viewed as a social system are as follows:

“Because a system is a whole that cannot be divided into independent parts, its

performance is never equal to the sum of the actions of its parts taken separately; it is

a function of their interactions. It can be shown that when each part of a system taken

separately is made to perform as well as possible, the system as a whole cannot

perform as well as possible (Sengupta & Ackoff, 1965). This had extremely important

implications for corporate management.” (Ackoff, 1994)

Ackoff (1994) wrote: “…but an important, if not the most important, aspect of a part’s

performance is how it interacts with other parts to affect the performance of the whole.

Therefore, effective system management must focus on the interactions of its parts

rather on their actions taken separately.

“Within an organisation there is a close relation between centralisation and reducing

variety, and decentralisation and increasing variety. The more centralised decision

making is, the less the variety of choices available to decision makers below the top;

the more decentralised it is, the greater is the variety of choices available to those

below the top.

“Synergy requires an increase in the variety of behaviour available to the parts of a

system”. (Ackoff, 1994, p.181)

With regards to variety, I posed the following questions of the tourism organisation:

- What is it that we do, that nobody else can do?

- What should we be able to do, that nobody else can do?

- How would we have to change way that we organise the business, to be able

to do that?

It follows that integration can be viewed as a state of successful interaction between

the parts of a system that increases variety.

Integration should not restrict the behaviour of the system parts. Integration should be

a process that increases the variety of behaviour available to the parts of the system,

which depends on how it is organised and managed.

“An enterprise conceptualised as a social system should serve the purposes of its parts

and the system of which it is part. It should enable its parts and its containing systems

Copyright UCT

44 | P a g e

to do things that they could not otherwise do. This means that social systems should

increase the variety of both the means and ends available to their parts and the systems

of which they are a part.” (Ackoff, 1994, p.181).

Integration is not a process of centralisation which reduces variety of the choices

available to employees, but rather one of decentralisation which increases the variety

of choices available to employees (Ackoff, 1994).

If we define effective managers as those who “manage the interactions within the

parts of the system for which they are responsible and the interactions of that part with

other parts within or outside the organisation that affects it and by which it is affected”

(Ackoff, 1994, p.182), then we can suggest that integration is the outcome of a

management practice that focuses on managing the interactions within the businesses

that form part of the multi-business tourism organisation.

A further distinction that helps clarify our understanding is between analytic and.

synthetic management: “The product of analysis is knowledge, while the product of

synthesis is understanding” (Ackoff, 1994, p.182). Analysis reduces a system to its

parts which leads to a loss of the essential system properties and its parts. Synthesis

considers the parts as parts of the whole, which leads to an understanding of their

essential properties and explains their behaviour.

A systems view of integration proposes that we look at the parts of the multi-business

organisation in terms of their functions and roles within the whole organisation, and

not as individual businesses, to create the most value for the organisation.

Rughase (2006) raises the concept of “shared desired organisational identity” and how

desired organisational identities relate to the future. He suggests that desired

organisational identities are strong active drivers and motivators to guide

organisational change. He makes three contributions:

- Puts organisational identity in a strategy context

- Stresses the creation of strategies that are attainable and desired in the eyes of

organisational members

- Shows how the organisation’s customers can be closely connected to

organisational identity in developing strategy

Copyright UCT

45 | P a g e

In the context of the multi-business tourism organisation a shared organisational

identity is a key driver towards collaboration and an integration mind-set.

Andrews (1987, p.19) says: “Personal values, aspirations, and ideals do, and in our

judgement quite properly should, influence the final choice of purposes. Thus, what

the people in a company want to do must by brought into the strategic decision.” This

statement supports the call for creating a common organisational purpose and identity.

I suggest that this is required for integration, together with a reduction in structural

limitations that hinder collaboration.

Teece & co. (1997) introduce the concept of ‘stickiness’ in terms of organisational

resources, as viewed from the resource-based approach to the organisation. They also

refer to the need to develop new competencies and propose strategies for maximising

rents from resources, which may involve integration. The degree of organisational

stickiness is introduced as a new core variable to replace dynamic capability towards

integration in the multi-business tourism organisation.

The result of the literature review process is the following refined set of core variables:

Copyright UCT

46 | P a g e

Diagram 4: Interrelationship digraph (ID) of refined core variables

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter explains the literature review process. It starts with an overview of the

process and explores the detail of three different levels of the process. It explains the

journey of thought and exploration from integration as the result of a management

decision towards understanding integration as a systemic behaviour of an organisation

as a social system. It also explains the way that organisational boundaries impact on

behaviour. The final output of the chapter is a refined set of core variables.

Degree of

knowledge

sharing

Level of

integration Technology

capability

Level of shared

organisational

identity / culture

Degree of

customer

orientation Degree of

dynamic

capability

Degree of

hierarchy and

top-down

leadership

Quality /

frequency of

interactions /

conversations

In: 4

Out: 3

In: 4

Out: 3

In: 1

Out: 6

In: 5

Out: 2

In: 6

Out: 1

In: 4

Out: 3

In: 0

Out: 7

In: 4

Out: 3

Copyright UCT

47 | P a g e

5. Theory Building

5.1 Introduction

The process started with gaining an improved understanding of the concept of

integration through the lens of my conceptual framework. This was followed by a

literature review of integration and institutional theory to understand how the

organisation behaves and what management behaviour it displays. The objective was

to identify the properties of an integrated organisation as viewed through the lens of

my conceptual framework, drawing on Ackoff’s Systemic Management Theory.

During the process, I gathered propositions, arrived at core variables and constructed

an ID. From there I will develop a CMO and two to five design propositions (DPs) that

will help move the situation forward.

This chapter describes the theory building process, starting with a description of the

theoretical and conceptual foundations of the process, followed by a description of the

phases and applications of the process. It concludes with an introduction to the concept

of practical adequacy and uses it to evaluate the grounded theory developed.

5.2 Theoretical and conceptual foundations for the theory building process

The methodology used for theory building is systems archetypes as defined by Braun

(2002): “The Systems Archetypes describe common patterns of behaviour in

organisations. As diagnostic tools they provide insight into the underlying structures

from which behaviour over time and discreet events emerge. As prospective tools, they

alert managers to future unintended consequences. Collectively they challenge

managers to consider the merits of fundamental solutions by making time an explicit

variable in decision making.” (Braun, 2002, p.1)

Systems archetypes are patterns of a system’s behaviour and there is commonality

between systems of similar circles of causality. Understanding these patterns of

causality allows us to make efficient changes to a system by finding the points leverage

at which we can introduce interventions.

Copyright UCT

48 | P a g e

The refined variables with an increased level of sensitivity produced in Chapter 4 will

be the input to the theory building process. The output will be a CMO with a test for

practical adequacy.

Identifying a system archetype and finding the leverage enables efficient changes in a

system. Once the archetype is identified it presents a set of very well defined systems

strategies to deal with that archetype.

Looking at situational mechanisms that constrain the manager, action-formula

mechanisms and transformational mechanisms that sustain or transform, the following

three mechanisms are at play:

1. Interplay between macro and micro constraints and enablers

2. Transformational possibilities

3. Actual decision-making mechanism

The approach is to understand and challenge these structures to inform the progressive

dissertation.

Linking this all back to activity theory and complex adaptive systems, I pose the

following questions:

- What are the measures of performance?

- What do we have to manage to change that?

- What are the things that they should be managing?

My objective through the theory building process is twofold:

1. Build up my own knowledge by going through the different cycles; and

2. Create a theory that may help other people build up their own understanding of

the situation.

To quote Dr Johan Strumpfer from a lecture: “…consider we’re not following a linear

process of problem solving followed by implementation…but a continuous action

process of decide, implement, reflect…so that the intensity of the sense-making

declines over time while the intensity of problem solving increases over time….over a

set time frame.”

Copyright UCT

49 | P a g e

5.3 The phases of the theory building process

For theory building I will use the CMO model which is a systems thinking modelling

tool that helps me visually capture the output of my research.

The CMO model consists of 3 components:

- The C stands for Context and is the external and internal environment factors,

issues and activities that impact on the core variables in the mechanism that

produces the behaviour of my concern variable, and therefore influence

behavioural change. They include such things as organizational politics and

power, system interdependencies and human factors.

- The M stands for Mechanism and is my causal mechanism with the concern

variable included. This the mechanism that produces the behaviour of my

concern variable.

- The O stands for Outcome and is my concern variable which I propose has

moved out of the envelope of acceptance. While the objective of my research

is to better understand the issues that impact on my concern variable, as a next

step I could look at potential design propositions towards changing the

behaviour of the concern variable and bring it back into the envelope of

acceptance. I will speculate on possible design propositions in Chapter 6.

Getting back to the theory building process, my theory is the M in CMO and I will

build my theory using system archetypes as defined by Senge (2006) and Braun

(2002). Systems archetypes describe common patterns of behaviour of a system and

suggest that not all management problems are unique (Senge, 2006). Identifying a

system archetype and finding the leverage enables efficient changes in a system. Senge

(2006) suggests that thinking in terms of systems archetypes is a critical component of

a learning organization.

Underpinning systems archetypes are reinforcing and balancing feedback and delays

as the building blocks of systems thinking (Senge, 2006). Any system can be drawn as

a diagram consisting of circles of causality which includes actions, feedback loops and

delays.

Copyright UCT

50 | P a g e

With my context already defined in previous chapters, the next step in constructing a

CMO is selecting the systems archetype that best simplifies the underlying complexity

of the management issues identified in my research. The system archetype helps me

identify and understand the underlying systemic issues that influence integration, from

where successful policies toward increasing the level of integration can be formulated.

My archetype selection starts with identifying the qualitative behaviour of my concern

variable. Working with the strongest drivers and outcomes in my ID, I will select the

archetype that requires the least modification. Once I have selected my archetype I will

use it to transform my ID into a causal mechanism with feedback loops.

5.4 The application of the theory building process

Identifying the patterns that control events, reveals an incredibly elegant simplicity

underlying the complexity of understanding integration in the context of the multi-

business tourism organization.

