Question 1 LO1 (AC 1.4) Provide an overview of the internal factors that impact ODD.

Introduction

Organizations operate in a dynamic environment driven by internal and external factors and changes. Under those conditions, organizational design and development (ODD) allows the firm to adapt to those changes, ensuring the long term sustainability of the firm. The internal factors that might shape ODD include, among others, organizational structure, culture, and sector (Oubrich et al., 2021). These factors are important because they shape how the organization responds to various challenges in its operations, its response to opportunities, and allows it  to align its resources and capabilities to strategic objectives. With this in mind, it is vital to take those factors into context when developing an organizational design for optimal performance. For example, if an organization is facing significant competition in the market, it might shape its culture to make it more customer oriented to offer customers the best service possible. Also, it can change its organizational structure, making it flatter for faster decision making. In all those cases, it is apparent that changes in organizational design are in response to external operating conditions.  They provide the impetus for the change and that is why it is vital to study those factors so that the new organizational design is optimized for performance.

Factor 1: Organizational Structure – Evaluate 1 contextual variable e.g. structure and
how it impacts ODD.

Organizational structure is an important contextual variable that affects ODD. It defines the allocation of tasks, coordination, and distribution of authority within the organization. There are different types of structures and each is designed to streamline operations and serve the needs of stakeholders. Some structures are highly centralized and others are loosely connected to the center or they are decentralized. At the heart of each structure is the issue of control, with centralized structures offering more control and decentralized ones offer little control. When designing a structure, the organization has to consider its strategic goals and the external environment so as to craft something effective and adaptive (Oubrich et al., 2021). For instance, for an organization whose goal is to deliver high quality products, more control is needed, so the organizational structure might be highly centralized. On the other hand, if the strategic goal of the organization is to offer excellent customer service, decentralized structure might be more ideal. Each employee needs training on customer service and they are allowed to deal with them directly.

Factor 2: Organizational Culture – Evaluate a 2nd contextual variable e.g. culture and
how it impacts ODD.

Organizational culture is defined as the shared values, norms, beliefs, and practices. It is also defined as the software that runs the organizations because it shapes behaviors of the individuals and those of the organization. Oubrich et al. (2021) contends that the culture operates on different levels and includes observable artifacts, espoused values, and the underlying assumptions. It is linked to ODD because nurturing the right culture can help an organization achieve its goals and objectives. For instance, if the organization wants to re-invent itself as an innovative company, building a culture of open communication, supportive of good or new ideas, and tolerating failures, encourages employees to try new things and in the process innovate. The same applies if the organization wants to build an organization that is inclusive, it needs to build a culture based on respect, equity, and support to all workers.

On the other hand, a misaligned culture can emerge and it can prove challenging for all workers. A good example is a culture that prioritizes stability and risk aversion may resist changes designed to make the organization more innovative. To protect itself from such risks, the managers must nurture the right culture that aligns with the goals and the objectives of the running. If the current organizational culture does not align with the goals of the organization, it is the role of the managers to undertake change management.

Factor 3: Organizational Sector – Evaluate a 3rd contextual variable e.g. sector and
how it impacts ODD.

The sector in which an organization operates is another important contextual variable that has an impact on ODD. There are different sectors and each has its own characteristics, including how it is regulated, the competitive landscape, customer expectation, and technical advancement and requirements. For instance, if an organization is operating in an oligopoly market, it cannot compete based on prices but has to focus on making its product distinct and easily identifiable in the market. This is because oligopolies are aware of what the competitors are doing and lowering prices or price competition is not the right strategy in such a market (Tidd & Bessant, 2022). As such, ODD needs to take into consideration the market structure and competitive landscape. For those organizations operating in highly regulated markets such as pharmaceuticals, they have to focus on risk management, compliance, and accountability, which can limit innovation or add to the cost of operations. On the other hand, in readily evolving sectors, such as digital technology, a more agile and adaptable structure is the most ideal so as they can respond quickly to emerging technologies. Thus, the sector in which an organization operates matters and must be put into consideration when designing structures, processes and development initiatives.

Conclusion – Summarise the key points drawing on referencing and sources in the previous sections.

