Mintzberg Feedback to reports Pl Srgaard Telenor RD

Mintzberg: Feedback to reports Pål Sørgaard, Telenor R&D and If. I INF 5250 October 17, 2005

Describing with theory l This is hard l Generally well done l Explain theory you use, but briefly, preferably integrated with your description – Avoid long overviews of Mintzberg l Be open to more than one interpretation – A good discussion is more important than a firm conclusion – Several cases are hard to classify – Some reports have very good discussions 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 2

Method l Think about the method you use l You only see a minor part of the organisation l You mainly meet “official” representatives l You seldom see the “real” work l Avoid taking Mintzberg’s view for granted – Risk of circular arguments l You select an approach given extreme constraints 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 3

Handling interviews l Interviewees are normally kept anonymous l Interviews are normally not a part of the report – but fine to share with your advisor l You can quotes from interviews to illustrate l Refer to interviews if you need to, otherwise talk about them l Be critical, the interviewee is only one person among many 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 4

Handling sources l Make sure that what you write is what you think – quote views by interviewees or from official brochures l Be careful with insiders (yourself, your family, others that you cannot have a critical distance to) l Try to find alternative sources – Newspapers and the political agenda are good to know l Be critical 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 5

Making reports l Explain to your reader what you do – Use introductions and meta text l Present your findings l Discuss your findings – Do not hide your doubts l Conclude – Don’t start with the conclusion l When 17 October, 2005 talking about an organisation, say “it” not “they” Pål Sørgaard, R&D 6

Understanding Mintzberg l Stability and complexity l Delimitation – Do we see an organisation or a part of one? l Be prepared for alternative interpretations – And read chapter 13 l Technostructure different from IT (very!!!) – Technical system also different from IT l The middle line consists of all management levels, not just level 2 – May also include project leaders 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 7

Advanced bureaucracies l Professional independence – In a hospital, the CEO cannot instruct an MD in medical matters, similarly at a university – In a ministry, in a library, and in a software company that is possible (but wise? ) l There are quite strong examples of technostructure in these examples – And also strong external control l Is pigeonholing a must for a professional bureaucracy? l Bureaucracies with highly skilled workers more common than in 1983 l Are these moving towards adhocracy? 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 8

Technicalities l Pagination l Getting references right l Table of contents l Title page with complete information l Proofreading l Husk regler for orddeling! – Ikke som på engelsk!!!!! – Se http: //folk. uio. no/tfredvik/amo/ 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 9

General impression l Very good work by most groups – 21 reports, 15 accepted – 55 students in total (are you that many? ) – Reports delivered on time l Successful given constraints in time and knowledge l Good way to learn? 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 10

To those who “failed” l You get one new chance l In the written feedback you get information about why l Improve or rewrite your report l New deadline: October 31, noon 1200 – Two weeks from now – Send to Miria l Final evaluation November 7 17 October, 2005 Pål Sørgaard, R&D 11