Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T08:19:30.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2009

Joan Ernst van Aken
Affiliation:
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Hans Berends
Affiliation:
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Hans van der Bij
Affiliation:
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Problem Solving in Organizations
A Methodological Handbook for Business Students
, pp. 174 - 180
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackoff, R. L. 1981a. ‘The art and science of mess management’, Interfaces, 11: 20–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackoff, R. L. 1981b. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Ackoff, R. L. and Vergara, E. 1981. ‘Creativity in problem solving and planning: a review’, European Journal of Operational Research, 7: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ader, H. J. and Mellenbergh, G. 1999. Research Methodology in the Social, Behavioral and Life Sciences. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, K. J. (ed.) 1980. Handbook of BPS. New York: McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: a Guide for Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublishersGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley PublishersGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, McLain D. 1985. Action Science, Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublishersGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. 1998. Epistemology. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. 2005. ‘From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sense making’, Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, W. G. 1969. Organization development: its nature, origins and prospects. Reading: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Berends, H., Debackere, K., Garud, R. and Weggeman, M. 2004. Knowledge Integration by Thinking Along. ECIS working paperGoogle Scholar
Berends, H. 2003. Knowledge Sharing in Industrial Research. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University PressGoogle Scholar
Bergman, R., Breen, S., Goker, M., Manago, M. and Wess, S. 1999. Developing Industrial Case-Based Reasoning Applications – The INRECA Methodology. Berlin: Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. and Luckman, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York, Garden City: AnchorGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R. 1986. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: VersoGoogle Scholar
Boer, A. 1989. Toepasbaarheidsonderzoek IDEF-methoden. Master thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Brewerton, P. and Millward, L. 2001. Organizational Research Methods. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. ‘Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions’, Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 343–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N. 1985. The Irrational Organization: Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action and Change. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Burgoyne, J. G. 1994. ‘Stakeholder analysis’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp 187–207Google Scholar
Busby, J. S. 1999. ‘The effectiveness of collective retrospection as a mechanism of organizational learning’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1): 109–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casimir, H. 1983. Haphazard Reality: Half a Century of Science. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. 1994. Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: SageGoogle Scholar
The Certified Quality Manager Handbook 1999. Milwaukee: American Society for Quality
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chicester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Chell, E. 1998. ‘Critical incident technique’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp 51–72Google Scholar
Clark, P. A. 1972. Action Research and Organizational Change. London: Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
Chin, R. and Benne, K. D. 1976. ‘General strategies for effecting change in human systems’, in Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., Chin, R. and Corey, K. E. (eds.) The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1972. ‘A garbage can model of organizational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. G. and Bailey, D. E. 1997. ‘What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite’, Journal of Management, 23(3): 239–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNallyGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P. S. 2003. Business Research Methods.Boston: McGraw-Hill (eighth edition)Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. 1998. Synthesizing Research: a Guide for Literature Reviews.Beverly Hills: Sage (third edition)Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. and Hedges, L. V. 1993. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. (ed.) 1998. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. 2001. Organizational Development and Change. Mason: South-Western College Publishing (seventh edition)Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. 1986. ‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design’, Management Science 32 (5): 554–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
Groot, A. D. 1969. Methodology: Foundations of Inference and Research in the Behavioral Sciences. Den Haag: MoutonGoogle Scholar
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. 1994. ‘Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory’, Organization Science 5(2): 121–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haan, E. 2004. Learning with Colleagues. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. 1909. How We Think. London: HeathGoogle Scholar
Driehuis, M. 1997. De Lerende Adviseur: een Onderzoek naar Intercollegiaal Consult in Organisatieadvisering. PhD thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. 1996. ‘Action research for the study of organizations’, In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. R. (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, pp 526–42Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Evbuonwan, N. F. O., Sivaloganathan, S. and Jebb, A. 1996. ‘A survey of design philosophies, models, methods and systems’, Proceedings Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 210: 301–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraj, S. and Sproull, L. 2000. ‘Coordinating expertise in software development teams’, Management Science 46(12): 1554–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, J. C. 1954. ‘The critical incident technique’, Psychological Bulletin, 51(2): 327–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, N. 1994. ‘The analysis of company documentation’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp 147–66Google Scholar