In summary, ODD is influenced by internal factors which include structure, culture and sector. Organizational structure determines how effectively the firm is coordinating its activities and responding to changes in the external environment. Culture, on its part, shapes the attitude and behaviors of employees especially regarding change initiatives. As the organization seeks to respond to the competitive pressures, its goals and objectives shift and that might call for the adoption of new culture and this where change management is important. (Tidd & Bessant, 2022) New norms and behaviors have to be adopted and this means culture is a vital contextual factor. If an organization wants to achieve its strategic objectives, there is a need to understand these contextual factors comprehensively. For an organization that wants to remain effective and competitive, the leaders must assess and adapt to these factors. The structure must fit the competitive environment and other factors and it must also be fit for the sector. If the sector is highly regulated, having a centralized structure is a better fit. On the other hand, if the competitive pressures are significant, organizational culture needs to be aligned to the new realities to foster innovation and excellent customer service.

Question 2 LO2 ( AC 2.3) Provide a brief overview of the meaning of a “change ready culture”.

Introduction

A culture is defined as “change-ready” if the environment is open, adaptable and responsive to changes. In that environment, employees are ready for change and also view the change as an opportunity for growth and improvement. Normally, change ready cultures are characterized by continuous improvements, learning, innovation, flexibility, and a shared vision that aligns with the objectives and goals of the organization. Therefore, the management encourages employees to take initiatives, to collaborate with employees from other departments, and make the contribution to the organization as it evolves to meet challenges and opportunities in the operating environment.  When an organization is planning to adopt a new organizational design, the chances of success are higher if it has a change-ready culture. This is because without this attitude towards change, the result is resistance to even the slightest changes and that may stymie progress or transition into a new culture. Another challenge that the organization might face without a change-ready culture is delays, inefficiencies and potential failure in the medium to long term (Tidd & Bessant, 2022). This suggests that the first step is introducing a new organizational design to ensure that the organization has a change ready culture, which can be introduced through the process of the change management. Once the culture is in place, the new organizational design can be introduced.

Discussion – Give a discussion on 2 key factors that need to be considered when planning to adopt a different organisational design.

Leadership and Communication

To foster change-ready culture and a new organizational design, leadership and communication are vital. The role of the show is to motivate and encourage followers to achieve a certain objective. The leaders also model the right or the desired behaviors and attitudes as well as providing direction and supporting employees during the transition phase. Bocken & Geradts (2020), the leaders create a sense of urgency within the firm on the need for change. The leaders also develop a compelling vision and ensure that the information is communicated on a consistent and transparent basis.

When adopting a new organizational design, the leaders must advocate for those changes by explaining the reason for the change and how they align with the long term objectives of the company. This is why communication is very important. According to the theory of organizational change, if the employees understand the need for change, they are likely to support the change sought. However , on the other hand, without communication and understanding the reasoning behind change, the chances of resistance are higher, leading to failure. Therefore , in the process of implementing a new organizational design, leaders must utilize various communication channels to reach all levels of the organization. Moreover, if the communication is open and transparent, it helps build trust, reduce uncertainty, and addresses all the concerns that the employees have about the planned changes. Another aspect of this communication is that the leaders need to listen to the employees, gather feedback, and implement the suggestions in the process of the change (Griffin et al., 2020). Doing this creates a sense of ownership and commitment towards the new organizational design.

Employee Engagement and Empowerment

Employee engagement refers to the emotional commitment towards the goals of the organization. It also captures the enthusiasm and overall involvement with the company and its goals and objectives. Highly engaged employees are passionate about the work and also show strong commitment to the organization. Employee empowerment, on the other hand, involves giving employees the autonomy, resources, and authority to make decisions about their work (Oreg & Berson, 2019). It is a demonstration of trust conferred on the employees to decisions regarding their work. Empowered employees are likely to be innovative, proactive and confident and also feel valued by the employer.

When planning to implement a different organizational design, employee engagement and empowerment is a crucial factor. In a change-ready culture, employees feel engaged and empowered. Also, they are likely more motivated compared to their counterparts whose level of engagement and empowerment is lower. Under these circumstances, the employees should be engaged fully in implementing the new organizational design by sharing their views, ideas, and participating in decision making so that they can own the new organizational design (Oreg & Berson, 2019). That sense of ownership reduces the chances of resistance.

