Yang Lu, Louise. / "Architecture Department, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Master of Architecture Programme 2009-2010, design report." / "May 2010." / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55).

Les processus métier font l’objet d’une standardisation. Les voies empruntées pour cette standardisation, à savoir la domination, la confrontation et l’incorporation, puisent leur origine tant dans les méthodes que sont l’Organisation Scientifique du Travail ou le reengineering que dans les outils de type progiciel de gestion. Or, il s’avère que la prescription et la standardisation des processus métier, telles qu’elles sont réalisées, posent des problèmes dans les organisations, aux niveaux stratégique, fonctionnel et opérationnel. Notre recherche s’attache à déterminer d’une part la nature d’une autre voie de standardisation et d’autre part les conditions pouvant faciliter son émergence.Convaincus que le changement ne peut plus se définir comme l’imposition d’un modèle a priori, un standard promulgué, nous nous interrogeons sur la capacité des pratiques à reconcevoir la nature du travail de standardisation, pour aboutir à un standard pratiqué. Afin de trouver des solutions aux problèmes rencontrés avec les voies actuelles de standardisation, nous proposons un modèle conceptuel qui place les pratiques au cœur d’une spirale de création de connaissances organisationnelles. Dans le cadre d’une recherche action, nous analysons les effets de la mise en place d’un outil matérialisant notre modèle conceptuel sur des terrains qui mobilisent différemment les conditions requises pour le changement, à savoir un institut bancaire public et un groupe de presse nationale. Les résultats obtenus, variant très fortement d’un terrain à l’autre, font ressortir deux enseignements majeurs qui nous éclairent sur l’avènement du standard pratiqué comme nouvelle voie de standardisation. Nous constatons tout d’abord que le standard pratiqué se nourrit du standard promulgué pour ancrer les processus métier dans toute l’organisation. Ensuite, l’émergence et le développement d’un standard pratiqué mettent en lumière des logiques particulières à l’œuvre dans l’organisation, à savoir un processus de création de sens, le soutien d’une structure de pouvoir parallèle au pouvoir officiel et un processus d’innovation organisationnelle. / Business processes undergo standardization. This standardization is achieved through domination, confrontation and incorporation, means that have their origins in methods like Taylorism, reengineering or the implementation of tools such as ERP systems. Prescription and standardization of business processes, however, create problems for organizations, at the strategic, functional and operating levels. Our research attempts to uncover on one hand novel ways of standardizing processes and on the other the conditions facilitating the emergence of these new ways.Convinced that change cannot be defined any more as the imposition of an a priori model or a promulgated standard, we investigate how work practices may contribute to the creation of standards, and result in “practiced” standards. To find solutions to the problems met with current ways of standardizing, we propose a model, which places practice at the heart of a spiral of creation of organizational knowledge. Through an action research project, we analyze the effects of the implementation of this model in two different settings, namely a public banking institute and a conglomerate of national press, requiring different conditions for change.Our findings, which differ considerably from one case to the other, highlight how the “practiced” standard emerges as a novel way of standardizing. First, we notice that the “practiced” standard feeds on the promulgated standard to anchor business processes in the whole organization. Second, the emergence and the development of the “practiced” standard bring to light specific processes that operate in the organization, namely a process of sensemaking, the support of a structure of power parallel to the official one, and a process of organizational innovation.

This thesis aims to consider the competing visions of Sasanian Iran advanced by Arthur Christensen in ‘L'Iran sous les Sassanides' (1944) and Parvaneh Pourshariati in ‘Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire' (2008), discuss the relevant evidence in relation to their arguments, and to suggest our own theory of how the Sasanian Empire operated. Christensen argued for the strength of the Sasanian monarchy and the subservience of the aristocracy to the kings, whilst Pourshariati's thesis stressed Sasanian royal weakness and the relative power of the aristocracy. These theses are incompatible, offering fundamentally different conceptions of the natures of the Sasanian monarchy and aristocracy, and how they interacted with each other. Firstly, this thesis critiques the models established by Christensen and Pourshariati, especially their failure to acknowledge evidence at variance with their thesis, and their lack of discussion concerning how the aristocracy perceived their relationship with the monarchy. We then turn to our own discussion of the evidence relating to the Sasanian monarchy and royal power, and the cultural outlook of the aristocracy, with reference to the above theories, so as to understand how strong the Sasanian monarchy was, the nature of royal power, and how the aristocracy perceived their relationship with the crown. We argue for a conception of Sasanian Iran somewhere between the theories of Christensen and Pourshariati. There is very little evidence that the Sasanian kings ruled through a state enjoying significant institutional power; indeed Sasanian power seems very limited in the periphery of the Empire. However, the inherent respect for the monarchy held by the aristocracy, and the ties of mutual dependence which existed between kings and aristocrats, allowed for Sasanian rule to in general be highly effective.