French, W. L. and Bell, C. H. Jr 1999. Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall (sixth edition)Google Scholar
Gass, S. I. and Harris, C. M. (eds.) 2001. Encyclopaedia of Operations Research and Management Science.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic (second edition)Google Scholar
Gerards, S. J. T. 1998. Interfacemanagement van het Zorgproces voor COPD-patiënten. Master thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. 2001. ‘The sociological foundations of organizational learning’, in Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 35–60Google Scholar
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: AldineGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociology PressGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology PressGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1996. ‘Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 109–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt:SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Hart, C. 2001. Doing a Literature Search. London: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Harzing, A. 2002. ‘Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(1): 127–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, M. J. 1997. Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Heery, E. and Noon, M. (eds.) 2001. A Dictionary of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hicks, M. J. 1995. Problem Solving in Business and Management: Hard, Soft and Creative Approaches. London: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. and Symon, G. 1994. ‘Tracer studies’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 167–86Google Scholar
Huber, G. P. 1991. ‘Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature’, Organization Science, 2(1): 88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, K. 1990. Introduction to Quality Control. London: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
Jankowicz, A. D. 2004. Business Research Projects (fourth edition). London: Thomson LearningGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. I. and Briggs, P. 1994. ‘Question-asking and verbal protocol techniques’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 55–71Google Scholar
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. 2000. Understanding Management Research. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (ed.) 2000. Encyclopaedia of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Kepner, C. H. and Tregoe, B. B. 1981. The New Rational Manager. Princeton: Kepner-TregoeGoogle Scholar
Kempen, P. and Keizer, J. A. 2006 Business Research, a Solution Oriented Approach. London: Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
King, N. 1994. ‘The qualitative research interview’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 14–36Google Scholar
Kotter, J. P. 1978. Organizational Dynamics: Diagnosis and Interventions. Amsterdam: Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
Kubr, M (ed.) 1996. Management Consulting, a Guide to the Profession. Geneva: International Labour Office (third edition)Google Scholar
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Lawson, H. and Appignanesi, L. (eds.) 1989. Dismantling Truth: Reality in the Post-modern World. London: Weidenfeld and NicolsonGoogle Scholar
Leake, D. B. 1996. Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions. Menlo Park: American Association for Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. and Liao, T. F. (eds.) 2004. Sage Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Light, R. J. and Pillemer, D. B. 1984. Summing Up: the Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. 1959. ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Meeuwesen, S. 2005. Knowledge Sharing within Rolls-Royce. (Master Thesis.) Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage (second edition)Google Scholar
Miyake, N. and Norman, D. A. 1979. ‘To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 357–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, L. B. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
Mohr, L. B. 1995. Impact analysis for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SageGoogle Scholar
Monhemius, W. 1984. Methoden van Toegepast Bedrijfskundig Onderzoek. (Lecture notes) Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L. 1991. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills: SageGoogle Scholar
Nason, J. and Golding, D. 1998. ‘Approaching observation’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 234–49Google Scholar
Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut 1967. NEN 3283. (In Dutch.) Delft: NNI
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. 2002. Managing Knowledge Work. Houndmills: PalgraveGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. 1994. ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’, Organization Science, 5(1): 14–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Numagami, T. 1998. ‘The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: a reflective dialogue in defence of case studies’, Organization Science, 9: 2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutt, P. C. 1984. ‘Types of organizational decision processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 414–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, R. 2002a. ‘Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’’, Evaluation, 8(3): 340–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, R. 2002b. ‘Evidence and policy and naming and shaming’, Policy Studies, 23(3/4): 211–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelz, D. S. 1978. ‘Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy’, in Yinger, M. and Cutler, S. J. (eds.) Major Social Issues: a Multidisciplinary View. New York: Free Press 346–57Google Scholar
Pisano, G. 1994. ‘Knowledge, integration and the locus of learning: an empirical analysis of process development’, Strategic Management Journal, 15: 85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J. B. 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood:Irwin
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1938 Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Londen: HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
Salvendy, G. (ed.) 2001. Handbook of Industrial Engineering. Chichester: Wiley-Interscience (third edition)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savransky, S. D. 2000. Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. London: CRC-PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, R. H. 1997 High Impact Consulting.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublishersGoogle Scholar
