Anonymous
Anonymous asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago

請問這篇文章的中譯為何

由於上課是用原文書

所以對於英文底子不好的自己

看這篇文章實在有點困難

希望有大大可以幫忙完整的翻譯 謝謝

(有使用翻譯軟體翻過 但是句子完全接不起來>"<)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction to an Information Perspective

The world moves on and leaves behind firms which fail to move with it.

Wisdom is unanimous that firms must not ignore developments in their external environment (Harvey-Jones 1986; Stewart 1970)

Yet, it is not a convention among those who study organizational change, or who exhort its importance for their clients, to accord external influences a central place in the process of change.

The external is commonly regarded as little more than a catalyst, stirring into action a process which is essentially internal to the organization.

Understandably, management studies tends to examine organizational change with the organization as the unit of analysis.

Emphasis is on firm capacity, core competence, corporate culture, and so on; the objective being to discover what else, what more, the firm might do with its existing resources.

This organizational focus can make the firm appear vigorously dynamic while the world beyond, having served as primum mobile, becomes as remote as the stars in the firmament. Medieval astronomy also gave a distorted view of what was moving and what was not.

Update:

Change in the organization is dependent upon a new use of information, which often means that new information must be acquired from the world outside, Such acquisition is widely acknowledged as a significant challenge, but for small firms rather than large.

Update 2:

The large firm is assumed to possess most of the information required of change and emphasis is on its use rather than on its acquisition.

Update 3:

This makes a refreshing change from the assumptions of some diffusion studies that wherever information spreads it will somehow be used, and of some studies of technological change that technology itself will determine the use to which it is put.

Update 4:

Yet, the capacity to use information cannot be conveniently divorced from the capacity to find and acquire information; they are links in the same chain.

Update 5:

This is a learning chain, learning being the process by which information is found and acquired, not simply to display like some trophy or to possess like stolen art treasures, but to use.

Update 6:

Much is heard these days about “learning organization” ( Senge 1992, Jones and Hendry 1992), and yet, an organization which is primarily a store of information is really no better equipped than its filing cabinets to acquire external information.

Update 7:

The characteristics of information are less appropriate to the organization learning than they are to its employees learning.

Update 8:

Individuals learn—sometimes collectively to be sure—and they may apply this learning to bring about change in the activities of an organization, but the organization itself is designed for information use rather than information acquisition .

Update 9:

It cannot even do much to encourage individual learning, though discouraging this learning is well within its powers.

Update 10:

Essential to learning in the organization is recognition not only that some of the new information required lies without its boundaries, but also that this external information is best sought by individuals rather than by the organization.

Update 11:

There is an immense literature on learning and change in the organization (Dodgson 1993a), a foundation of knowledge in organizational studies upon which this paper makes little attempt to build.

Update 12:

A discipline is not unlike an organization in that it looks to , and often insists upon, internal information for change,.

Update 13:

This paper contrasts an “organizational perspective”—a convenient umbrella term that would not withstand any rigourous analysis—with what it calls an “information perspective“

Update 14:

The latter has roots in information economics (Spence 1974, Arrow 1979, Stiglitz 1980, Lamberton 1984) and branches reach to other areas of inquiry, especially technology policy.

Update 15:

It would be wrong to pretend that they have not also infiltrated organizational studies, but they occupy little space in its knowledge store.

Update 16:

While the paper will draw shamelessly on the literature of organization studies to illustrate the difference between the two perspectives, its methodology is essentially and deliberately, analogous it

Update 17:

its hypothesis; that the essence of change in the organization is the external information required for learning, and that understanding of the process of the process of change lies in appreciation not simply

Update 18:

of how this external information may be used within the organization, but of how this information is to be found and acquired beyond the confines of the organization or the discipline.