As already mentioned, empowerment involves giving employees the authority to make decisions and take actions that align with the goals of the organization. There  are various ways to empower employees but the most common ones are through training and development where the worker is equipped with the skills and knowledge required to adapt to the new design. Another aspect of empowerment is allowing employers to collaborate with other departments so that they can understand the broader organizational context and its contribution to the overall strategy.

Conclusion – Summarise the key points drawing on referencing and sources in the previous sections.

In summary, a change ready culture is required if the organization wants to implement a new organizational design. However, the two key factors that must be considered are leadership and communication and employee engagement and empowerment. Leadership is the process of offering guidance to the employees as it relates to the new organizational design. The leader must communicate the benefit of the new design so as to recruit their support. This is why communication is important because if the employees do not understand the value of the new changes, they are likely to put up resistance to the new organizational design. Success is also likely when the employees are highly engaged or emotionally invested into the company. As such, they are committed to the organization and its goals and objectives. In addition, if they are empowered, or can make decisions or take actions regarding their work, they are change ready and are likely to embrace those changes as long as they understand their purpose. Therefore , it is important for organizations to invest in good leadership, establish open and transparent communication, foster employee engagement, and undertake job enrichment to ensure that workers are empowered.

Question 3 LO3 ( AC 3.2 ) Provide a brief introduction that covers what
organisational development frameworks are.

Introduction

There are various organizational development frameworks used to guide change within the organization. Like any other framework, they provide a structured or an organized way of diagnosing organizational issues bedeviling the firm, plan for intervention , and help implement the changes desired. In addition, the frameworks help align various aspects of the organization, such as strategy or structure to its objectives or goals (Jain & Kansal, 2023). Moreover, change is the only thing that remains constant. New companies or  innovations emerge and companies have to adapt to survive and OD frameworks offer a guide when transitions are desired. Some of the most commonly used frameworks are the McKinsey 7S Model and the 6 Box Model.

Frame 1: McKinsey 7S Model – Give an evaluation of an organisational development framework such as 7S.

This model was developed by Waterman and Tom Peters in the 80s. The framework contends that for an organization to excel, there seven elements, namely strategy, structure, systems, staff, style, and skills must be aligned and mutually reinforcing. The seven elements are further divided into soft and hard elements (Jain & Kansal, 2023). The hard elements are strategy, structure, and systems and the soft elements are the shared values, skills, styles, and staff. The model is as shown in the following chart.

This model is good for implementing a change such as a new strategy. For instance, if an organization wants to implement a strategy to gain competitive advantage over rivals, it should be aligned with the 7 S (Person et al., 2016). For example, it need to ensure that the structure of the organization is aligned with the strategy, the staff has the skills required, and the shared values allow for the success of the strategy. In other words, a new strategy needs to trigger changes within the organization but those changes should align with the planned strategy.

Strengths

First, the model is holistic in its view because it provides a comprehensive view of the organizations, considering both hard and the soft elements. This further indicates that the model considers the tangible and the intangible factors important in achieving the desired organizational effectiveness. This brings to the second strength, which is interconnectedness. By considering all elements, the model shows that different elements are related in that a change in one area has an impact on other areas (Person et al., 2016). For managers, this model allows them to view the complex dynamics within the organization at a deeper level. Third, it is versatile as it is applicable for strategy formulation, change management, and organizational design. It is also adaptable and can be used in different types of organizations and industries (Razmi et al., 2020). Finally, it is simple and intuitive and the focus on alignment of the seven elements helps the organization ensure that all aspects are working towards a common goal. 

Weaknesses

On the other hand, despite its strengths, it also shows significant weaknesses. For instance, it lacks quantitative measures. There are no metrics for the seven elements which makes it hard to measure progress objectively. Secondly, without the measures, the emphasis on alignment might distract the organization from equally important aspects such as innovation, agility, and ability to respond quickly to changing external conditions (Razmi et al., 2020). Third, the model is static in nature because it assumes that the environment is not changing but in reality, that is not the case. In some industries, such as the tech industry, disruptive changes are normal so this model might not be appropriate. Fourth, it is complicated and resource attentive to implement it and ensure the alignment of all the elements. That problem is compounded if the organization is large and diverse. Fifth, there is also the risk of oversimplifying the reality on the ground by arranging everything into seven categories that align with the seven elements.

