Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütü ve Enformasyon Sistemleri İnovasyonu

Küreselleşme ve enformasyon teknolojileri ile hız kazanan iktisadî entegrasyon uluslararası piyasaların tanımını, yapısını ve sınırlarını değiştirmiştir. Endüstriyel organizasyonda sektörlerarası işbirliğinin artması, yeni talepler ve yeni toplumsal ihtiyaçlar karşısında çok uluslu örgütlerin hiyerarşik yapılanmalarında inovasyon temelli reformların gerçekleşmesine neden olmuştur. Endüstri 4.0 çağındaki küresel iktisadî sistemde ve stratejik rekabet ortamında genel bir otorite ve itibar sahibi olan Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütü de 10 Haziran 2008 tarihinde Cenova’da gerçekleştirilen Uluslararası İşgücü Konferansı’nda imzalanan Adil Küreselleşme İçin Sosyal Adalet Deklarasyonu ile İkinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan ve 10 Mayıs 1944 tarihli Philadelphia Deklarasyonu’ndan bu yana hedeflerinde ve normatif fonksiyonlarında ilk defa geniş çaplı bir yapısal reform hareketi başlatmıştır. Bu makalede, Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütü’nün inovasyon temelli reform planı analitik olarak değerlendirilmekte ve örgüt teorisi çerçevesi içinde fonksiyonları yeniden tanımlanmaktadır. Literatürde ilk defa tarafımızdan formüle edilen Örgütsel İnovasyon Fonksiyonu’nu Örgütsel İnovasyon Sistemi’ne entegre etmek suretiyle Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütü enformasyon sistemlerinin kapsamlı ve bütünlüklü bir teorik altyapısını kurmak amacıyla iki temel örgütsel inovasyon modeli incelenmektedir. Çalışmamızda, sonuç olarak, 21. yüzyılda Uluslararası Çalışma Örgütü’nün varlık nedeninin (raison d’être) işçi-işveren-hükümet üçlü yapısının yanısıra inovasyon temelli girişimcilik fonksiyonlarını da kapsayacak şekilde küresel dinamizm kazanarak genişlemiş ve gelişmiş olduğu ortaya konulmaktadır.

International Labour Organization and Information Systems Innovation

The economic integration that has gained acceleration with globalization and information technologies changed the definition, structure and boundaries of international markets. Increasing intersectoral collaboration in industrial organization has caused the fulfilment of innovation based reforms in the hierarchical structure of multilateral organizations against new demands and social needs. The International Labour Organization (ILO), which has a general authority and reputation in the global economic system and strategic competition environment of Industry 4.0 era, also initiated a large scale structural reform movement in its objectives and normative functions with the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization singed in Genova on June 10, 2008 for the first time after the Philadelphia Declaration on May 10, 1944, and Second World War. In this article, we analytically evaluate the innovation based reform plan of ILO and redefine its function in the framework of the theory of organization. The two models of organizational innovation are examined in order to construct the comprehensive and complete theoretical infrastructure of ILO information systems to integrate the Organizational Innovation Function, formulated by us onto that of Organizational Innovation System. In our work, as a result, we show that the raison d’être of ILO has broadened and developed by gaining global dynamism to comprehend, not only the tripartism of governmentemployer-employee, but also innovation based entrepreneurial functions.

Kaynakça

Allen, b. (1982). some stochastic processes of interdependent demand and technological diffusion of an innovation exhibiting externalities among adopters. International Economic Review, 23(3), 595–608. Becker, S. W., & Whisler, T. L. (1967). The innovative organization: A selective view of current theory and research. Journal of Business, 40, 462-469. Buitendam, A., & Pennings, J. M. (Ed.). (1987). New Technology as Organizational Innovation: The Development and Diffusion of Microelectronics. Ballinger Publishing Company. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 51, 107–108. Child, J. (1987). Information technology, organization, and the response to strategic challenges. California Management Review, 30(1), 33–50. Council on Competitiveness. (2004). 21st Century Innovation Working Group. Innovation, The New Reality for National Prosperity, Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC. Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 193–210. Daft, R. L. (1982). Bureaucratic versus nonbureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1(1), 129–166. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–591. Gordon, J. R., & Gordon, S. R. (1999). Information Systems: A Management Approach. America: Dryden Press. Watanabe, C., & Fukuda, K. (2005). National Innovation Ecosystems: The Similarity and Disparity of Japan-US Technology Policy Systems toward a Service-Oriented Economy. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. ILO. (2008). The Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, ILO. ILO. (2013). Reform of the International Labour Organization’s Headquarters Organizational Structure, ILO. ILO. (10 Haziran 2019). Policy Portfolio Information Systems, Erişim Tarihi: 10 Haziran 2019, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/isinventory/inventsheet.list?p_ searchkey=20190821171531&p_lang=en. ILO. (5 Temmuz 2019). Management and Reform Portfolio Information Systems, Erişim Tarihi: 5 Temmuz 2019, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/isinventory/inventsheet.list?p_ searchkey=20190821172240&p_lang=en ILO. (15 Ağustos 2019). Field Operations and Partnerships Portfolio Information Systems, Erişim Tarihi: 15 Ağustos 2019, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/isinventory/ inventsheet.list?p_searchkey=20190821172557&p_lang=en

ILO. (20 Ağustos 2019). ILO Information Systems, Erişim Tarihi: 20 Ağustos 2019, https://www.ilo.org/dyn/isinventory/inventsheet.search. Jalonen, H. (2012). The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 1. Krugman, P. (1979). A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world distribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 87(2), 253–266. Lawrence, P. R., & J. W. Lorsch. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and ıntegration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Maupain, F. (2009). New foundation or new façade? The ilo and the 2008 declaration on social justice for a fair globalization. European Journal of International Law, 20(3), 823–852. O’Connor, G. C. (2012). Innovation: From process to function. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(3), 361–363. Porter, M. E. (1988). Information Hierarchies. Symposium on Increasing Business Competitiveness Through Management Information Systems, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Difusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press. Sorensen, O., & L. Fleming. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33, 1615–34. Stigler, G. J. (1951). The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. Journal of Political Economy, 59(3), 185–193. Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information systems innovation among organizations. Management Science, 40(9), 1069–1092. Tornatzky, L., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technology innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Vagnani, G., Gatti, C., & Proietti, L. (2019). A conceptual framework of the adoption of innovations in organizations: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Management and Governance, 1–40. Weigel, F. K., Hazen, B. T., Cegielski, C. G., & Hall, D. J. (2014). Difusion of innovations and the theory of planned behavior in information systems research: A meta-analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 31–43. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.