The organization under study in the research study displays typical limits to growth

behaviour – the organization grew rapidly in the initial years of its formation through

various integration strategies aimed at increasing market share, securing markets for

its products, increasing buying power, realizing efficiencies and diversifying its

products and services. Thereafter integration slowed down or stopped altogether,

despite the organization continuing to grow organically and acquisitively.

The behaviour of the concern variable, the level of integration, can be depicted as

follows:

Copyright UCT

51 | P a g e

Diagram 5: Qualitative behaviour of my concern variable - Limits to Growth Archetype (Braun, 2002, p.2).

The limits to growth diagram starts with understanding the reinforcing process of

growth that operates on its own for a while, before coming up against a balancing

process, which limits the growth.

Diagram 6: Limits to Growth Archetype applied to problem situation

The reinforcing process or circle of growth is an increase in efficiency and cost savings

which leads to further integration.

Copyright UCT

52 | P a g e

The balancing circle of growth is increased systemic boundaries between business

units and divisions within the organisation through physical and hierarchical

separation of the businesses as they are organized into siloed divisions in order to

increase control.

In a limits to growth structure, the leverage usually lies in understanding the limiting

factor that drives the balancing feedback process (Senge, 2006). In this situation the

limiting condition for future integration is a loss of shared organizational identity and

culture which follows from the organisational boundaries imposed through the

divisional structure of the organization. Integration opportunities need to emerge

through conversations which need to be underpinned by commonality in vision which

requires a shared organisational identity and culture.

The situation at the multi-business tourism organization also characterises a typical

shifting the burden structure, which is the second archetype at play here.

The typical qualitative behaviour of the concern variable in a Shifting the Burden

Archetype is as follows:

Diagram 7: Qualitative behaviour of the concern variable – Limits to Growth Archetype (Braun, 2002, p.4)

This archetype illustrates the “tension between 1) the attraction (and relative ease and

low cost) of devising symptomatic solutions to visible problems and 2) the long-term

impact of fundamental solutions aimed at underlying structures that are producing the

pattern of behaviour in the first place.” (Braun, 2002, p.4).

Copyright UCT

53 | P a g e

The organization finds itself in what Braun (2002) calls a form of organisational

gridlock caused by systemic boundaries between business units and divisions within

the organisation. The shifting the burden archetype provides a starting point to break

this gridlock by identifying the underlying causes and solutions to these systemic

boundaries.

Diagram 8: Shifting the Burden Archetype as it applies to the problem situation

The inability to derive increased rentals from organisational resources (typified by

increased synergy) is a problem symptom of an organisation with limited integration.

I call this ‘organisational stickiness’, based on Teece’s (1997) definition of stickiness

when referring to resources. This is a problem that gradually gets worse over the long

term – the organization finds fewer and fewer opportunities for integration yet ever so

often it seems to get better for a while.

From a systems thinking point of view, this problem symptom leads to symptomatic

and fundamental responses. The fundamental response is to increase the level of shared

organizational identity and culture, which increases conversations based on a common

vision and the identification of bottom-up opportunities for further integration. But if

Copyright UCT

54 | P a g e

this fundamental response is slow in coming, or frustrated by resistance to

‘interference’ in the power bases of executives, the burden shifts to the symptomatic

response, which is to force integration by enforcing the levels of autocratic hierarchy.

The result is that integration is pursued out of compliance rather than commitment.

Organizational boundaries impose constraints which prevent the business from

pursuing fundamental underlying systemic solutions. Instead, the organisation

displays short term behaviour through symptomatic solutions based on what is known

and can be seen.

This creates a tension between the short-term symptomatic solutions and long-term

systemic solutions. Once the initial long-term systemic decisions have been taken

based on traditional integration strategies, the organisation is inclined to pursue

solutions to short-term symptoms rather than more fundamental long-term solutions

that will benefit the organisation – the system – as a whole and address deeper issues

never quite dealt with effectively.

Integration is constrained by divisional structures, high levels of autocratic hierarchy

and the drive to maximise individual business unit profits. That tension is likely to

manifest between divisional heads, whose motivation and incentive is based on what’s

best for their business unit or divisions, and the employees, who have a need to be

included and consulted on achieving a shared organisational identity. The behaviour

of divisional or business unit heads is likely to undermine fundamental solutions which

require a holistic systemic view of the organisation.

Over time, short-term management solutions for problem symptoms create a

temporary improvement in performance, driven by high levels of autocratic

hierarchical decision-making. However the underlying problem of lack of

organisational identity or culture persists and the problem symptoms invariably

reappear. Problem symptoms include the need to reduce costs, unlock economies of

scale benefits, and absorb brands that are no longer useful, or solve succession

planning issues, among others.

In the process as a side effect the overall health of the system gradually worsens as the

frequency and quality of interactions and conversations reduces.

The above 2 archetypes combine into the following CMO:

Copyright UCT

55 | P a g e

Diagram 9: CMO for Integration

A key inference in this paper is a distinction between forced collaboration that results

from top-down decisions – which can be seen as once-off events – and the

organisation’s ability to think integratively as a systemic capability. Key to this ability

is organizational culture.

Schein (cited in Taborga 2011) defines culture as: “A pattern of shared basic

assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and

internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore,

to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation

to those problems.”

This suggests that an organisation’s culture determines its actions, and if we accept

that common culture is underpinned by a common vision, we understand the need for

an organisation to be able to inquire into diverse visions in such a way that a deeper

common vision emerges.

Copyright UCT

56 | P a g e

5.5 The practical adequacy of the theory

Sayer (2012) defines practical adequacy as “…truth might better be understood as

‘practical adequacy’, that is in terms of the extent to which it generates expectations

about the world and about results of our actions which are realized. Just how

practically adequate different parts of our knowledge are will vary according to where

and to what they are applied.” (Sayer, 2012, p.43).

Transferability

The practical adequacy of my theory can be evaluated by applying the following

grounded theory evaluation criteria:

- Fit – does my theory developed from the data correspond to real-world data

and fit the facts of the context?

- Understanding – is my theory understandable? Does it make sense?

- Generality – is my theory abstract enough to move beyond the context of my

study? Can it be applied to other situations?

- Control – can my theory be applied to a real-world context? Is it workable in

practical, real-life situations, or is it just an interesting academic theory? Can

we use my theory to improve the human condition?

In relation to FIT: High levels of autocratic hierarchy form the underlying structure

that produces the pattern of archetypical behaviour. This is common to most

businesses. The concept of change in any large and complex organisation is

intimidating, particularly if the current system has benefited the owners in the past.

This is evident from the research interviews conducted. The concept of changing the

hierarchical structure was raised in the question: if you could have anything you

wanted today, what would that be?

In relation to UNDERSTANDING: The distinction between what I call forced

integration and integration as a systemic capability is key to my theory. The former is

predisposed towards autocratic hierarchies and the latter towards democratic

hierarchies or communities. It suggests that the ability to integrate or think

integratively depends on the organisational culture which determines the

organisation’s behaviour.

Copyright UCT

57 | P a g e

In relation to GENERALITY: Generality is claimed in common management

structures and the fact that autocratic hierarchies are common.

In relation to CONTROL: Bell (Bell & Morse, 2013) suggests that “if people feel that

they are included as partners then they will have a heightened sense of wanting it to

work, partly because they helped to envision what change is needed but also because

they are involved as ‘change agents’ rather than having change imposed upon them.

In this sense, the change comes from the ‘inside out’, rather than being imposed from

the ‘outside in’, and participants have a sense of ‘ownership’. Change is therefore a

deeply held product of the community’s self-interest and self-promoting to that

community. This type of change is often regarded as being more viable than an

externally mediated and ‘owned’ process.” (Bell & Morse, 2013, p.2)

Stakeholder participation is likely to be minimal in an organisation that is strongly

hierarchical with a firm ‘command-and-control’ function in place. Instructions are

issued from the top and frontline staff are expected to execute the instructions.

I suggest that it is problematic if the executive team sets the agenda with assumed buy-

in from frontline staff as key stakeholders. The value is in surfacing many worlds of

different perspectives, and new opportunities for innovation and participation. It is a

mistake for executive teams to assume that they have all the answers. The process calls

for the organisation to look to itself for solutions, tapping into the potential that exists

within its own people, to find solutions for the future.

The fear of contamination has also surfaced as one of the key reasons why some of the

individual business units and divisions in the research organisation want to avoid

integration. Any attempts to integrate on a level that will produce efficiencies, even

only on paper, are resisted. This is an indication of the strength of this sentiment.

The following points offer an analysis of how some of Ackoff’s Systemic Management

Theory can be applied:

- As management we often need to make boundary judgements. These have

ethical implications

- The essence of any systemic problem is that it cannot be blamed on a single

employee or single part of system

Copyright UCT

58 | P a g e

- Each part is necessary but insufficient

- Our job as management is therefore to manage the interactions between the

parts of the system

- System properties are due to interactions and not behaviour

- If we optimise outcomes locally (i.e. on individual business unit level) we often

sub-optimise outcomes holistically: Refer my previous comment that pursuing

individual business unit profit maximization often leads to a suboptimal

outcome for the group.

- The most important point is that in design methodology and design thinking,

decisions are deferred for as long as possible to keep the options open.

Decisions should not be made too early by being too efficient

- A good manager knows when to make a decision

- This leads to an understanding that a system is perfectly designed to do what it

needs to do. It follows that the system needs to be redesigned if there is a need

to achieve different results

- Integrated management is the ideal condition

- Social systems and models in which both the parts and the whole are

purposeful, such as corporations, universities and societies, have their own

purpose. Their constituent parts have their own purpose and are usually parts

of larger social systems that contain other social systems

Concept 1: My hypothesis is that an integrated tourism organisation is unable to

produce optimal results when managed as independent business units driven by

maximising profits for the independent business unit.

Concept 2: With our understanding that the organisation is a system of conversations,

how can we start conversations to change the system’s behaviour?