Framework 2: 6 Box Model – Give an evaluation of an organisational development framework such as 6 Box.

Box Model was developed by Marvin Weisbord and it is hinged on six key areas, namely, purpose, structure, relationships, rewards, leadership and helpful mechanism. Those six elements are also the areas of organizations  and improvements. The six elements are affected by the outside factors. For instance, on the element of reward, the organization needs to ask itself if there is an incentive for doing what they are doing. On the element of purpose, the organization needs to ask itself if it has a clear mission or purpose, established goals, agreements on goals, a good understanding of goals or objectives, how the goals fit within the capabilities and core competencies, etc (Baharudin & Abdullah, 2020). Answering those questions introduces clarity on operations of the organization.

By careful examination of each element, this model can help organizations identify areas of misalignment and dysfunction within the company. Another benefit of the model is that it focuses on formal and informal aspects of the organizations, making it comprehensive. However, there is a downside to this model. For instance, it may not capture the complexity of more dynamic and larger organizations.  A good example is a large organization in the technology sector where changes occur much faster and some of them are disruptive. Using this model could create a stasis which is not good for the firm.

Strengths

The first and most important strength is that this model is simple and accessible. Thus, even for managers or people without deep expertise on organizational theory, they can easily implement it. Also, like the previous model, it is holistic as well with its six critical areas which allows for balanced assessment of formal and informal aspects of the organization’s operations (Baharudin & Abdullah, 2020).   Third, the model has a special focus on relationship and culture which helps boost organizational dynamics. In models that focus on the structure of the organizations, there is less focus on relationships and culture but this model focuses on both which makes it stand out (Benjamin et al., 2012).  It is also versatile and applicable in different organizations and industries. Finally, it can be used as a tool for diagnosing what is wrong with an organization by focusing on key areas identified earlier in the model.

Weaknesses

The downside of the model is that it lacks depth as it is broad in its approach and lacks specificity. For instance, the categories are too general and might not be appropriate for handling specific issues. Also, like the previous model, it is not quantitative but qualitative and this makes it harder to track progress. Third, due to its qualitative nature, assessments are largely subjective and prone to biases, especially when carrying out diagnosis (Baharudin & Abdullah, 2020). Thus, the conclusions arrived after using the model for diagnosis can be conflicting. It is also static in approach and offers limited guidelines on implementation. Therefore, it means it is much harder to implement it and achieve the desired goals and does not account for external factors or inherent dynamics in operational factors.

Recommendation – Recommend which framework would be appropriate for the organisation and ensure you
justify your recommendation.

After a review of the two models and after considering the size of the organization, the recommended model is 6 Box Model. 

Justification

Size of the Firm

The two models are different and they are designed for different companies in mind. For instance, the McKinsey 7S Model is holistic and ideal for a larger firm that is also undergoing significant changes (Benjamin et al., 2012). However, on the other hand, the 6 Box Model is better for a smaller firm. Because my firm is small, a 6 Box Model is recommended.

Simplicity

It is also simple and easy to use, which is another added advantage for a smaller firm that requires a tool to diagnose misalignment.

The need for Incremental changes

Moreover, if an organization wants to implement incremental changes, the model is a good fit. A good example is if the organizations want to examine if its purpose is aligned with its objectives (Benjamin et al., 2012). To do that, the organization needs to ask itself a series of questions to clarify the purpose and identify helpful strategies to align its purpose to its objectives.

Easier to visualize operations with this model

As already mentioned, the model is ideal for smaller organizations; hence, even if the owners are not familiar with thinking in systems terms, the tool can help them visualize the operations as a systemic whole.

Conclusion – Summarise the key points drawing on referencing and sources in the previous sections.