2 Answers

Rating
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    翻譯起來真的怪怪得

    我盡力了

    一個訊息遠景的序言

    世界繼續前行並且留下不能用它移動的公司。

    智慧是一致同意的,公司不可忽視在他們的外部環境方面的發展(哈威-瓊斯1986; 斯圖爾特1970)

    然而, 這不是在研究機構化的變化的那些人中的一次大會, 或者勸告誰它的對他們的客戶的重要性,給予外部在變化過程中中部地方。

    外部通常認為是一激活劑的僅僅,進行動激起哪個是在組織基本上內部的一過程。

    可理解,管理研究傾向於檢查與組織一起的機構化的變化作為分析的單位。

    重點在堅定的能力,核心能力,企業文化,等等上; 目標是發現其它什麼,什麼更多,公司可以處理它的現有的資源。

    這機構化焦點讓那些公司出現積極動態當時那些世界在以外, 已經作為primum 移動,變得象在蒼天裡的星星一樣遙遠。 中世紀天文學也給一歪曲的移動和什麼不的意見。

    兌換在組織內倚賴一訊息的新使用,哪個經常表明新訊息一定從世界那裡獲得在外面, 這樣的獲得被廣泛地承認為一項重要的挑戰,但是對小的公司來說而不是大的。

    大公司被假設為擁有的差不多一訊息要求變化和重點在它的使用上而不是在它的獲得上。

    這使一提神變化從一些擴散的假定那裡研究訊息傳播無論那裡將不知為什麼被使用, 以及技術它自己將確定給哪個放的使用的技術上變化的一些研究。

    然而,使用訊息的能力不能方便脫離發現並且獲得訊息的能力; 他們是在相同的鏈子裡的連接。

    這是一根學習的鏈子, 學習作為訊息被發現並且獲得的過程, 不完全象一些獎品一樣展示或者象偷藝術珍寶一樣擁有,但是使用。

    很多聽說這些日子大約贏得組織(Senge 1992,瓊斯和亨德裡1992) , 然而,哪個是主要是豐富訊息真的比比獲得外部訊息的它的檔案柜裝備良好的一組織。

    訊息的特性對學習的它的雇員比他們更不適合於組織學習。

    他們可能使用這獲悉達到在一個組織的活動內的變化的surend的個人learnometimes統一地, 組織它自己適合訊息設計使用而不是訊息獲得。

    甚至不能做非常鼓勵個人學習,洩氣這學習不好在它權力內雖然。

    對在組織學習很重要不僅是承認要求的一些新訊息沒有它的邊界而躺, 但是也這外部訊息最好被個人而不是組織尋找。

    在學習之後有巨大的文學並且在組織(道奇森1993a)改變 ,在這篇文章做建造的很少的嘗試的機構化的研究過程中的知識的基礎。

    紀律不是與組織不同,因為注意,並且經常堅持,零錢內部訊息個,。

    這文章差別一rganizational perspectivea不將禁得住任何rigourous analysisith所謂一nformation 遠景的方便傘開庭期間

    後者在訊息經濟學(斯彭斯1974,第1979 箭頭,Stiglitz 1980,蘭波頓1984)方面有根 並且分支伸到詢問,特別是技術政策的其他地區。

    假裝他們沒也滲入機構化的研究,但是他們在它的知識商店佔領很少的空間將是錯誤的。

    紙將拉當時無恥在組織的文學上研究說明差別在二遠景之間, 它的方法學基本上,有意識,類似它

    它的假說; 要求學習,在組織方面的變化的本質是外部訊息, 並且理解變化的過程的過程不簡單在於欣賞

    這外部訊息可能怎樣被在組織內使用, 但是這訊息將怎樣被發現並且起出組織或者紀律的範圍獲得

    Source(s): ME
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    導言向信息化的角度

    世界的舉動,和留下的公司,不能與它。

    智慧是一致的,企業一定不能忽略在其發展的外部環境(哈維-瓊斯86年;斯圖爾特1970年)

    然而,這是不是一項公約,其中包括誰研究組織變革,或誰勸告其重要性,為他們的客戶,給予外來因素影響的中心位置在這個過程中的變化。

    外部普遍視為稍多於一種催化劑,攪拌轉化為行動的過程,主要是內部的組織。

    可以理解的是,管理學,往往研究組織變革與組織作為分析單位。

    重點是堅定的能力,核心競爭力,企業文化,等等;目的是發現還有什麼,什麼,該公司可能會與在其現有資源。

    這個組織的重點,可以使公司出現的同時,大力動態以外的世界,充當primum移動,成為偏遠作為星級,在firmament 。中世紀的天文學也進行了歪曲的看法是什麼運動,什麼是不

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.