Concept 3: Focusing on the parts instead of the whole produces a linear approach to

organising and produces a less optimal result than would a holistic systems approach.

Concept 4: Hierarchies stifle innovation and limit conversations required for

integration.

Copyright UCT

59 | P a g e

Concept 5: Organisations are systems of conversations.

When I apply Ackoff’s Systemic Management Theory as the lens for my conceptual

framework, it becomes clear that the integrated tourism organisation is a social system

– and by definition, the most complex system – where both the parts and the whole are

purposeful.

5.6 Conclusion

In this chapter I developed a theory around integration in organisations based on the Shifting

the Burden archetype. The archetype draws a distinction between symptomatic and

fundamental solutions to an underlying structure that is producing the behaviour that

determines the level of integration in the multi-business tourism organisation. It is also

possible to apply this theory to other multi-business organisations.

Copyright UCT

60 | P a g e

6. Conclusion and Evaluation

6.1 Introduction

Chapter 6 concludes the paper. It explains what I have done, how and why, how it

contributes and the next steps in this research.

6.2 Implications and consequences of the research results

Integration should not restrict the behaviour of the system’s parts. In other words,

integration should be a process that increases the variety of behaviour available to the

system’s parts, which depends on how it is organised and managed.

Ackoff suggests that a fundamental function of managers is “to manage (1) the

interactions of those for and to whom they are responsible, (2) the interactions of their

units with other units of the organisation, and (3) the interaction of their organisations

with other organisations in their environments.” (Ackoff, 1994, p.184). He further

suggests that the conventional autocratic hierarchies found in organisations are not the

most effective in achieving this. Democratic hierarchies are required, which Ackoff

calls ‘circular organisations’.

The following key conclusions follow from the theory building process:

1. Changing the organizational behaviour does not necessarily require changing

the structure, based on the following:

a. The organization is a system of conversations

b. The level of shared organizational culture and identity determines the

quality of conversations

c. The key responsibility of management is to manage these conversations

within their organizations, and between their organizations and others

as part of a larger system

2. Maximising individual business performance does not necessarily improve the

performance of the system as a whole, and in fact often destroys value.

Copyright UCT

61 | P a g e

3. Integration is as much a mind-set towards integrative behaviour as it is a

deliberate strategy to maximise efficiencies, increase scale, diversify risk or

any of the other benefits ascribed to traditional integration strategies.

4. The level of integration can only be a competitive differentiator if it is

perceived by customers to translate into an increased value proposition either

through price or convenience.

Possible design propositions (DPs) are:

- Improve communication by centralising email for better communication and

organisational exposure

- Objective: create a design-focused culture

- How? Conduct research by multidisciplinary teams representing

various divisions who search for customers’ unmet needs and identify

cultural, technological and economic trends

- To understand how this works, think of the enterprise as a nested set of

strategic processes. At the highest level, the vision articulates the

direction and ambition of the firm as a whole. To achieve the vision, a

company deploys business models and strategies that bring together

capabilities and assets to create advantageous positions. And it uses

organisational structure, information systems, and culture to facilitate

the effective operation of those business models and strategies.

- In the vast majority of organisations, the vision and the business model

are fixed axes around which the entire enterprise revolves. They are

often developed by company founders and, once proven successful,

rarely altered. Consequently, the structure, systems, processes and

culture that support them also remain static for long periods.

Experimentation and innovation focus mostly on product or service

offerings within the existing model, as the company leans on its

established recipe for success in other areas. (Zeng & Venjara, 2015)

- The circular organisation provides an alternative way of organising that

preserves hierarchy but embeds it in a completely democratic organisation. It

Copyright UCT

62 | P a g e

increases power to employees and invites employees to participate in decisions

that directly affect them. It does this through ‘boards’ that create interactions

that enable the organisation to achieve a degree of co-ordination and

integration that conventional organisations seldom achieve (Ackoff, 1989). It

also facilitates communication up, down, and across the organisation

- Democratisation of hierarchies: assumes the hierarchical structure remains

intact but changes the way that the system functions by the way that it makes

decisions

A key part of my theory is underpinned by the distinction between hierarchical

command-and-control thinking and systems thinking, and the causality between the

level of systems thinking and the ability of the organisation to integrate.

The following compares traditional command-and-control thinking to systems

thinking:

Copyright UCT

63 | P a g e

Figure 2: Command and control vs. systems thinking (source unknown)

“Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is

a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention - a prison created by the way in which

people interact. … If management were to spend as much time to improve processes

as they do in ranking, rating, rewarding and punishment for people (teams,

departments, divisions) at the top and bottom, the results would be stupendous

improvements of our economic position.” (Deming, 2000, p.xv).

To improve performance, we have to change the system. To change the system, we

have to change the way we think.

Towards building capacity to learn and enact new social systems in large diverse

communities with complex inter-organizational networks such as the multi-business

tourism organization the U process designed by Scharmer et al (Senge, 2006) is a

wonderful tool for deepening shared understanding and clarifying visions.

6.3 RUVE evaluation

This section evaluates if the solution provided by the systems approach is culturally

feasible, systemically desirable, and able to be implemented in the real world?

6.3.1 Relevance

A greater understanding of the concept of integration in the multi-business tourism

organisation is relevant because it helps to unlock the value inherent in the motivation

to establish the multi-business organisation: synergy. Ackoff defines synergy as “an

increase in the value of the parts of a system that derives from their membership in the

system, that is, from their interactions with other parts of the system.” (1994, p.181).

Value creation is a function of the parts of the system being able to do something of

value together that they cannot do alone.

In an industry that has suffered financially due to various external factors like Ebola

and visa regulations, and is under pressure to transform, we are likely to see much

more consolidation in the future. This is likely to lead to the formation of more multi-

business organisations of all sizes that will be looking to create value from their

combination. The need for integration and extraction of synergy is likely to underpin

this value creation.

Copyright UCT

64 | P a g e

6.3.2 Utility

The utility of the theory developed as answer to the research question is demonstrated

in the grounded theory evaluation of the practical adequacy of the theory in 5.5 above.

6.3.3 Validity

In Chapter 2 I identified threats to validity and in Chapter 3 I evaluated actual threats

to validity. In this chapter I reflect on threats to validity.

1. Credibility

The theory is credible based on the credibility of the research data. It correlates with

my personal experience in the organisation, even after allowing for potential self-

report bias both from me as researcher as well as the interviewees. There is a strong

sense of an existing need to move from traditional management practices or models to

new practices based on new thinking, which underpins the theory.

2. Dependability

The tourism organisation which is the subject of my research is currently engaged in a

process that is likely to result in material changes to the shareholding. This could in

turn lead to structural changes. In addition the business has embarked on a new strategy

towards building familiarity and trust between key executives in the various business

units. It is likely that this will increase awareness which might either strengthen points

of view or shift towards change.

3. Confirmability

With no anticipation that the executives interviewed internally will exit the business,

the data is likely to remain confirmable in the short to medium term. It is unlikely that

a material change will take place in the culture of the organisation in the short to

medium term because: 1) businesses typically take a long time to change in the absence

of material changes in key executive positions, and 2) organisations are likely to

produce a certain behavior as a result of its culture, even if key executives are to be

replaced.

4. Transferability

It is reasonable to assume a fair level of transferability of the theory and lessons learned

to different contexts and environments. The concept of multi-business organisations

Copyright UCT

65 | P a g e

and the rationale for integration is not unique to the tourism industry. From a grounded

theory point of view the theory points to a high level of developed predictive ability.

6.3.4 Ethics

The ethical exploration of this study is based on Manuel G. Velasquez’s (2010) ethics

criteria. Of the five different sources of ethical standards generally used, I will

highlight the utilitarian approach and the fairness or justice approach as the two most

relevant to this study. This decision is based on consideration of the different

stakeholders.

Hoebeke (2000) defines the clients, actors and owners as the major stakeholders as

follows: “Those who contribute to the realisation of the output of the process are

assuming the actor's role. Those who are the beneficiaries or the victims of the output

of the process are adopting the client's role. Those who can effectively decide to stop

the process are assuming the owner's role.” (Hoebeke, 2000, p.11).

In my theory, the actors are the human resources – the employees of the business who

act in the capacity of central, zero level and dynamic capability. Our clients are the

clients and the owners are the senior executive of the organisation.

My ethical exploration will focus on the actors and the degree to which my theory take

them into account. In the context of Hoebeke (2000):

“The advantage of looking at ethics and value systems from these two perspectives

lies in the fact that the ultimate reference to the outcome belongs not to the world of

ideas but to our relationship with our social, biological and physical environment. If

we see around us physical, biological and social destruction (and, as human beings,

we will always be confronted with them) we can start to restore the lost balance in our

models, theories and value systems.” (Hoebeke, 2000).

This leads us to consider the following questions:

1. The outcome of the theory developed is that it will produce the most good for

the shareholders. But what about the employees? Do they benefit and

therefore does the process of improving the organisational integration

produce the greatest good while doing the least harm? This is the utilitarian

approach.

Copyright UCT

66 | P a g e

2. Are the actors and the owner(s) rewarded to the same extent when the

improved integration results in greater profits for the business? This is the

fairness or justice approach.

This ethical exploration highlights one of the key factors underpinning the theory

developed in this study. That is the motivation for people in the business – the dynamic

resources – to embrace a more integrative behavior.

It could be perceived that integration leads to job losses in the pursuit of efficiencies.

This impacts on employees – who are the actors – in the definition of Hoebeke (2000).

How would they benefit from behaviour that may make their role redundant? Their

concerns would not be unfounded, given the history of integration within the

organisation. Integration was seen as the answer to reducing costs.

By contrast, the owners and the shareholders – who Hoebeke (2000) dismisses as least

important of the stakeholders – derive a clear benefit from integration. Increased scale

and cost reduction leads to incentives and increased profits.

