1.

Apologies

a.

The IFSAM secretariat received apologies from SAIMS (South Africa) and CAMS (China).

b.

Not represented at this council meeting are ACEDE (Spain), ADENAG (Argentina), BAM (Brittan), IAM (Ireland), AIDEA (Italy), CLADEA (Chili) and RABE (Russia).

c.

IFSAM represents a total of 25 countries and at this meeting 16 countries are represented.

2.

Introduction and confirmation of the agenda

3.

Confirmation of the minutes of the IFSAM 2006 council meeting in Berlin Germany September 26 & 27, 2006.

a.

Sue Bruning mentions the changes made by NAM to the concept minutes are noted and changed in the original form of this document.

b.

Peter Dowling; Page 3, I should say “The organizing committee of the conference also has the responsibilities of inviting and sending invitations to other member organizations to avoid problems with authority and receiving Visa’s.”

c.

Changes on ANZAM developments will be sent by Pieter Dowling to the assistant Secretary.

4.

Business arising from the minutes NOT elsewhere included in this agenda

a.

Peter Dowling: I would like to discuss the legal status of IFSAM.

b.

Sue Bruning: this is something we have not worked out, but we will note this for the executive to look into.

5.

President’s report

a.

A request to keep all contact information up to date, in the last four pages of the meeting documents you will find the information we have on your association. If you have any changes, please send these to the IFSAM assistant secretary.

b.

Sue Bruning tells her goal as president is two fold; One is to enhance Management expertise in developmental countries and to receive more participation from Council Members.

c.

The executive requests also all members that have contacts in Developing countries to let us know via the secretariat. This way the IFSAM executive can get into contact with the associations in developmental countries much easier.

d.

Financially the executive needs to make 2 year budget instead of one year budgets, to have a broader aspect of the finances.

6.

Secretary’s report

a.

The secretariat also requests, as did Sue Bruning, to keep the member association information up to date. This can not be stressed enough. This is the means we keep in touch with each other.

b.

The website has been moved to the secretariat and has received a new look. We ask all members to take a critical look and give their comments, suggestions and feedback. The interactive portion of the website, the forum, as we discussed placing this last year, is not receiving any comments on the discussions that are placed there. We also ask all members to for input how we can improve this part of the website.

c.

We would like to place all conferences of Associations on the website. When your association is having a conference, please send us a brief description in a word document and preferably a link to the conference website.

7.

Treasurers report

a.

Dodo Knyphausen-Aufsess: Where did the first IFSAM money come from?

b.

Sue Bruning: During the 2000 IFSAM Council meeting in Canada, IFSAM received a large sum of money as a donation to get IFSAM started.

c.

Keiji Natsume: Are their rules about the travel expenses for the executive?

d.

Sue Bruning: We ask the executive to see if their member associations can provide funding. Depending on the purpose of the trip and the costs we have been able to get this practically funded. Usually, if the executive member has a role in the conference this helps with receiving the funding from the member association.

e.

Alfred Wagenhofer: Why is their a difference between the 2006 financial situation presented in Germany and the 2006 financial situation presented now?

f.

Eric Simon: A few expenditures that were not yet known at the Berlin meeting have been paid.

g.

Alfred Wagenhofer & Ed Vosselman: Why are the costs for accounts audit in 2006 $1890.00 and in 2007 $630.00?

h.

Sue Bruning: The representation in the 2006 column is the costs we have had for the past three years (because it is cheaper to pay every three years). The representation in column 2006 is the cost for 2004, 2005 and 2006. In the 2007 column we tried to present what we actually spent and in 2007. This way we have presented our costs.

8.

Report on the progress of the Shanghai conference 2008

a.

Peter Dowling: Please let us know a bit about the doctoral workshops.

b.

Yang Zhang : The doctoral workshops will be chaired by Peter Dowling and will be held on July 28^th.

c.

Albert Mills: Is their transportation to and from the conference venue from the hotels?

d.

Yang Zhang: The hotels are on the campus, with in walking distance of the conference, no transportation is needed.

e.

Rolf Lundin: How many participants to you expect to have at the 2008 Shanghai conference?

f.

Yang Zhang: We expect at least 500 participants.

g.

Peter Dowling: How many people can we support for this conference?

h.

Yang Zhang: We have plenty of room to house all participants, at least 800-900 people. The reservations at the Chinese hotels needs to be done about one month in advance.

i.

Sue Bruning: We will have 20 tracks at the conference; per track we have 2 co-chairs, one person from a Chinese University and 1 person from a non Chinese university. With the Chinese governance support of this conference it is a requirement that 1 co-track-chair be from a Chinese University. This “extra” Chinese co-track-chair is to control the papers on Chinese sensitive subjects. The non Chinese co-track-chair is responsible for the track and is responsible to get reviews. The track co-chairs will receive a user name and password to see how the registration for the track is progressing. 24 hours after the paper due date the call for papers on the website will shutdown. This conference is being planned at the same size of the Berlin conference.

j.

Wolfgang Weber: I think it is very important to have an IFSAM panel discussion.

k.

Alfred Wagenhofer: I am worried about the global spread in the track chairs.

l.

Sue Bruning: I think we have a good balance. We also did not receive a response from all counties. The countries that we did receive a response from we have included in the conference.

m.

Rolf Lundin: I think what Alfred Wagenhofer is trying to say is we need to actively involve the other countries.

n.

Albert Mills: I believe it has to do with building on the IFSAM network.

o.

Dodo Knyphausen-Aufsess: Will we have a best paper award?

p.

Sue Bruning: It’s a good thing you bring this up, each track chair will nominate the best paper of that track. I will be making a proposal to the CJAS (Canadian Journal of Administative Science) to make a special issue for the conference. In this issue I will propose that the best of the best papers will be published.

q.