Schein, E. H. 1969. Process Consulting: its Role in Organizational Development. Reading: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple SmithGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D. 1970. The Theory of Organizations. London: HeinemanGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1960. The New Science of Management Decision.New York: Harper and RowCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press (third edition; original edition 1969)Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1999. ‘Problem solving’, In Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F. C. (eds.) The MIT Encyclopaedia of the Cognitive Sciences. London: MIT Press, pp 674–6Google Scholar
Simonin, B. L. 1997. ‘The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organization’, Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1150–74Google Scholar
Slevin, D. P. and Pinto, J. K. 1986. ‘The project implementation profile: a new tool for project managers’, Project Management Journal, 17(4): 57–70Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: HoltGoogle Scholar
Steyaert, C. and Bouwen, R. 1994. ‘Group methods of organizational analysis’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 123–46Google Scholar
Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications (second edition)Google Scholar
Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. 1978. ‘An assessment of the scientific merits of action research’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanborn, P. G. 1996. ‘A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research’, Quality and Quantity, 30: 19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symon, G. 1998. ‘Qualitative research diaries’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 94–117Google Scholar
Symon, G. and Cassell, C. 1998. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Tichy, N. M. 1983 Managing Strategic Change: Technical, Political and Cultural Dynamics. Chichester: Wiley InternationalGoogle Scholar
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. 2003. ‘Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review’, British Journal of Management, 14: 207–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (eds.) 2003. The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L. 1978. ‘Technical communication in R&D laboratories: the impact of project work characteristics’, Academy of Management Journal. 21(4): 624–45Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. 1978. ‘Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design’, Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 613–23Google Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2002. Strategievorming en Organisatiestructurering. (In Dutch) Deventer: Kluwer (second edition)Google Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2004. ‘Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for tested and grounded technological rules’, Journal of Management Studies, 41(2): 219–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2005a. ‘Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production’, British Journal of Management, 16: 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2005b. ‘Valid knowledge for the professional design of large and complex design processes’, Design Studies, 26: 379–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wiel, M. W. J., Szegedi, K. H. P. and Weggeman, M. C. D. P. 2004. ‘Professional learning: deliberate attempts at developing expertise’, in Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R. and Gruber, H. (eds.) Professional Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp 181–206Google Scholar
Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. 1995. ‘Explaining development and change in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510–40Google Scholar
Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E. and Garud, R. 1999. The Innovation Journey. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Dijk, J., Goede, M., Hart, H. and Teunissen, J. 1991. Onderzoeken & Veranderen: Methoden van Praktijkonderzoek. Houten: Stenfert KroeseGoogle Scholar
Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the Field: on Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Meurs, C. 1997. Procesbeheersing in de Logistiek. Master thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Strien, P. J. 1997. ‘Towards a methodology of psychological practice’, Theory and Psychology, 7(5): 683–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuuren, W. 1993. SAFER: Near Miss Rapportage bij Hoogovens IJmuiden. (Master Thesis) Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Verschuren, P. and Doorewaard, H. 1999. Designing a Research Project. Utrecht: LemmaGoogle Scholar
Zedtwitz, M. 2002. ‘Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D’, R&D Management, 32(3): 255–68Google Scholar
Waddington, D. 1994. ‘Participant observation’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 107–22Google Scholar
Walsh, J. P. 1995. ‘Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane’, Organization Science 6(3): 280–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, M. (ed.) 1996. International Encyclopaedia of Business and Management. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Watson, I. 1997. Applying Case-Based Reasoning: Techniques for Enterprise Systems, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman PublishersGoogle Scholar
Weick K. E. 1993. ‘Organizational redesign as improvisation’, in Huber, G. P. and Glick, W. H. (eds.) Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 346–82Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities-of-Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, R. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Wickham, P. A. 1999 Management Consulting.London: Financial Times ManagementGoogle Scholar
Witte, E. 1972. ‘Field research on complex decision-making processes – the phase theorem’, International Studies in Management and Organization, 2: 156–82Google Scholar
Worren, N., Moore, K and Elliott, R. 2002. ‘When theories become tools: toward a framework for pragmatic validity’, Human Relations 55(10): 1227–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications (second edition)Google Scholar