It is therefore quite possible that the actors could be inclined to cap the effort they are

willing to contribute to the business, based on their perception of benefit. Money

would not be their only motivation. Other issues such as personal growth and future

viability of the organisation which translates into job security and so on, play a part.

But there would be a clear link between the efforts to earn an income against the

additional effort required to act integratively.

The solution addresses fairness by:

- Questioning rules, laws and regulations that serve dominant beliefs and

values in the organisation

- Arguing for more inclusive stakeholder participation and decision-

making based on greater consensus

- Promoting group learning and information sharing,

- Giving responsibility and authority to the group participants in which

they are accountable for their actions.

It follows that a key ethical challenge is to present any new system as something that

does not threaten jobs or the current power structure. The proposed design

Copyright UCT

67 | P a g e

interventions suggest how it could be possible to maintain hierarchy while moving

from autocratic to more democratic behaviour.

The entire business ecosystem is a very complex artefact. Suppliers, agents, clients,

technology providers and end users – the customers – will need to collaborate in new

ways and engage in new behaviours if a new holistic approach to integration is to be

successfully implemented.

6.4 Limitation of the results and the need for further work

Checkland’s (Checkland, 1981) SSM has been criticised for adopting a managerial

approach. This tends to support the status quo in an organisation. However the

objective of this study is not to materially change the status quo of the organisation,

but to move it forward with a few design propositions that can logically change or

improve the situation.

While systems theorists have been criticised by one of their own as being too removed

from the practitioner’s viewpoint (Ackoff et al., 2006), there are a plethora of widely

available resources developed by and for managers for gaining practical skills in

systems thinking. These include web forums and workshops. The tools and techniques

offered here are samplings of practices for enacting the discovery, framing, and action

phases grounded in systems thinking theory.

Given that evidence was synthesised from multiple contexts to develop the model, it

seems logical that it could be applied to other contexts besides tourism. Future research

to test the conceptual model in the multi-business organisation and other settings

would validate the model.

An interesting area of further study is the role of culture in determining whether a

system’s behaviour can fulfil its mission or not. Another future research topic would

be an exploration of “the connections between archetypes and the value systems of an

organisation as a way to arrive at a deeper understanding of the emergence of

organisational culture” (Taborga, 2011).

Copyright UCT

68 | P a g e

6.5 Conclusion

Paton (2001) says that “It is not the finished product of an analysis which is of

significance, but the process of investigation which is undertaken. In the course of this

process a number of actors (analyst, client, and many others) become more aware and

informed about the situation. This is the power of systemic analysis and it is very

important to recognize that such knowledge is held largely by people. Therefore where

these people go with their knowledge, and what they do with it, at the “end” of an

analysis are both key resource-management issues…All these issues are at the heart of

creating, and sustaining, a learning organisation”.

This study suggests that integration can be a systemic capability driven from the

bottom up based on a shared organisational identity and culture, as opposed to a series

of once-off events that are driven from the top down.

It also proposes that the integrated tourism organisation model of the future will be

based on transparency, participation and community. This would contrast against the

traditional hierarchical, command-and-control structures that favour business silos

organised for maximizing efficiency and drives only individual business unit profit

maximisation.

The organizational leadership competencies required will include the ability to view

the organisation through a systems lens, engage leadership competencies systemically,

and guide change through the adaptive and participatory practices of discovery,

framing, and action.

This new way of thinking will enable the multi-business to improve integration by

building community through a focus on shared organisational identity and culture. This

will allow it to respond quickly to opportunities, harness resources and talent, and

motivate and empower employees to achieve the mission of the organisation.

Copyright UCT

69 | P a g e

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1989). The circular organization: An update. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(1), 11–16.

Ackoff, R. L. (1994). Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 175–188.

Ackoff, R. L. (2001). A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design. Retrieved from http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~sasanr/Teaching-Material/MIS/Systems-Approach/idealized-redesign-guide.pdf

Ackoff, R. L. (2013). Ackoff’s systemic management. (Lecture notes) EMBA 13, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Ackoff, R. L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. J. (2006). Ackoff’s idealized design. (Lecture notes - Adapted from “Idealized Design” by Ackoff, Magidson and Addison, Wharton School Publishing) EMBA 13, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2013). Rich pictures: A means to explore the “sustainable mind”? Sustainable Development, 21(1), 30–47.

Braun, W. (2002). The System Archetypes. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gpr/PAD724/724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf

businessdictionary.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com

Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chicheste, UKr: Wiley.

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66–74.

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Theory-based or theoretical sampling. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeTheo-3806.html

Davis, A. P., Dent, E. B., & Wharff, D. M. (2015). A conceptual model of systems thinking leadership in community colleges. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28, 333–353.

Deming, W. E. (2000). The new economics: For industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260.

Douglas, D. (2003). Inductive theory generation: A grounded approach to business inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 47–54.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Galunic, D. C. (2000). Coevolving: At last, a way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 91–101.

Copyright UCT

70 | P a g e

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London, UK: Aldine.

Grant, R. M. (2015). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

Grant Thornton. (2015). Hotels 2020: Welcoming tomorrow’s guests. Retrieved from http://www.grantthornton.global/globalassets/1.-member-firms/global/insights/article-pdfs/industries/hotels-2020-pages-a4-final.pdf

Ho, W. (2013). What is research? (Unpublished paper) Penn State University. Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/research_talk.htm

Hoebeke, L. (2000). Making work systems better: A practitioner’s reflections. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Cross-business synergy: Sources, processes and the capture of corporate value. (Working Paper Series, Number 3) Herb Kelleher Center for Entrepreneurship, McCombs School of Business, The Unversity of Texas at Austin.

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 214–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nakamura, J., & Csilcszentmilzalyi, M. (2000). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New Yiork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Paton, G. (2001). A systemic action learning cycle as the key element of an ongoing spiral of analyses. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14(1), 95–111.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/v1774282g031q747.pdf

Rughase, O. G. (2006). Identity and strategy: How individual visions enable the design of a market. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sayer, A. (2012). Realism and social science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (12th ed.). London, UK: Random House Business Books.

Sengupta, S. S., & Ackoff, R. L. (1965). Systems theory from an operations research point of view. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 1(1), 9–13.

Taborga, J. (2011). How organizational archetypes manifest at each level of the Gravesian value systems. Integral Leadership Review.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2010). Ethical decision making.

Copyright UCT

71 | P a g e

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/

Yates, S. (2004). Doing social science research. London, UK: Sage.

Zeng, M., & Venjara, A. (2015). The self-tuning enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 76–83.

Copyright UCT

72 | P a g e

Appendix A: Interview Log

NAME OF INTERVIEWEE DATE TIME LOCATION RELEVANCE TO

RESEARCH? INFORMED ABOUT THE AIMS AND NATURE OF RESEARCH? *

INFORMED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL RISKS OF RESEARCH? **

PERMISSION GRANTED FOR USE OF NAME IN RESEARCH REPORT?

BC 16-Sep-15 12:00 - 13:30

Cape Town, South Africa

Senior executive in business and sports events division Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

FB 17-Sep-15 13:00 - 14:30

Cape Town, South Africa

Senior executive in restaurants division Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

NR 18-Sep-15 11:00 - 12:30

Johannesburg, South Africa (telephonic)

Senior executive in accommodation and activities division Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

Keira Lee Powers 20-Sep-15

10:00 - 11:30

Cape Town, South Africa

Managing Director of a destination management company based in Cape Town Yes Yes Yes

GKE1 23-Sep-15 10:00-11:00

Johannesburg, South Africa

Executive Committee member responsible for accommodation and activities Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

MDP 23-Sep-15 12:00 - 13:15

Johannesburg, South Africa

Senior executive in retail travel division Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

SW 25-Sep-15 09:00 - 10:30

Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe

Senior executive in an integrated business in accommodation, activities, retail and food & beverage Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

Sean Kritzinger 28-Sep-15 10:00 - 11:00

Johannesburg, South Africa (telephonic)

Managing Director of an integrated tourism business based in Cape Town Yes Yes Yes

GKE2 01-Oct-15 10:00 - 11:00

Johannesburg, South Africa

Executive Committee member responsible for accommodation and activities Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

AMcD1 01-Oct-15 14:00 - 14:30

Johannesburg, South Africa

Executive Committee member responsible for travel and foreign exchange Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

AmcD2 01-Oct-15 14:30 - 15:00

Johannesburg, South Africa

Executive Committee member responsible for travel and foreign exchange Yes Yes

Organisational permission withheld

* Do they understand the nature and purpose of the dissertation and why their input is required

for it?

** Do they understand the negative and positive implications?

Copyright UCT

73 | P a g e

Appendix B: Proposition log

Propos i tion Place (source) Relevance Impact

Report (factua l ) /

Inference / Judgement

Val idi ty (H/M/L)

Memo / comment !Des ign centric cul ture

Unbounded organizing

*Inference = a conclus ion reached on the bas is of evidence and reasoningInternal

governanceRelatedness of resources

Organizational fi t

Knowledge transfer / sharing

Coevolving PatchingCorporate s trategy

Dynamic capabi l i ty

Synergy / col laboration

Dynamic processes / markets

Conversations / communication

Technology capabi l i ty / appl ication

Competi tive advantage /

di fferentiation

Resource capabi l i ty

Degree of interactive

management

Shared organizational

identity

Level of complexi ty

learning organization

des ign thinking

hol i s tic view

knowledge integration

Customer / user

orientation

Ways of organizing

Socia l organization

capaci ty for accepting ambigui ty

capaci ty for ri sk

Capaci ty for change

efficiencies InteractionsOrganizational

democracy

relative attractiveness of uni ts internal ly

11 Stabi l i ty i s a threat to susta inable competi tive advantage. Interview M M Inference M x

20Internal commiss ion s tructures impacts on internal col laboration Interview M M Inference M x

21 Culture affects the way the bus iness sees i tsel f as integrated Interview H H Inference H x

25

The dominant logic was that we had a captive market and that price flexibi l i ty would not lead to demand s timulation but eros ion of rent.

Interview H H Judgement H x

27The system has l imited capaci ty for action or behaviour that wi l l move the system to or toward the preferred s tate.

