No abstract

Purpose -While the importance of organizational learning for sustainability has been stressed by a number of authors in the literature, the practicalities of how organizational leaders might foster such learning are seldom treated. This paper seeks to demonstrate that there is much that could be learned from the aviation industry about organizational learning practice that could be gainfully applied by organizations in attempting to address the demands of triple bottom line sustainability. Design/methodology/approach -The exemplary safety record of the US commercial aviation industry is explored in this paper, and the principal functions of its underlying learning and adaptive system are reviewed. Generalized application of such a learning and adaptive system in an organization operating according to triple bottom line sustainability principles is described. Findings -Through the interaction of various functional components described in the paper, the commercial aviation industry has created a learning and adaptation support system that has significantly and effectively increased air travel safety. The characteristics of such a learning and adaptive system can be employed by any organization to vastly improve its performance as it pursues triple bottom line sustainability. Originality/value -The learning and adaptive system approach presented expands the steps of understanding, creating and delivering triple bottom line sustainability by changing internal processes, organizational learning, and employee mindsets.

Innovative products and services were created using a combination of consumer‐idealized design (CID) and market research. CID played a significant role by providing out‐of‐box thinking, with new design concepts and ideas. Stakeholder participation and input from the first CID session and the application of field research helped with developing knowledge and understanding regarding stakeholder needs and desires. This in turn provided guidelines to perfect concepts and more advantageously to position and promote new product and service offerings. In addition, an effective validation and feedback system for the product and service designs were created using CID participants for the second time in tandem with focus groups, individual in‐depth interviews and test marketing. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PurposeTo propose a complementary approach to traditional project management competency training, and approach that is based on a different worldview.Design/methodology/approachThe research for this paper was based primarily on literature searches as well as conducting interviews with a number of project managers.FindingsThe current approach has limitations. Generally, it is good for doing projects in a stable environment.Research limitations/implicationsThe new model for project management could be tested and compared to the traditional model.Practical implicationsThe practical implication/consequence is an improvement in the project performance. Specifically, the new approach requires the project managers to mange the interaction of the parts of the project rather than managing each part separately.Originality/valueThe problem with project performance is paradigmatic, i.e. using a wrong mindset.

The authors argue that consultants can be divided into two types: self-promoting gurus and educators. According to this typology, the gurus who promote their proprietary solution as a fix for all problems instead of trying to increase managerial understanding of a particular corporate puzzle do not really educate their clients. Instead, they promote maxims and slogans that define prescriptions for management, but do not increase the competence of managers. Because they take research short-cuts in the process of developing and testing their theories, a significant proportion of the advice produced by such management gurus is either incorrectly inferred from data (but nevertheless, may be true) or is unsubstantiated by genuine evidence. Examples are drawn from the best selling books of Tom Peters, Stephen R. Covey, Arie de Geus, and Gary Hamel. Recommendations for providing management with defensive measures include: requiring greater evidence of the effectiveness of advice; recognition that flawed research techniques produces flawed evidence; recognition that many seemingly wise maxims are really platitudes; effective selection and use of internal and external consultants who perceive their mission to be the individualized education of managers and the solution of their organization's particular problems.Over the past two decades theorists have unveiled a succession of ideas, christened with some acronym and tarted up in scientific language, which are supposed to``guarantee competitive success.'' A few months later, with the ideas tried out and``competitive success'' still as illusory as ever, another theorist announces the publication of a new book based on some new proprietary concept. The names speak for themselves: theory Z, management by objectives, brainstorming, managerial grid, T groups, intrapreneurship, demassing, excellence, managing by walking around, and so on [1].