|
|
学术研究改善商业洞察力
2008-08-01
|
学术研究改善商业洞察力？
A SURE AIM FOR BUSINESS INSIGHTS
作者：英国《金融时报》德拉•布拉德肖(Della Bradshaw)
2008年7月28日 星期一
那是在2002年，萦绕在白厅核心的关于英国管理能力的问题涌入了学术界。为解决生产力和区域发展问题，英国商业院做了些什么？更重要的是，管理学研究与回答企业高管日常工作中所面临的问题之间有多少关联？
当时，英国管理学研究经费紧张，质量低劣。在英国为社会科学提供资金资助的国家经济与社会研究理事会(ESRC)，管理学研究排在成功资助申请表的末端。
英国高级管理研究院(Aim)院长、华威商学院(Warwick Business School)教授罗宾•温斯利(Robin Wensley)表示，这种情况现在已经改变。如今，Aim资助的管理学研究不是排名第一就是第二，可以说表现相当好，甚至是出色。
Aim成立于2002年11月，意在通过联合众多学术认识，在一位Aim“研究员”的领导下，对生产力和竞争力等课题进行研究，以促进英国管理学研究的发展。最初，该研究院有两个目标：劝服商业研究者同英国最好的经济学家和社会科学家一起合作，以此提高他们的研究能力；劝服商业研究者与商业的更有效合作。
在最初的5年，Aim吞掉了2000万英镑资金，到2011年之前，还会再得到1000万英镑的资助。那么，这些钱是否得到了有效利用呢？
项目参与者认为，英国管理学研究的质量和数量都得到了提高。温斯利表示：“我们相信，在能力构建方面，我们实现了所有希望实现的目标，并对政府政策产生了重要影响。”
共有55所大学的200名研究人员参与了该项目。Aim副院长、克兰菲尔德大学(Cranfield)教授安迪•尼利(Andy Neely)指出，作为Aim资助的直接成果，共有15篇文章发表于《哈佛商业评论》(Harvard Business Review)、《斯隆管理评论》(Sloan Management Review)和《加利福尼亚管理评论》(California Management Review)——可以说，这是世界上最著名的三本管理学刊物。
伦敦商学院(London Business School)管理实践教授琳达•格雷坦(Lynda Grattan)在加入Aim之前，已经是世界著名的学者。她相信，该项目已经实现第一个目标，让英国学者能够同社会学家及经济学家一起进行“联合”研究。她表示：“我们比世界上其他任何人都更了解综合学习。”
事实证明，第二个目标——对管理学实践领域产生影响——尤其具有先见之明：世界范围内关于管理学研究相关性的辩论仍在继续。不过，这种影响更加难以评估。
ESRC前会长、现任瑞丁大学(Reading University)校长的戈登•马歇尔(Gordon Marshall)表示，这在意料之中。“我想，从一开始人们就认识到这将是最难的部分。”
温斯利承认：“我们（Aim）需要更加努力的一个领域是对实践的影响……这是我们在第二阶段必须更加强调的一个重点。”
格雷坦相信，这个目标一定会实现。她表示，管理学知识的来源有两个：学术界及咨询实践，从学术上来看，仅有一个来源条件过于苛刻。“挑战之一是：如何将研究引入有一些学术条件困难的公司？”
一个解决办法是通过专题培训、探索活动、书籍文章及短期主管培训课程等，不过这只能满足一小部分主管的需求。第二个办法是影响政府政策。
华威大学国际商业教授西蒙•柯林森(Simon Collinson)引导Aim资助的研究走上了这样一个方向：英国企业应当如何在中国运营。“我们询问了其它企业的做法。这个（中国）市场非常庞大，（重新部署）制造业的机会也很多。”他已将自己的研究成果呈递给政府政策制定者和企业主管们。
但柯林森承认：“（Aim）对‘影响'这个词的使用率很高，但目前仍不清楚该如何衡量它。”
也许，这应该是Aim的下一个研究项目。
译者/陈云飞
阅读本文章英文,请点击 A SURE AIM FOR BUSINESS INSIGHTS
A SURE AIM FOR BUSINESS INSIGHTS
By Della Bradshaw
Monday, July 28, 2008
It was in 2002 that questions circulating at the heart of Whitehall about the competence of British management spilled over into the world of academia. What were UK business schools doing to address the issues of productivity and regional development? And, more significantly, how relevant was management research in answering the questions that executives faced in their everyday working lives?
At the time, UK management research was ill-funded and of poor quality. At the Economic and Social Research Council, the UK funding council for the social sciences, management research was at the bottom of the league table in successful grant applications.
That has now changed, says Robin Wensley, director of the UK's Advanced Institute of Management Research (Aim) and a professor at Warwick Business School. These days management research funded by Aim invariably receives one of the two top ratings, good or outstanding.
Aim was set up in November 2002 to kick-start management research in the UK by bringing together clusters of academics to work on subjects such as productivity and competition under the leadership of an Aim “fellow”. At the outset there were two goals: to persuade business researchers to work with the best economists and social scientists in the UK, and so improve their research skills; and to persuade them to engage more effectively with business.
In its first five years Aim swallowed £20m in funds and is bankrolled until 2011 with a further £10m. So, has the money been well spent?
Those involved in the project argue that both the quality and quantity of UK management research have improved. “We believe we achieved all we wanted to achieve in terms of capacity building and we have had significant impact on the policy front,” Prof Wensley says.
Overall, 200 researchers working in 55 universities have been involved in the project and Andy Neely, deputy director of Aim and a Cranfield professor, points out that 15 articles have been published in Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review and California Management Review, arguably the three best-known management journals in the world, as a direct result of Aim funding.
Lynda Grattan, professor of management practice at London Business School, who was already a world- respected academic before becoming an Aim fellow, believes the project has achieved its first aim by enabling academics in the UK to do “joined-up” research, working with sociologists and economists. “We know more about complex learning than anyone else in the world,” she says.
The second goal – to have an impact on the world of management practice – has proven particularly prescient in the continuing worldwide debate about the relevance of management research. But this impact has been more difficult to measure.
This was not unexpected, says Gordon Marshall, former big chief of the ESRC and now vice-chancellor of Reading University. “I think it was recognised at the beginning that that was going to be the hardest part.”
Prof Wensley acknowledges that “the one area we (Aim) have to do more is the impact on practice . . . That's the one important thing we have to put more emphasis on in phase two.”
Prof Grattan believes that this is a goal that must be achieved. There are two places where management knowledge is created, she says: in academia and in consulting practices. Only one source, she argues, is academically rigorous. “One of the challenges is: how how do you bring research to companies that has some academic rigour?”
One answer is workshops, discovery events, books and articles and short executive courses, although these will only ever cater for a small minority of managers. A second area is in influencing government policy.
Simon Collinson, professor of international business at Warwick, led Aim-funded research into how UK businesses should operate in China. “We asked how have other companies done this. It [China] is such a massive market, as well as a chance [to relocate] manufacturing.” He has presented his work to government policymakers as well as managers.
But, as Prof Collinson concedes: “The word ‘impact' was used a lot [in relation to Aim] but it is still not clear how to measure it.”
Perhaps that should be Aim's next research project.
可惜很少有人能够明白这点,更很少有人能够做到这点.
|
企业文化,企业管理
『本栏页首』 『关闭窗口』
|
|
|
|
|