Interview H M Judgement M = response performance x

28

Appl ied in the context of the corporation this capaci ty impl ies an inabi l i ty to respond in a decis ive and timely manner to relevant s timul i .

Interview H M Inference M x

34Past management practice hindered the development of resources

Interview H H Inference H x x

35 Current incentives promote short term thinking Interview H H Inference H x

53Organization i s organized around internal operational efficiencies

interview H H Report H x

54 Org does not tolerate fa i lure Interview H H Inference H x x x

55There i s no organization-wide focus on users ’ needs and experience

Interview H H Judgement H x x

72Organization i s set up for the convenience of those who run the s tore, as opposed to for the convenience of our customers

Interview H H Judgement H

73

The concept of a bounded organization – to what extent i s divis ional i zing the bus iness caus ing i t to be “bounded” and unable to think integratively

Interview H H Inference H

123Integration often an afterthought after acquis i tion of s trategic bus inesses

Interview H H Inference H

124 Centra l i zation i s seen as a requirement for integration Interview H H Inference H

125Internal integration doesn't trans late into customer viewing the bus iness as integrated

Interview H H Judgement H

126Customer looking for seamless experience and creation of a va lue chain in integration

Interview H H Inference H

127 integration doesn't imply a one-stop shop Interview H H Inference H128 integration impl ies a golden thread through bus inesses Interview H H Inference H129 common va lues are centra l to creating an integrated cul ture Interview H H Inference H

130

shareholder pressure to generate unreal i s tica l ly high returns in the face of unexpected external i ties i s the Achi l les heel of the organization

Interview M M Judgement M

131pressure to make increas ingly greater returns fro fewer customers increases the need to extract va lue from bus inesses

Interview L L Inference L

132 retention of good people = retention of va lue Interview L L J L133 brand i s about people and relationships Interview L L I L

134there i s a trade-off between internal efficiencies and customer orientation

Interview H H I H

187high domestic market share makes i t di ffi cul t to continue growing organica l ly in South Africa

Interview M M I L

188growth focus has shi fted to international market where the s trategy i s to establ i sh integrated tourism organizations

Interview H H R H

189 integration s trategy Interview L L J L190 s ize = relevance Interview M M I M191 s igni ficant market share becomes a constra int to growth Interview L M I M

194phys ica l s trategic location of reta i l outlets i s important towards abi l i ty to del iver an integrated experience

Interview M M J M

195 A s ingle brand would hamper an integration s trategy Interview H H J H

196the organization should be a house of brands as opposed to a brand house

Interview H H J H

198

the outcome for the group wi l l be maximised i f every part s trives for individual profi t maximization, i .e. the sum of the parts i s greater than the whole (??)

Interview H H I H

199we should not incentivize col laboration per se, ins tead we should incentivize individual bus iness performance

Interview H H J H

202a centra l i zed brand s trategy i s not a necessary part of an integration s trategy

Interview H H I H

203ambassadors program is the only place where there i s integration between people

Interview H H R H

204education i s required to create more awareness internal ly of which bus inesses belong to the organization

Interview H H J H

205 hierarchies l imit conversations Interview

206organizational va lues exis t but not many people know about them

Interview H H R H

207it means nothing to the ground s taff of the organization that they belong to the organization

Interview H H J H

208col laboration and integration happens at the higher management levels in the organization

Interview H H J H

209

our pricing models contradict our s tated objective of reducing the cost to the customer (e.g. travel override models creates a di lemma)

Interview H H R H

210

there i s a lack of knowledge about the organization at the levels of the organization where col laboration / integration should happen

Interview H H I H

211 we need to find better ways of incentivis ing integration Interview H H J H

212i f you want anything done in the organization put an incentive on i t

Interview H H I H

213 integration wi l l not improve the customer experience Interview H H J M214 profi t i s maximized through efficiencies rather than synergies Interview H H J M159 the organization i s largely managed as a mechanis tic system Interview H H I H160 integration inhibi ts growth Interview H H J M161 integration impl ies a level of centra l i zation Interview H M I H162 integration creates dependency on shared infrastructure Interview H H I H163 this dependency can impede the effectiveness of the operation Interview H H J M

164integration only works i f the purpose of the parts are a l igned to the purpose of the whole

Interview H H J M

165

the preva i l ing dogma is that driving the profi t maximization of individual bus iness uni ts wi l l achieve the greatest benefi t to the whole

Interview H H R M

166we pers is t with the old system because i t del ivered resul ts in the past even in the face of evidence to the contrary

Interview H H J M

167 integration i s a constra int to doing the right thing Interview M M J M168 centra l i zed control impedes our abi l i ty to compete Interview H H J M169 customers are not aware of the integration of the organization Interview H H R M170 our integration creates no tangible va lue in the customers eyes Interview H H R M171 the organizational purpose i s not clear Interview H H R M141 integration doesn't improve synergy Interview H M I H142 integration fa i l s to improve customer experience Interview H M J M

143brand should trans late into common customer service experience Interview H H I H

144autocratic management i s unable to take a hol i s tic view of the organization

Interview H H J M

145 integration i s seen as centra l i zation of functions and control Interview H H R M

146

i f given a choice we may choose to partner with bus inesses outs ide the system rather than with uni ts belonging to the system

Interview H H R M

147

product-out orientation means that we are l ikely to try and sel l the customer what we want him/her to buy as opposed to what he/she wants

Interview H H I H

148management practice i s driven by what i s perceived to be best for the bus iness as opposed to for the customer

Interview H M R M

149lack of clearly communicated centra l s trategy causes misa l ignment of goals

Interview H H R M

150Achi l les heel i s the rel iance on autocratic hierarchica l management s tyle

Interview H H J M

158purpose of the s tructure i s to increase control as opposed to improve the customer experience

Interview H H J M

181 integration i s a phys ica l combination of bus iness uni ts Interview H H R M215 the organization i s not integrated Interview H H I H216 ful l integration wi l l be the death of the bus iness Interview H H J H217 only 30% of our bus iness comes from the group Interview H H R H218 integrated would mean that we're a l l enti ties within one group Interview H H I H219 integration i s not where we want to go Interview H H J H

220

the required return on new investments i s a constra int to integration (e.g. would we make more money i f we buy our own kombi 's?)

Interview H H J H

222we can s ti l l achieve s igni ficant integration in support and backbone functions

Interview H H R H

223sharing a campus wi l l improve integration opportunities - bringing people together

Interview H H I H

151an integrated tourism organization should be able to provide a l l aspects of customer's experience

Interview M M J M

152 brand s trategy doesn't match the integration label Interview M M J M

153the organization viewed as a holding company for independent tourism bus inesses

Interview H H R M

154in an integrated environment service levels have to unique and cons is tent

Interview L L J M

155fa i lure to move out of 'commodity hel l ' wi l l lead to sel f-destruction

Interview H M I H

156 integration impl ies multiple l inkages between bus inesses Interview H H I H157 common purpose i s essentia l for integrated mind-set Interview H M I H

176

the world doesn't need travel consul tants anymore - i t needs tech savvy agents that can take customers where they want to go

Interview M M J M

177 branding i s a key part of an integrated s trategy Interview H M I H178 employees have no sense of belonging to the group Interview M M R M179 integration gives cri tica l mass Interview M M J M

180centra l i zed emai l server wi l l create a sense of common purpose towards INTERNAL integration

Interview H H J M

135the organization i s unable to trans late integration into tangible va lue for the customer

Interview H H J M

136 creation of a s ingle brand often destroys va lue Interview H H J M

137we are bad at managing brand trans i tion as a part of acquis i tion s trategy

Interview M M R M

138customers of smal l brands fa i l to see the va lue of brand integration/rational i zation

Interview H H I H

139Achi l les heel i s inabi l i ty to transfer va lue attached to smal ler brands into larger brands

Interview H H J M

Categories = what are the dynamics we have to manage in / properties of an integrated organization?)

Copyright UCT

74 | P a g e

140 bridging s i lo's i s key to integration Interview H H I H172 integration should mitigate the ri sk of key people leaving Interview H H I H173 integration should trans late into multiple level relationships Interview H H J H174 does becoming integrated plug the uni t into new customers Interview M M J M

175the inabi l i ty to communicate effectively with the whole organization impedes integration

Interview H H J M

119The level of organizational democracy determines abi l i ty to manage interactions between people, uni ts and organizations

(Ackoff, 1989) H H I HTowards organizational

democracyx

120Circular organization preserves hierarchy but embeds i t in a completely democratic organization

(Ackoff, 1989) H H I HTowards organizational

democracyx

121Circular organization i s di rected at increas ing 'power-to' (Ackoff, 1989) H H I H

Towards organizational democracy

122Codetermination involves giving employees a voice in making decis ions that di rectly affect them

(Ackoff, 1989) H H I HTowards organizational

democracy

117Managers try to maximize their own s tandard of l iving and qual i ty of work l i fe, not shareholder va lue

(Ackoff, 1994, p.177)

H H J MTowards the organismic view of the corporation

118

fundamenta l function of managers i s to manage interactions of those for and to whom they are respons ible, of thei r uni ts with other uni ts of the organization, and of thei r organizations with other organizations in thei r envi ronments

(Ackoff, 1994, p.184)

H H I HTowards organizational

democracyx

64

Des ign thinking: Apply not only to des igning a new system or “des igned artefact” (Brown & Martin, 2015) but treat the introduction of the new product or system as a des ign chal lenge i tsel f

(Brown & Martin, 2015)

H H I H

23

Integration reduces the level of complexi ty: "Uncerta inty, complexi ty and organizational confl i cts can lead to bias and errors as managers often s impl i fy to keep s trategic decis ions within cognitive bounds" (Ford & Mahieu, 1998).

(Ford & Mahieu, 1998)

M M Report M x x

36

Knowledge integration i s a cri tica l s trategy to susta in organizational competi tive advantage under dynamic market conditions .

