Glostra blog

Every time you step into edge.org you find something absolutely fabulous. This time, EDGE offers two hard core presentations closely related to Glostra visions. First, the founding father of theoretical treatment of path dependence and complexity in economics, Brian Arthur offers his view on technological change. Arthur's treatment of technology is closely related to research in dominant designs yet is far more comprehensive. What is more, it offers a philosophical understanding of what technology is, and how it evolves. If Arthur's speech does not offer any insights to strategic management of technology, the fault is not his. See the video interview and text here.

Universities are (certainly) not isolated from societies. The links are, at least, two kinds. First, the number and breadth of universities (e.g. as measured by teacher per potential student ratio) is primarily a function of the size of suitable population (i.e. how many literate inhabitants between ages 18-25 exist), wealth of the society (as measured by GDP per capita), and a number of more fuzzy factors such as policy decisions and international competition. Second, university education and research have certain functions in economic growth (which is needed for a larger number of professorships, for instance). Most noteworthy, universities educate a large number of individuals for different tasks in the society. What kind of education is given / needed is mostly a random process: as the future needs can not (logically) be forecasted it makes sense to produce excess capacity which may be needed in some future situation. For example, the investment to maintain certain humanistic areas such as languages is relative low vis-à-vis a situation in which those skills would be needed but no process would exist (I guess the CIA faced this problem after the September 11th 2001). In any case, individuals with a university education percolate into various tasks in administration, business, educational sector etc.; then, somewhat mystically, higher education emerges as an antecedent for economic growth. Similarly, the research conducted at universities may result in concrete improvements of knowledge and technology; at least most research is not harmful for societal development (yet see this: Reflections on a Crisis). And if we believe in Lucas, in a century or so, all economies would be equally rich with a large-scale university system (or similar) in each.

Does this sound familiar: one language and cultural heritage dominates business, arts and science across regional borders; first national leader who has African origins; increasingly complex and sophisticated economic system has diffused to the most peripheral regions of the globe; the leading nation is tied in a variety of military conflicts in South West Asia and simultaneously prepares for possible / probable conflicts in Balkan and North-East Europe?

Good news

Summer 2008 was very successful for the Glostra group. Juha-Antti Lamberg, Mikko Valorinta and Henri Schildt were nominated for the Carolyn Dexter Award at the Academy of Management Conference in Anaheim. At the same meeting, Juha Mattsson was the finalist for the best doctoral dissertation in entrepreneur studies (Heizer & NFIB Doctoral Dissertation Award).

Traditionally, two separated processes have driven the accumulation of business knowledge. First, since the early founding period of the 1950-1960s business schools have become increasingly rigor (i.e. ‘scientific’) both in research and teaching. Ultimately this has lead into serious isomorphism between leading schools (and a wave of imitators) around the globe. The positive side in this process is the intensified competition and resulting enhancement in professionalism. Clearly, these processes have raised business schools beyond their parent disciplines in social sciences. However, (as always) isomorphism has also leaded to dangerous discipline-driven narrowness of scope and a gap between practice and academia.