Change is the only constant in an organization. In the operating environment, there are many external and internal factors that demand an organization to implement changes. The two models discussed earlier provide a structured way of implementing the desired changes in an organization.  In a nutshell, implementing changes is about ensuring that the organization wants to align its various aspects or operations to the goals and the objectives of the firm. For instance, if the organization wants to gain a competitive advantage over rivals, the purpose of the firm should be clearly stated and the employees should have the right skills required to take the firm to the desired stage. Thus, by using the models, an organization can align various aspects of its operations to its strategic goals. 

Question 4 LO4 ( AC 4.3 ) – Provide a brief introduction that covers why buy – in is so important to successful change.

Introduction

The success of any organizational design or development changes is dependent on the support of the employees. This support is also known as buy-in. To get the buy-in from the employees, they need to be engaged in the change process and support initiatives revolving around the planned changes. Under those conditions, they engage in active contribution to the change process, which increases the chances of the overall success of change implementation. Their participation also means that they understand the need for the change for the betterment of the organization and for realization of its objectives.  On the other hand, a lack of buy-in leads to negative outcomes such as resistance to change, low levels of morale, and reduced productivity, all of which undermines the change efforts. Thus, from the perspective of managers in charge of change, it is important to get employee buy-in as it fosters a sense of ownership of the changes and it also aligns with the objectives or goals of the organization. It is not enough to accept changes but also active support is required and that happens when there is a buy-in. Employees not only accept the changes but also actively play a role in ushering the desired changes.

Strategy 1: Co-Creation – Examine a strategy for engaging employees with change such as co-creation.

Co-creation, as the name suggests, is a strategy that involves employees in design and the implementation of the changes. Both the managers or the organizations implementing changes work closely with employees under the principle that those affected by changes should have a role in shaping them.  Co-creation is an effort to achieve buy-in from the workers but there are other benefits as well (Frow et al., 2015). For instance, by engaging workers, the organization can take advantage of their insights, ideas, and expertise, which leads to more innovative solutions to the problems that necessitated the need for change in the first place.

Strategy 2: Consultation – Examine a strategy for engaging employees with
change such as consultation.

Consultation is a strategy for engaging employees in organizational design or development changes. Under this strategy, there is no direct participation in decision making but the organization seeks the feedback or input from employees before the final decision is made. This idea is ideal where the planned changes are extensive and it is not practical to include employees directly in the whole process (Rill & Hämäläinen, 2018). Therefore, the organization can, through consultation, get feedback from employees via surveys, interviews, suggestion boxes, and town hall meetings. The feedback is carefully reviewed and included in future during the implementation of the changes or before making the final decision. In this manner, the views or the input of the employees is included.

Critical Comparison of Co-Creation and Consultation Strategies

Employee involvement

Co-creation

Co-creation is a strategy where employees are involved in the design and development process. They contribute by generating ideas, making decisions, and shaping strategies (Torfing et al., 2021). This participation creates a sense of ownership by employees hence they support changes envisaged in the process.

Example

If the company is planning to improve its customer service department, it might involve the employees via workshops to get their views and insights in designing a new process and shape the final outcome.

Consultation

Consulting is seeking the feedback of the employees for proposed changes. Typically, the goal is to incorporate some but not all of the suggestions provided by employees. 

Example

An organization might develop a new organizational structure but then seek the feedback from employees using surveys and focus groups to get their views before making the final decision to adopt the structure, discard it, or modify it to match some of the employee expectations and views (Torfing et al., 2021).

Levels of engagement

Co-creation

The level of engagement with co-creation is deeper and the employees are more involved in the process. The implication is that with this strategy, more resources are required to support the collaborative effort but the upside is that it boosts employee morale, leading to deeper and stronger commitment to the planned changes (Torfing et al., 2021).

Consultation 

The level of engagement with this strategy is moderate and involvement is more reactive than proactive. However, the process takes less time and resources and might be more appropriate for an organization that wants to implement changes quickly.

Impact on employee buy-in

Co-creation

There is a stronger buy-in with this strategy due to greater involvement which leads to the strong commitment to changes. The ideas of the employees are included in the final outcome.

Example

A technology company that wants developers to co-create a new tool for software development is likely to see greater participation in development and adoption of the final product within the team. This is because the developers, or employees in this case, are fully involved.