(Grant, 2015) H H Inference HKnowledge integration as organizational capabi l i ty

x x

37superior profi tabi l i ty i s l ikely to be associated with resource and capabi l i ty-based advantages

(Grant, 2015) H H Inference H x x x x

38

resource and capabi l i ty-based advantages are l ikely to derive from superior access to and integration of specia l i zed knowledge

(Grant, 2015) H H Inference H

40

In a cul ture focused on customer experience, financia l touch points are des igned around users ’ needs rather than internal operational efficiencies . (Kolko, 2015)

(Kolko, 2015) H H Inference H Des ign centric cul ture x x

41A des ign-centric cul ture focuses on users ’ experiences , especia l ly thei r emotional ones

(Kolko, 2015) H H Inference H x x

42

Tolerate fa i lure (recognizing that i t’s rare to get things right fi rs t time). Employees in every aspect of the bus iness must rea l i ze that they can take socia l ri sks without los ing face or experiencing punitive repercuss ions .

(Kolko, 2015) H H Inference H x x

43

1. Exhibi t thoughtful restra int. Many products bui l t on an emotional va lue propos i tion are s impler than competi tors ’ offerings . This restra int grows out of del iberate decis ions about what the product should do and what i t should not do. By removing features , a company offers customers a clear, s imple experience. (= focus on s impl ici ty)

(Kolko, 2015) H H Inference H x x

65

Empathy, experimentation, des ign smarts and other qual i ties help create those kind of interactions and need to spread from the product des ign function to the whole organization (Kolko, 2015)

(Kolko, 2015) H M I M

68Des ign thinking i s an essentia l tool for s impl i fying and humanizing. It can’t be extra ; i t needs to be a core competence

(Kolko, 2015) H H I H

100

Employees in every aspect of the bus iness must rea l i ze that they can take socia l ri sks without los ing face or experiencing punitive repercuss ions .

(Kolko, 2015) H H I H

114

Need interactions with tech and other complex systems to be intui tive and pleasurable. Empathy, experimentation, des ign smarts and other qual i ties help create those kind of interactions and need to spread from the product des ign function to the whole organization.

(Kolko, 2015) H H I H Towards solutions

29

In a services bus iness PEOPLE become STRATEGIC resources ("in which instances are they va luable, rare, inimitable and to a degree non substi tutable?" (Li tz, 1996))

(Li tz, 1996) H M Inference Mintegration increases

dynamic capabi l i tyx

76“Any organization that does not adapt to changes in i ts envi ronment, i s bound to suffer, i f not sel f-destruct” – Ackoff

(Magidson & Addison, 2006)

H M I H

1the three major sources of synergies are economies of scope, market power, and internal governance advantages

(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002)

H H Inference H Towards synergies X x

2

the rea l i zation of potentia l synergies depends on the relatedness of resources , manageria l action, and organizational fi t

(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002)

H H Inference H Towards synergies X X

3cross -bus iness synergies become more knowledge and process dependent in dynamic markets

(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002)

M L Inference L Towards synergies x

4knowledge transfer, coevolving, and patching faci l i tate the transfer of knowledge and recombination of resources

(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002)

H H Inference H Towards synergies x x x x

6particularly relevant in knowledge-based industries and dynamic markets

(Martin & Eisenhardt, 2002)

H M Inference H Towards synergies x x

70

To understand how this works , think of the enterprise as a nested set of s trategic processes . At the highest level , the vis ion articulates the di rection and ambition of the fi rm as a whole. As a means to achieving the vis ion, a company deploys bus iness models and s trategies that bring together capabi l i ties and assets to create advantageous pos i tions . And i t uses organizational s tructure, information systems, and cul ture to faci l i tate the effective operation of those bus iness models and s trategies .

(Zeng & Venjara , 2015)

H H I H

71

In the vast majori ty of organizations , the vis ion and the bus iness model are fixed axes around which the enti re enterprise revolves . They are often worked out by company founders and, once proven success ful , rarely a l tered. Consequently, the s tructure, systems, processes , and cul ture that support them a lso remain s tatic for long periods . Experimentation and innovation focus mostly on product or service offerings within the exis ting model , as the company leans on i ts establ i shed recipe for success in other areas .

(Zeng & Venjara , 2015)

H H I H

31

Paying attention to the conditions in which people l ive and work leads to the creation of a better society that promotes human flourishing.

Class notes L L Inference L x x

32

Antidote to s tress i s finding a place where we have more control , more: involvement; say in what they do; reward; justice; control .

Class notes L L Inference L x x

44

Al l cul tures function not only to meet needs but a lso to reproduce the conditions of thei r functioning, i .e. cul tures reinforce themselves

Class notes H H Inference H x x

45There i s a theory of organization that we have come to accept as the only way that organizations can be organized

Class notes H H ObseRvatIon H x x

46Unbounded organizing: purposeful activi ty col laboration across organizational boundaries in pursuance of societa l change

Class notes H H Inference H x

47

What’s miss ing i s more conversations….bureaucracies lead to less conversation….and more conversations at di fferent levels of our bus iness…new ways of organizing…to be more productive…

Class notes H H Inference H x x x

48

Propos i tion: Principle…people wi l l only engage in conversation i f they are interested in that conversation…how does power play a role here?...i f there i s an underlying common uti l i ty function however….

Class notes H H Inference H x

49

Thought: Do we need a new miss ion s tatement that encompasses the principles around being a socia l organization?

Class notes H H Inference H x

18 The bus iness has a gap in innovative capabi l i ty. Feedback L L Judgement L x

8Technology underuti l i zed in communicating with employees

Internal Tourvest synergy s trategy

H H Report H x x

22Information communication technologies are transferable and are therefore in i tsel f not a source of SCA.

memoing M M Inference M x

39integration as a s trategy can be bui l t around a shared organizational identi ty

memoing H H Judgement H x

50

Accepting more ambigui ty. The problem is that i t i s hard to quanti fy the va lue created through an improved experience or ca lculate the return on an investment in creativi ty, which i s in contrast to repeatable, predictable operational efficiency in support of meeting profi t targets .

memoing H H Inference H x

51Embracing ri sk. Creating a cul ture that a l lows people to taking chances by experimenting.

memoing H H Inference H x

52 Culture changes s lowly in large organizations memoing H M I M x

56

Si lo way of organizing and thinking and focus on individual bus iness uni t profi tabi l i ty creates the oppos i te of integration, i .e. the organization i s not integrated

memoing H H I H

57 Rule fol lowing i s va lued over exploration and experimentation memoing H H Report M

58Managing tens ions between innovation focus and deep rooted efficiency-focused management practices .

memoing H M Report M

59

Risk-averse cul ture (predominantly especia l ly in middle levels of the organization) must learn to accommodate experimentation and occas ional fa i lure.

memoing H H J M

60

Non-des ign approach typica l ly thinks that they can make good profi ts s imply by us ing exis ting technology to make exis ting products a bi t better

memoing H H I H

61

Risk of the innovation process being hi jacked by decis ion-making downstream motivated by di fferent priori ties and the s trong tendency to s teer the process towards the safety of smal l incrementa l change rather than the ri sky terri tory of radica l innovation.

memoing H M I H

62

We are s tuck in a s tructure…our behaviour ei ther reinforces or transforms those s tructures…e.g. try and humanise the s tructure to make i t more pa latable for the workers or try and replace i t…he i s saying we should find the in between s tructure…and this view wi l l emerge… based on s trategic objective to create greater l i fe for a l l

memoing H H J M

63

Through a socia l process …adaptive process…need to cha l lenge the s tructures…else we’re locked in our current s i tuation…guided by wanting to create a richer l i fe for a l l

memoing H H J M

66 Compete on innovation rather than efficiency memoing H H I H

67Quite s imply, our goal needs to be to reorganize our bus iness for today’s user/customers

memoing H M J M

69 Objective: Create a des ign-focused cul ture memoing H H I H

74

Our Achi l les heel i s the inabi l i ty to respond to rapidly changing / evolving customer needs?: a . Simpl ici ty; b. Ease of access – one or s imi lar points of contact; c. Ease of payment; d. Standardised service protocols ; e. Uniqueness of experience.

memoing H H J M

75Explore normative capabi l i ty….to be able to engage without getting defens ive…and negative capabi l i ty…and one more?

memoing H H J M

77

Are we measuring executives around how much time they spend in the office, or the authentici ty of the conversations that they are having?

memoing H M I H

78

information has change the socia l s tructure of how human activi ty i s triggered…through having access to information and then engaging in conversation on the information, as opposed to being lectured…and being exposed to “bounded” information…and enter into a new space of discourse

memoing H M I H

79

do we need to des ign new organizing systems around the new emerging cl ient’s needs?...or around the way they are communicating their needs?

memoing H H I H

80

What’s miss ing i s more conversations….bureaucracies lead to less conversation….and more conversations at di fferent levels of our bus iness…new ways of organizing…to be more productive…

memoing H H I H

81

Thought: Do we need a new miss ion s tatement that encompasses the principles around being a socia l organization?