Ackoff, R. L. 1981a. ‘The art and science of mess management’, Interfaces, 11: 20–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackoff, R. L. 1981b. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Ackoff, R. L. and Vergara, E. 1981. ‘Creativity in problem solving and planning: a review’, European Journal of Operational Research, 7: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ader, H. J. and Mellenbergh, G. 1999. Research Methodology in the Social, Behavioral and Life Sciences. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, K. J. (ed.) 1980. Handbook of BPS. New York: McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: a Guide for Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublishersGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: a Theory of Action Perspective. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley PublishersGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, McLain D. 1985. Action Science, Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublishersGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. 1998. Epistemology. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. 2005. ‘From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sense making’, Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennis, W. G. 1969. Organization development: its nature, origins and prospects. Reading: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Berends, H., Debackere, K., Garud, R. and Weggeman, M. 2004. Knowledge Integration by Thinking Along. ECIS working paperGoogle Scholar
Berends, H. 2003. Knowledge Sharing in Industrial Research. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University PressGoogle Scholar
Bergman, R., Breen, S., Goker, M., Manago, M. and Wess, S. 1999. Developing Industrial Case-Based Reasoning Applications – The INRECA Methodology. Berlin: Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
Berger, P. and Luckman, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York, Garden City: AnchorGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R. 1986. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: VersoGoogle Scholar
Boer, A. 1989. Toepasbaarheidsonderzoek IDEF-methoden. Master thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Brewerton, P. and Millward, L. 2001. Organizational Research Methods. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. ‘Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions’, Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 343–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N. 1985. The Irrational Organization: Irrationality as a Basis for Organizational Action and Change. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Burgoyne, J. G. 1994. ‘Stakeholder analysis’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp 187–207Google Scholar
Busby, J. S. 1999. ‘The effectiveness of collective retrospection as a mechanism of organizational learning’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1): 109–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casimir, H. 1983. Haphazard Reality: Half a Century of Science. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Cassell, C. and Symon, G. 1994. Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: SageGoogle Scholar
The Certified Quality Manager Handbook 1999. Milwaukee: American Society for Quality
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chicester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Chell, E. 1998. ‘Critical incident technique’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp 51–72Google Scholar
Clark, P. A. 1972. Action Research and Organizational Change. London: Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
Chin, R. and Benne, K. D. 1976. ‘General strategies for effecting change in human systems’, in Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., Chin, R. and Corey, K. E. (eds.) The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1972. ‘A garbage can model of organizational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. G. and Bailey, D. E. 1997. ‘What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite’, Journal of Management, 23(3): 239–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNallyGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. R. and Schindler, P. S. 2003. Business Research Methods.Boston: McGraw-Hill (eighth edition)Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. 1998. Synthesizing Research: a Guide for Literature Reviews.Beverly Hills: Sage (third edition)Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. and Hedges, L. V. 1993. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
Craig, E. (ed.) 1998. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. 2001. Organizational Development and Change. Mason: South-Western College Publishing (seventh edition)Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. 1986. ‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design’, Management Science 32 (5): 554–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
Groot, A. D. 1969. Methodology: Foundations of Inference and Research in the Behavioral Sciences. Den Haag: MoutonGoogle Scholar
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. 1994. ‘Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory’, Organization Science 5(2): 121–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haan, E. 2004. Learning with Colleagues. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. 1909. How We Think. London: HeathGoogle Scholar
Driehuis, M. 1997. De Lerende Adviseur: een Onderzoek naar Intercollegiaal Consult in Organisatieadvisering. PhD thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. 1996. ‘Action research for the study of organizations’, In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. R. (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage, pp 526–42Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Evbuonwan, N. F. O., Sivaloganathan, S. and Jebb, A. 1996. ‘A survey of design philosophies, models, methods and systems’, Proceedings Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 210: 301–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraj, S. and Sproull, L. 2000. ‘Coordinating expertise in software development teams’, Management Science 46(12): 1554–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, J. C. 1954. ‘The critical incident technique’, Psychological Bulletin, 51(2): 327–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, N. 1994. ‘The analysis of company documentation’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: Sage, pp 147–66Google Scholar
French, W. L. and Bell, C. H. Jr 1999. Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall (sixth edition)Google Scholar
Gass, S. I. and Harris, C. M. (eds.) 2001. Encyclopaedia of Operations Research and Management Science.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic (second edition)Google Scholar
Gerards, S. J. T. 1998. Interfacemanagement van het Zorgproces voor COPD-patiënten. Master thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. 2001. ‘The sociological foundations of organizational learning’, in Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 35–60Google Scholar
