Although widely used, the qualitative case study method is not well understood. Due to conflicting epistemological presuppositions and the complexity inherent in qualitative case-based studies, scientific rigor can be difficult to demonstrate, and any resulting findings can be difficult tojustify. For that reason, this paper discusses methodological problems associated with qualitative case-based research and offers guidelines for overcoming them. Due to its nearly universal acceptance, Yin’s six-stage case study process is adopted and elaborated on. Moreover, additional principles from the wider methodological literature are integrated and explained. Finally, some modifications to the dependencies between the six case study stages are suggested. It is expected that following the guidelines presented in this paper may facilitate the collection of the most relevant data in the most efficient and effective manner, simplify the subsequent analysis, as well as enhance the validity of the resulting findings. The paper should be of interest to students (honour, masters, doctoral), academics, and practitioners involved with conducting and reviewing qualitative case-based studies.

Purpose Although there is widespread agreement that organizational agility is increasingly becoming critical to achieving sustained competitive advantage, there is little consensus on what exactly constitutes organizational agility, or how it may be assessed and improved. The purpose of this paper is to contribute toward operationalization of the organizational agility construct through a high-level conceptual framework grounded in dynamic capabilities. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper that presents a new organizational agility framework, which draws from, and builds on, the existing literature. Findings This paper defines organizational agility as rapid, continuous and systematic evolutionary adaptation and entrepreneurial innovation directed at gaining and/or maintaining competitive advantage. The 5S Organizational Agility Framework proposes five dynamic capabilities (sensing, searching, seizing, shifting and shaping) underpinning organizational agility. Originality/value The framework presented in this paper contributes toward operationalization of the organizational agility construct.

What exactly is the difference between data and information? What is the difference between data quality and information quality; is there any difference between the two? And, what are knowledge and wisdom? Are there such things as knowledge quality and wisdom quality? As these primitives are the most basic axioms of information systems research, it is somewhat surprising that consensus on exact definitions seems to be lacking. This paper presents a theoretical and empirical exploration of the sometimes directly quoted, and often implied Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy and its quality dimension. We first review relevant literature from a range of perspectives and develop and contextualise a theoretical DIKW framework through semiotics. The literature review identifies definitional commonalities and divergences from a scholarly perspective; the theoretical discussion contextualises the terms and their relationships within a semiotic framework and proposes relevant definitions grounded in that framework. Next, rooted in Wittgenstein's ordinary language philosophy, we analyse 20 online news articles for their uses of the terms and present the results of an online focus group discussion comprising 16 information systems experts. The empirical exploration identifies a range of definitional ambiguities from a practical perspective.

No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to answer calls for more research on how leaders may promote organizational ambidexterity (i.e. exploitation and exploration), and how such behaviors relate to transactional and transformational leadership styles. Design/methodology/approach – The findings presented in this paper are based on semi-structured interviews with 11 senior leaders in Australian Defence. Findings – This paper identifies three organizational mechanisms that leaders rely on to promote exploitation, and five behaviors that leaders rely on to promote exploration. These mechanisms and behaviors closely match transactional and transformational leadership styles, respectively. Originality/value – This paper provides support for the leadership ambidexterity construct, and for the thesis that transformational leadership is appropriate in the context of exploratory innovation, while transactional leadership is appropriate in the context of exploitative innovation.