Consultation

Buy-in with this strategy is weaker because the employees are only consulted when a new project is proposed or has been developed. They are restricted to offering the feedback and their input might even not be considered (Sillak et al., 2021). The approach increases chances of resistance.

Example

A company can create a new performance management system and seeks for employee feedback but goes ahead and implement it as it was originally. This might lead to some resistance as the employee might feel left out in the process.

Speed and flexibility

Co-creation

Co-creation is a slower process due to greater involvement of employees and its iterative nature and collaboration. However, the solutions produced by it are more robust.

Consultation

Consultation is typically faster allowing for quicker implementation. Thus, where rapid change is required, consultation is a better solution as a strategy for organizational design and development.

Recommendation

Recommendation for co-creation

It is recommended for  when the desired change is complex and the organizational values long term commitment and ownership by employees. It’s good where innovation and creativity is vital or when employee insights are required.

Recommendation for consultation

More appropriate for the time is a critical factor or when changes required are less complex or are more straightforward.  Also, it is also ideal when the organization wants to maintain a higher degree of control in the change process or in making the final decision while still including employees to a certain but limited degree.

Given the size of the organization, as per the above analysis, consultation is recommended (Sillak et al., 2021).

Conclusion – Summarise the key points drawing on referencing and sources in the previous sections.

In summary, employee engagement is a precursor to the successful implementation of organization design or development changes. Co-creation and consultation are two different strategies that can help an organization achieve employee buy-in. While co-creation requires active involvement of employees in the design and implementation, consultation is less involved and it is ideal where extensive changes are planned.  In both strategies, the employees are involved at a certain level and this gives them a stake in the outcome. This creates a sense of ownership, which incentivizes them to welcome and embrace the changes and lower risk or resistance.  For an organization planning changes, the priority should be fostering employee engagement and open and transparent communication. 

References

Baharudin, I. S., & Abdullah, B. (2020, June 19). A critical analysis on organizational diagnostic models and new diagnostic model proposition for construction companies. Applied Mechanics and Materials. https://www.scientific.net/AMM.899.253

Benjamin, B. M., Naimi, L. L., & Lopez, J. P. (2012, June 15). Organizational change models in human resource development. Leadership & Organizational Management Journal | EBSCOhost. https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A9%3A19167449/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A85687525&crl=c

 Bocken, N. M. P., & Geradts, T. H. J. (2020). Barriers and drivers to Sustainable Business Model Innovation: Organization Design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950

Daft, R. L., & Armstrong, A. (2022). Organization theory and design. Cengage.

Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co‐creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12087

Griffin, R. W., Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1970, January 1). Organizational behavior : Managing people and organizations. Trang chủ. https://thuvienso.hoasen.edu.vn/handle/123456789/11937

Jain, N., & Kansal, J. (2023). Application of mckinsey 7S framework as a strategic tool for a knowledge based organizational development. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2023.3338966

Jones, P. (2018). Contexts of co-creation: Designing with system stakeholders. Translational Systems Sciences, 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8_1

Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2019). Leaders’ impact on organizational change: Bridging theoretical and methodological chasms. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 272–307. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0138

Oubrich, M., Hakmaoui, A., Benhayoun, L., Solberg Söilen, K., & Abdulkader, B. (2021). Impacts of leadership style, organizational design and HRM practices on knowledge hiding: The indirect roles of Organizational Justice and competitive work environment. Journal of Business Research, 137, 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.045

Person, Frank, & Fletcher. (2016, April 1). Developing organizational design and culture: 6 : Solutions: Frank F. Taylor & Francis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315609850-6/developing-organizational-design-culture-frank-fletcher

Razmi, J., Mehrvar, M., & Hassani, A. (2020). An assessment model of mckinsey 7S model-based framework for knowledge management maturity in agility promotion. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 19(04), 2050036. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219649220500367

Rill, B. R., & Hämäläinen, M. M. (2018). The Art of Co-Creation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8500-0

Sillak, S., Borch, K., & Sperling, K. (2021). Assessing co-creation in strategic planning for Urban Energy Transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 74, 101952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101952

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2022). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley.

Torfing, J., Ferlie, E., Jukić, T., & Ongaro, E. (2021). A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value. Policy & Politics, 49(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321×16108172803520