memoing H H J M

82

We are s tuck in a s tructure…our behaviour ei ther reinforces or transform those s tructures…e.g. try and humanise the s tructure to make i t more pa latable for the workers or try and replace i t…he i s saying we should find the in between s tructure…and this view wi l l emerge… based on s trategic objective to create greater l i fe for a l l

memoing H H I H

83

Through a socia l process …adaptive process…need to cha l lenge the s tructures…else we’re locked in our current s i tuation…guided by wanting to create a richer l i fe for a l l

memoing H H I H

84Change can be piecemeal , gradual and experimenta l…it doesn’t have to be an explos ive sudden big event

memoing H H I H

85

What are we spending too much time on? Financia l reporting + lega l & compl iance i ssues = organizational drag -> causes s low decis ion-making -> how do we reduce this? Poss ibly centra l i ze these lega l and compl iance i ssues and remove them from -> i .e. reorganize our compl iance s trategies

memoing H H I H Towards ri sk

86

So, intentional ly l iberate experimentation decis ion-making understanding that i t comes with ri sk, and reduce compl iance ri sk by doing the above…and helping l ine managers reduce their ri sk avers ion

memoing H H I H Towards ri sk

87

At Lego for instance…senior di rector of s trategic ri sk management…included in a l l decis ions involving capi ta l above a certa in amount…helps managers spot potentia l problems…and managers see how their projects fi t into the company’s overa l l portfol io of projects…and in the case of the organization increases buy-in from CEO’s who currently receive instructions in a fi l tered way via the divis ional CEO’s…

memoing H H R M Towards ri sk

88

So we change our approach from a backward-looking perspective to a focus on picking the right portfol io of ri sky projects

memoing H H I H Towards ri sk

89

The role of the Executive Committee members should not be to command and control but to provide s trategic ins ight and coordinate s trategy in support of the smart s trategy

memoing H H J M Towards ri sk

90

Employees are the fi rs t l ine of defence…by focus ing on assessment of ri sk apti tude on hi ring…and tra ining…less on ri sk awareness and more on s imulations or scenarios that let employees practice decis ion making ion ri sky s i tuations (cons ider discount pol icy, payment terms, publ ic l iabi l i ty i s sues etc.…)

memoing H H I H Towards ri sk

91 Replace command and control with coordination memoing H M J M Towards ri sk92 Focus ing on va lue protection instead of va lue creation memoing H H I H Towards ri sk

93

Disconnect between what employees spend most of thei r time on, and what they think they should spend most of thei r time on.

memoing H H I H

94What are the common issues (guiding them towards ri sk as a concept) and how do we not constantly reinvent the wheel?

memoing H M I M

95

The ri sks of managing in s i lo’s? (can be phrased as ‘what are the ri sks in the way our bus iness i s currently organized?’): Repeat the same mistakes (can be overcome with scenario planning tra ining exercises ); Dupl ication of functions (overly focus ing on s i lo (= part) as opposed to organization (= system)); Uncoordinated activi ties (not seeing the whole va lue chain)

memoing H H I H

96

So what needs to be integrated that i s not integrated? Emai l addresses – internal and external l ink between organizations ; Remuneration s tructures ; HR procedures ; Staff benefi ts ; Wyzeta lk communications col laboration platform; Branding

memoing H H I H

97

Picture the implementation of an organization-wide emai l sys tem that connects a l l employees within the organization as the fi rs t s tep in connecting the organization so that employees can col laborate eas ier. Once they have become accustomed to the increased ease of communicating, introducing forums and digi ta l socia l events wi l l be a logica l next s tep.

memoing H H I H

98Des ign thinking = empathy with users , a discipl ine of prototyping, and tolerance for fa i lure…

memoing H H I H

99Increase hol i s tic experiences by both improving and increas ing the customer touch points with the organization!

memoing H M I H

101

Exhibi t thoughtful restra int. Many products bui l t on an emotional va lue propos i tion are s impler than competi tors ’ offerings . This restra int grows out of del iberate decis ions about what the product should do and what i t should not do. By removing features , a company offers customers a clear, s imple experience. (= focus on s impl ici ty)

memoing H H I H

102

Accepting more ambigui ty. The problem is that i t i s hard to quanti fy the va lue created through an improved experience or ca lculate the return on an investment in creativi ty, which i s in contrast to repeatable, predictable operational efficiency in support of meeting profi t targets .

memoing H H I HTowards accepting more

ambigui ty

103Embracing ri sk. Creating a cul ture that a l lows people to taking chances by experimenting.

memoing H H I H Towards embracing ri sk

104Resetting expectations . Cul ture changes s lowly in large organizations .

memoing H H I HTowards resetting

expectations105 Organized around internal operational efficiencies . memoing H H R H Towards chal lenges106 Does not tolerate fa i lure. memoing H M R M Towards chal lenges

107There i s no organization-wide focus on users ’ needs and experience.

memoing H H R M Towards chal lenges

108

Si lo way of organizing and thinking and focus on individual bus iness uni t profi tabi l i ty creates the oppos i te of integration, i .e. the organization i s not integrated.

memoing H H R M Towards chal lenges

109 Rule fol lowing i s va lued over exploration and experimentation. memoing H H R M Towards chal lenges

110Managing tens ions between innovation focus and deep rooted efficiency-focused management practices .

memoing H H I H Towards chal lenges

111

Risk-averse cul ture (predominantly especia l ly in middle levels of the organization) must learn to accommodate experimentation and occas ional fa i lure.

memoing H M R M Towards chal lenges

112

Non-des ign approach typica l ly thinks that they can make good profi ts s imply by us ing exis ting technology to make exis ting products a bi t better.

memoing H H I H Towards chal lenges

113

Risk of the innovation process being hi jacked by decis ion-making downstream motivated by di fferent priori ties and the s trong tendency to s teer the process towards the safety of smal l incrementa l change rather than the ri sky terri tory of radica l innovation.

memoing H H I H Towards chal lenges

115

The only way to deal with the future i s to organize the bus iness today so that i t can be more flexible, respons ive, and creative. And a way to achieve that i s to introduce an organizational focus on des ign and develop des ign thinking as a core competence. It offers unique opportuni ties for humanizing technology and for developing emotional ly resonant products and services .

memoing H H I H Towards des ign thinking

116

Conduct research by multidiscipl inary teams representing various divis ions who search for customers ’ unmet needs and identi fy cul tura l , technologica l and economic trends .

memoing H H I HTowards a des ign-focused

cul ture

182integration i s the product of careful ly managed s trategic conversations throughout the bus iness

memoing H H I HTowards s trategic

conversations

183

improving abi l i ty of employees in organization to communicate with each other i s cri tica l to bui lding a cul ture of integration where the bus iness sees i tsel f as one organization

memoing H H I H

184

Communication i s cri tica l towards the organization seeing i tsel f as one organization as opposed to unconnected individual bus iness uni ts

memoing H H I H

185integration thinking enta i l s moving from independent members of a group to interdependent members of a team

memoing H H I H

186integration think requires executives to view the organization as a s tructure of conversations

memoing H H I H

192

col lection of independently managed bus inesses and the current s tructure i s towards control as opposed to maximis ing integration and synergy

memoing H H Judgement H

193the objective of integration i s to increase the number of touchpoints in the hol i s tic customer experience

memoing H H I H

197

integration should be underpinned by optimizing the performance of the individual parts TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOLE

memoing H H I H

200integration i s more a head office intention and a ground level rea l i ty

memoing H H J M

Copyright UCT

75 | P a g e

201

the key respons ibi l i ty of management i s not to phys ica l ly integrate bus inesses but to manage the way that uni ts interact internal ly, with other uni ts and with other organizations towards an integrated outcome

memoing H H I H

224clari fy integration objectives upfront and at the point of acquis i tion

memoing H H J H

225 integration i s not a s tated motivation for acquis i tions memoing H H I H

226problem solving i s approached analytica l ly vs . synthetica l ly - we want to take things apart in order to understand i t

memoing H H R H

227 restaurants treat customers l ike they are reta i l customers memoing H H R H

228

we need to understand the di fference between horizonta l and vertica l integration and a l low our bus inesses to integrate to sui t the s trategy (i .e. horizonta l for market share, economies of sca le; efficiencies ; vertica l for reduced price and faster service to customer

memoing H H J M

229 an integrated system is a one-stop shop memoing H H I H type of management

230brand integration i s a separate s trategy and integration doesn't necessari ly have to involve brand integration

memoing H H I H conversations

231

Nobody at the organization really understands what integration means. So we all scratch our heads trying to come up with a solution to a problem we don’t understand.

memoing H H J M phys ica l organization

5integration i s a dynamic and i terative process that keeps changing in response to a dynamic envi ronment

Observation H H Report H x

7

Difficul t/not poss ible to communicate objectives , information about the bus iness and developments within the bus iness to 4,000+ employees on an ongoing bas is

Observation H H Report H x

9Not a l l employees have emai l , but a l l employees have cel lphones

Observation H H Report H x x

10Lack of investment in organizational learning expla ins partia l ly lack of dynamic capabi l i ties

Observation H H Inference H x

12 No incentives for capabi l i ty development. Observation H H Report H x

13Abi l i ty to learn and abi l i ty to change are capabi l i ties that need to be developed.

Observation M M Inference M x

14 The bus iness has been in a competi tive advantage "lul l "… Observation M M Judgement M x

15Lack of nimbleness and a lertness to change i s a competi tive disadvantage to the bus iness .

Observation L L Judgement L x

16

Where capacity used to be a constra int, wi th the advent of the merger capacity wi l l no longer be a constra int and instead the focus shi fts to bui lding capability .

Observation H H Inference H x x

17The organization's head office in Jhb adds low levels of input and corporate governance i s achieved by command and control .

Observation L L Inference L x x

19

Our system (Activi tar) i tsel f i s not a SCA (one could argue that our preferentia l pricing i s ) because i t can be transferred but our abi l i ty to maximise functional i ty and contribute to new developments are.

Observation M M Inference M x x

24 Strategic human resources could be a SCA due to inimitabi l i ty. Observation M M Inference M26 The bus iness i s in fi re-fighting mode. Observation H H Inference H

30I.t.o. the RBV the fi rm is defined by the resources that i t controls Observation M M Inference M x x

33 Current organizational planning i s reactive Observation H H Judgement H Refer Ackoff x

221

The organization doesn't understand integration, what i t means to be integrated, and what the future s trategy i s around integration

Observation H H I H

The business possesses l imited central capability Observation H H Judgement H Think centra l i zed functionsThe s ize of my centra l capabi l i ty determines the rate at which the bus iness can add sca le

Theory H H Inference H Think centra l i zed functions

If we develop centra l dynamic capabi l i ties and sca le does not increase the investment wi l l become a cost burden (to have a dynamic capabi l i ty and find no occas ion for change i s merely to carry a cost burden (Winter, 2002))

Theory H H Report H

The organization lacks dedicated specia l i zed personnel who are committed ful l -time to their change roles and this a ffects dynamic capabi l i ty

Observation H H Report H

dynamic capabi l i ties = capabi l i ties to "extend,

modi fy or create ordinary capabi l i ties ." (Winter, 2002)

The organization has become "rusty" i .e. unable to exercise i ts change potentia l due to lack of exercise

Observation H H Inference H

Riva ls that rely on ad-hoc problem solving wi l l carry a l ighter cost burden

Theory M M Inference M

Claudette i s an example of an investment in dynamic capabi l i ty Observation M M Report M

Lack of investment in organizational learning expla ins partia l ly lack of dynamic capabi l i ties

Observation H H Inference H

Ad hoc problem solving i s economica l ly superior to dynamic capabi l i ty - this bel ief could expla in phenomena.