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: AldineGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociology PressGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology PressGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. 1996. ‘Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 109–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1981. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt:SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Hart, C. 2001. Doing a Literature Search. London: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Harzing, A. 2002. ‘Are our referencing errors undermining our scholarship and credibility? The case of expatriate failure rates’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(1): 127–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, M. J. 1997. Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Heery, E. and Noon, M. (eds.) 2001. A Dictionary of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hicks, M. J. 1995. Problem Solving in Business and Management: Hard, Soft and Creative Approaches. London: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
Hornby, P. and Symon, G. 1994. ‘Tracer studies’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 167–86Google Scholar
Huber, G. P. 1991. ‘Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature’, Organization Science, 2(1): 88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, K. 1990. Introduction to Quality Control. London: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
Jankowicz, A. D. 2004. Business Research Projects (fourth edition). London: Thomson LearningGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G. I. and Briggs, P. 1994. ‘Question-asking and verbal protocol techniques’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 55–71Google Scholar
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. 2000. Understanding Management Research. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (ed.) 2000. Encyclopaedia of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Kepner, C. H. and Tregoe, B. B. 1981. The New Rational Manager. Princeton: Kepner-TregoeGoogle Scholar
Kempen, P. and Keizer, J. A. 2006 Business Research, a Solution Oriented Approach. London: Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
King, N. 1994. ‘The qualitative research interview’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 14–36Google Scholar
Kotter, J. P. 1978. Organizational Dynamics: Diagnosis and Interventions. Amsterdam: Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
Kubr, M (ed.) 1996. Management Consulting, a Guide to the Profession. Geneva: International Labour Office (third edition)Google Scholar
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Lawson, H. and Appignanesi, L. (eds.) 1989. Dismantling Truth: Reality in the Post-modern World. London: Weidenfeld and NicolsonGoogle Scholar
Leake, D. B. 1996. Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons and Future Directions. Menlo Park: American Association for Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. and Liao, T. F. (eds.) 2004. Sage Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Light, R. J. and Pillemer, D. B. 1984. Summing Up: the Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. 1959. ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Meeuwesen, S. 2005. Knowledge Sharing within Rolls-Royce. (Master Thesis.) Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage (second edition)Google Scholar
Miyake, N. and Norman, D. A. 1979. ‘To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 357–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, L. B. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
Mohr, L. B. 1995. Impact analysis for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SageGoogle Scholar
Monhemius, W. 1984. Methoden van Toegepast Bedrijfskundig Onderzoek. (Lecture notes) Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. L. 1991. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills: SageGoogle Scholar
Nason, J. and Golding, D. 1998. ‘Approaching observation’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 234–49Google Scholar
Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut 1967. NEN 3283. (In Dutch.) Delft: NNI
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. 2002. Managing Knowledge Work. Houndmills: PalgraveGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I. 1994. ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’, Organization Science, 5(1): 14–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Numagami, T. 1998. ‘The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: a reflective dialogue in defence of case studies’, Organization Science, 9: 2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutt, P. C. 1984. ‘Types of organizational decision processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 414–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, R. 2002a. ‘Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’’, Evaluation, 8(3): 340–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, R. 2002b. ‘Evidence and policy and naming and shaming’, Policy Studies, 23(3/4): 211–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelz, D. S. 1978. ‘Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy’, in Yinger, M. and Cutler, S. J. (eds.) Major Social Issues: a Multidisciplinary View. New York: Free Press 346–57Google Scholar
Pisano, G. 1994. ‘Knowledge, integration and the locus of learning: an empirical analysis of process development’, Strategic Management Journal, 15: 85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Quinn, J. B. 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Homewood:Irwin
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1938 Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Londen: HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
Salvendy, G. (ed.) 2001. Handbook of Industrial Engineering. Chichester: Wiley-Interscience (third edition)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savransky, S. D. 2000. Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. London: CRC-PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, R. H. 1997 High Impact Consulting.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublishersGoogle Scholar
Schein, E. H. 1969. Process Consulting: its Role in Organizational Development. Reading: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple SmithGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D. 1970. The Theory of Organizations. London: HeinemanGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1960. The New Science of Management Decision.New York: Harper and RowCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press (third edition; original edition 1969)Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1999. ‘Problem solving’, In Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F. C. (eds.) The MIT Encyclopaedia of the Cognitive Sciences. London: MIT Press, pp 674–6Google Scholar
Simonin, B. L. 1997. ‘The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organization’, Academy of Management Journal, 40(5): 1150–74Google Scholar
Slevin, D. P. and Pinto, J. K. 1986. ‘The project implementation profile: a new tool for project managers’, Project Management Journal, 17(4): 57–70Google Scholar
Spradley, J. P. 1980. Participant Observation. New York: HoltGoogle Scholar
Steyaert, C. and Bouwen, R. 1994. ‘Group methods of organizational analysis’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 123–46Google Scholar
Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications (second edition)Google Scholar
Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. 1978. ‘An assessment of the scientific merits of action research’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanborn, P. G. 1996. ‘A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research’, Quality and Quantity, 30: 19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symon, G. 1998. ‘Qualitative research diaries’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 94–117Google Scholar
Symon, G. and Cassell, C. 1998. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: a Practical Guide. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Tichy, N. M. 1983 Managing Strategic Change: Technical, Political and Cultural Dynamics. Chichester: Wiley InternationalGoogle Scholar
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. 2003. ‘Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review’, British Journal of Management, 14: 207–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (eds.) 2003. The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M. L. 1978. ‘Technical communication in R&D laboratories: the impact of project work characteristics’, Academy of Management Journal. 21(4): 624–45Google Scholar
Tushman, M. L. and Nadler, D. A. 1978. ‘Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design’, Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 613–23Google Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2002. Strategievorming en Organisatiestructurering. (In Dutch) Deventer: Kluwer (second edition)Google Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2004. ‘Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for tested and grounded technological rules’, Journal of Management Studies, 41(2): 219–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2005a. ‘Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production’, British Journal of Management, 16: 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aken, J. E. 2005b. ‘Valid knowledge for the professional design of large and complex design processes’, Design Studies, 26: 379–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Wiel, M. W. J., Szegedi, K. H. P. and Weggeman, M. C. D. P. 2004. ‘Professional learning: deliberate attempts at developing expertise’, in Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R. and Gruber, H. (eds.) Professional Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp 181–206Google Scholar
Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. 1995. ‘Explaining development and change in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510–40Google Scholar
Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E. and Garud, R. 1999. The Innovation Journey. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Dijk, J., Goede, M., Hart, H. and Teunissen, J. 1991. Onderzoeken & Veranderen: Methoden van Praktijkonderzoek. Houten: Stenfert KroeseGoogle Scholar
Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the Field: on Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Meurs, C. 1997. Procesbeheersing in de Logistiek. Master thesis (in Dutch). Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Strien, P. J. 1997. ‘Towards a methodology of psychological practice’, Theory and Psychology, 7(5): 683–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuuren, W. 1993. SAFER: Near Miss Rapportage bij Hoogovens IJmuiden. (Master Thesis) Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Verschuren, P. and Doorewaard, H. 1999. Designing a Research Project. Utrecht: LemmaGoogle Scholar
Zedtwitz, M. 2002. ‘Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D’, R&D Management, 32(3): 255–68Google Scholar
Waddington, D. 1994. ‘Participant observation’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds.) Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage, pp 107–22Google Scholar
Walsh, J. P. 1995. ‘Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane’, Organization Science 6(3): 280–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, M. (ed.) 1996. International Encyclopaedia of Business and Management. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Watson, I. 1997. Applying Case-Based Reasoning: Techniques for Enterprise Systems, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman PublishersGoogle Scholar
Weick K. E. 1993. ‘Organizational redesign as improvisation’, in Huber, G. P. and Glick, W. H. (eds.) Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 346–82Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities-of-Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, R. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Wickham, P. A. 1999 Management Consulting.London: Financial Times ManagementGoogle Scholar
Witte, E. 1972. ‘Field research on complex decision-making processes – the phase theorem’, International Studies in Management and Organization, 2: 156–82Google Scholar
Worren, N., Moore, K and Elliott, R. 2002. ‘When theories become tools: toward a framework for pragmatic validity’, Human Relations 55(10): 1227–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications (second edition)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Joan Ernst van Aken, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Hans Berends, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands , Hans van der Bij, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
  • Book: Problem Solving in Organizations
  • Online publication: 04 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618413.019
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Joan Ernst van Aken, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Hans Berends, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands , Hans van der Bij, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
  • Book: Problem Solving in Organizations
  • Online publication: 04 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618413.019
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Joan Ernst van Aken, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Hans Berends, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands , Hans van der Bij, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands
  • Book: Problem Solving in Organizations
  • Online publication: 04 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618413.019
Available formats
×