Theory H H Report H Fire-fighting

Capabi l i ty development i s not adequately incentivised (human, resource and volume capabi l i ties ).

Observation H H Judgement HHow can current capabi l i ty

be harnessed?

The bus iness i s exposed to bottlenecks of employee s tress points that inhibi t flow when sca le increases .

Observation H H Report HFurther point about resources becoming

l imitations to growthThe bus iness has evolved to where the nature of manageria l resources need to change in order for the same "rents" to be achieved as in the past.

Observation H H Judgement HI.e. current resources have

become a constra int to growth

The acquis i tion of a competi tor i s an opportuni ty to learn new and va luable capabi l i ties .

Interview H H Judgement H Capabi l i ties can be acquired

Stabi l i ty i s a threat to susta inable competi tive advantage. Interview M M Inference MLack of recognition of people as s trategica l ly important to fi rm's success .

Observation H H Inference H

No incentives to pursue opportuni ties to increase "rent". Interview H H Report HContribution of marketing (defined as "the fundamenta l processes by which resources are transformed through manageria l guidance into something that i s of va lue to customers") towards the RBV has been misunderstood/neglected.

Observation H H Inference H

No incentives for capabi l i ty development. Observation H H Report HI am a process and implementation related resource and this i s my area of development.

Observation M M Inference M

Employees are a dynamic capabi l i ty resource. Observation H H Report HAbi l i ty to learn and abi l i ty to change are capabi l i ties that need to be developed.

Observation M M Inference M

The bus iness has been in a competi tive advantage "lul l "… Observation M M Judgement MLack of nimbleness and a lertness to change i s a competi tive disadvantage to the bus iness .

Observation L L Judgement L

We increased capabi l i ty by increas ing our data l ine capaci ty. Feedback M M Report MWe increased capabi l i ty by extending the reservations desk at Sun Ci ty and adding more work s tations .

Observation H H Inference M

Where capacity used to be a constra int, wi th the advent of the merger capacity wi l l no longer be a constra int and instead the focus shi fts to bui lding capability .

Observation H H Inference H

The organization's head office in Jhb adds low levels of input and corporate governance i s achieved by command and control .

Observation L L Inference L

The bus iness has a gap in innovative capabi l i ty. Feedback L L Judgement LThe bus iness has a gap in production capabi l i ty (deal ing with increased demand through increase in sca le).

Observation L L Judgement L

Limitations in cognitive abi l i ty of managers to generate increased rents .

Observation M M Judgement M

Gift fel t ashamed and embarrassed when he could not provide a thi rs ty passenger with something to drink because we don't provide drinks on our excurs ions .

Feedback L L Report L

Our system (Activi tar) i tsel f i s not a SCA (one could argue that our preferentia l pricing i s ) because i t can be transferred but our abi l i ty to maximise functional i ty and contribute to new developments are.

Observation M M Inference M

Simpl i fi cation of and s tandardis ing our commiss ion s tructures i s an intervention that faci l i tates future increase in sca le/rents .

Feedback M M Inference M

The priori ti zation of the development of an ethica l cul ture has led to an improvement in human effort.

Feedback H H Inference H

Information communication technologies are transferable and are therefore in i tsel f not a source of SCA.

Theory M M Inference M

"Uncerta inty, complexi ty and organizational confl i cts can lead to bias and errors as managers often s impl i fy to keep s trategic decis ions within cognitive bounds" (Ford & Mahieu, 1998).

Theory M M Report M

Strategic human resources could be a SCA due to inimitabi l i ty. Observation M M Inference MNo guidel ines exis t to identi fy and select va luable resources . Observation M M Report MThe dominant logic was that we had a captive market and that price flexibi l i ty would not lead to demand s timulation but eros ion of rent.

Observation H H Judgement H

Because of dominant logic preva i l ing the bus iness has been unable to identi fy the s ignals that indicated that i t was entering a s low death spi ra l and that i ts s trategy needed to change.

Observation H H Judgement H

The proposed marketing s trategy requires a shi ft in the dominant logic.

Observation H H Inference H

The bus iness lacks the capaci ty to perceive and understand the needs and problems of tour operators and resort E&E department.

Observation H H Judgement H

The bus iness i s in fi re-fighting mode. Observation H H Inference HManagers avoid resort Observation H H Report HReservations s taff not incentivised to increased volumes with the resul t that the bus iness does better but they don't.

Observation H H Report H

Resort occupancy forecast appears to influence s tate of readiness of the bus iness .

Observation H H Report H

The bus iness s truggles to deal with s tress . Observation L L Judgement LThe bus iness s truggles to find long term solutions to what they see as temporary or short term problems.

Observation M M Judgement M

The system has l imited capaci ty for action or behaviour that wi l l move the system to or toward the preferred s tate.

Observation H M Judgement M = response performance

Appl ied in the context of the corporation this capaci ty impl ies an inabi l i ty to respond in a decis ive and timely manner to relevant s timul i .

Observation H M Inference M

With l imited dynamic capaci ty organizational susta inabi l i ty becomes increas ingly peri lous .

Observation H M Inference M

In a services bus iness PEOPLE become STRATEGIC resources ("in which instances are they va luable, rare, inimitable and to a degree nonsubsti tutable?" (Li tz, 1996))

Theory H M Inference M

The bus iness possesses l imited capaci ty to perceive, assess , and respond to the socia l and ethica l dimens ions of corporate l i fe.

Observation M M Inference M

I.t.o. the RBV the fi rm is defined by the resources that i t controls , of which people i s a resource but have not previous ly been viewed as such.

Observation M M Inference M

No previous awareness of manageria l ethica l competence. Observation M M Inference MPaying attention to the conditions in which people l ive and work leads to the creation of a better society that promotes human flourishing.

Theory L L Inference L

Antidote to s tress i s finding a place where we have more control , more: involvement; say in what they do; reward; justice; control .

Theory L L Inference L

Current organizational planning is reactive Observation H H Judgement H Refer AckoffPast management practice hindered the development of resources

Feedback H H Inference H

Absence of incentive model i s a dis incentive to growth Observation H H Judgement H

Management incentive drives short term behaviour that impacts adversely on investment in resources for long term benefi t

Observation H H Inference H

Copyright UCT

76 | P a g e

Appendix C: Literature review references

Ackoff, R. L. (1989). The circular organization: An update. The Academy of Management Executive, 3(1), 11–16.

Ackoff, R. L. (1994). Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 175–188.

Ackoff, R. L. (2001). A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design. Retrieved from http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~sasanr/Teaching-Material/MIS/Systems-Approach/idealized-redesign-guide.pdf

Ackoff, R. L. (2013). Ackoff’s systemic management. (Lecture notes) EMBA 13, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Ackoff, R. L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. J. (2006). Ackoff’s idealized design. (Lecture notes - Adapted from “Idealized Design” by Ackoff, Magidson and Addison, Wharton School Publishing) EMBA 13, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2013). Rich pictures: A means to explore the “sustainable mind”? Sustainable Development, 21(1), 30–47.

Braun, W. (2002). The System Archetypes. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gpr/PAD724/724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf

businessdictionary.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com

Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chicheste, UKr: Wiley.

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66–74.

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Theory-based or theoretical sampling. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeTheo-3806.html

Davis, A. P., Dent, E. B., & Wharff, D. M. (2015). A conceptual model of systems thinking leadership in community colleges. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28, 333–353.

Deming, W. E. (2000). The new economics: For industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260.

Douglas, D. (2003). Inductive theory generation: A grounded approach to business inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 47–54.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Galunic, D. C. (2000). Coevolving: At last, a way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 91–101.

Copyright UCT

77 | P a g e

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London, UK: Aldine.

Grant, R. M. (2015). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

Grant Thornton. (2015). Hotels 2020: Welcoming tomorrow’s guests. Retrieved from http://www.grantthornton.global/globalassets/1.-member-firms/global/insights/article-pdfs/industries/hotels-2020-pages-a4-final.pdf

Ho, W. (2013). What is research? (Unpublished paper) Penn State University. Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/research_talk.htm

Hoebeke, L. (2000). Making work systems better: A practitioner’s reflections. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Cross-business synergy: Sources, processes and the capture of corporate value. (Working Paper Series, Number 3) Herb Kelleher Center for Entrepreneurship, McCombs School of Business, The Unversity of Texas at Austin.

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 214–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nakamura, J., & Csilcszentmilzalyi, M. (2000). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New Yiork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Paton, G. (2001). A systemic action learning cycle as the key element of an ongoing spiral of analyses. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14(1), 95–111.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/v1774282g031q747.pdf

Rughase, O. G. (2006). Identity and strategy: How individual visions enable the design of a market. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Sayer, A. (2012). Realism and social science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (12th ed.). London, UK: Random House Business Books.

Sengupta, S. S., & Ackoff, R. L. (1965). Systems theory from an operations research point of view. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 1(1), 9–13.

Taborga, J. (2011). How organizational archetypes manifest at each level of the Gravesian value systems. Integral Leadership Review.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2010). Ethical decision making.

Copyright UCT

78 | P a g e

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/

Yates, S. (2004). Doing social science research. London, UK: Sage.

Zeng, M., & Venjara, A. (2015). The self-tuning enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 76–83.

Copyright UCT