Albert Mills: Will their be a reviewer form?

r.

Sue Bruning: Yes, their will also be a box for the best paper from the track.

s.

Dodo Knyphausen-Aufsess: We need to have a Chinese Co-chair for the track for the content sensitive portion of the papers. What is content sensitive?

t.

Yang Zhang: Relationship with Taiwan or Tibet. We do invite people from Taiwan, but we do not want the independence of Taiwan to be a subject.

u.

Pieter Terlouw: I would like to know more about the review coordination between track chairs for papers out of developmental countries.

v.

Sue Bruning: I will have to wait on that answer until after a meeting with the Chinese delegation.

w.

Albert Mills: How are the facilities at Fudan University?

x.

Sue Bruning: Very comfortable and high-tech.

y.

Keiji Natsume: Will their be problems with reserving hotels because of the Olympic games?

z.

Yang Zhang: The Olympic games are 10 days after our conference, we do not expect any problems.

aa.

Wolfgang Weber: Is it possible to have all the member associations put a link about the conference on their website?

bb.

Pieter Terlouw: The secretariat will send the link to the Chinese conference to all associations after this meeting.

9.

Report on the progress towards the 10^th world congress in 2010 to be held in New Zealand

10.

Discussion about possible site for the IFSAM conference 2012

11.

Location and date of the IFSAM council meeting in 2009

12.

Financial report on 2006 and the budget for 2008

13.

The changing drivers of research in management: from curiosity driven and career driven research towards institutional driven research.

i.

Albert Mills: Field research was encouraged in the USA. Furthermore, viewed in a historical perspective there have always been various actors influencing scientific research. The perception of a professor as a “God’ is a myth. Scientists are part of a social system in which they have to legitimize themselves.

ii.

Dodo Knyphausen-Aufsess: It is necessary to prove every day that our research is a science and that everyone understands our research. We want to differentiate ourselves from practitioners and need to prove the value of our contribution.

iii.

Peter Dowling: Mixed method research would result in addressing issues of practical relevance.

iv.

Ken Smith: The changes in drivers are connected to the issue of legitimization. Review procedures for journals are means to improve the quality of our research. Editorial boards of journals increase their control over the contents of the journals, for instance by organizing special issues. Furthermore, it seems that researchers are being pushed by funding organizations because they too want to legitimize our research. Maybe IFSAM should be involved with the changes and the restrictions the AACSP puts on research.

v.

Alfred Wagenhofer: Journals signal the quality of papers. There is the working of a market involved. Editors prefer to accept papers that are expected to be cited frequently. The reputation of journals is connected to citation indexes. Frequent citation is associated with quality.

vi.

Pieter Terlouw: Performance measurement and the ranking of journals downplays the contents of the research. Form rules over substance; many young PhD’s measure the quality of researchers just by counting the number of publications in A journals. Therfore the PhD’s might miss the broad theme of Management Research.

vii.

Delwyn Clark: Peer review of the portfolios helps ANZAM communicate with the students and colleagues. If you are looking for an International accreditation and you want your colleagues to work towards a certain goal, you need address these challenges, by shaping your mission to you colleagues in a different way.

viii.

Dodo Knyphausen-Aufsess: The conference in Vienna, showed us how many A publications an American researcher has, on average, 10 years after their PhD. 75% of the senior researchers only have 2 A publications!

ix.

Rolf Lundin: Additional to curiosity driven, career driven and institution driven research, salt-driven research might be distinguished. Research might be driven by the desire to put salt in societal and practical wounds in order to help society or organizations to move on. Moreover: management research goes where the money is. That is why diversity is important.

x.

Ed Vosselman: No doubt, the quality of the research has improved by a more active role of the journals. And no doubt there are benefits to be gained from institution driven research. But the question is: should not we as researchers and associations of researchers play more active roles in the action nets that presently dominate our research? We are embedded in a social system with a certain distribution of power, yet we can help construct that system. We need to reflect whether the necessary legitimization reflects a distribution of power that enhances the quality of our research.

14.

Developments at council member organizations

a.

CNEMA focused research on eastern Management.

b.

Preparation of the 2008 IFSAM conference

15.

Development Opportunities

a.

Peter Dowling: It seems that all Indian institutes all claim that they represent groups, but only at the IIM it may be worth one more look because of their international affiliations.

b.

Rolf Lundin: I came to the same conclusion as Sue Bruning. India does not seem to have a single academy that represents all or most of the academies.

16.

JAPAN’S Official Development Assistance and Japan International Cooperation Agency

a.

Structure of JICA

i.

JICA has 18 domestic offices and 95 overseas offices with a total of 1300 people permanent staff, 150 development specialists and 250 local staff on contact bases.

b.

What is ODA (Official Development Assistance)?

i.

“For a better tomorrow for all”

c.

Why we are we doing this?

i.

To contribute to the stability and development of the international community, thereby ensuring Japan’s own security and prosperity.

ii.

Globalize economic and fortification of interdependence.

iii.

To avoid environmental degradation

d.

What is Japan doing?

i.

Import of necessitated resources

ii.

Export of Japan’s products

iii.

International contribution

iv.

Promotion of Japanese culture and values

v.

Establishment of human network.

e.

What is JICA doing?

i.

Financial Assistance in bilateral loons (in Yen) and bilateral Capital grants. Japan was from 1997-2000 the, in 2001 Japan was passed by the United States and in all these years followed by the United Kingdom.

ii.

Technical Assistance in the form of human resource development, capacity building, technical transfers, experts in different fields, Training of people in Japan and developmental studies.

iii.

Contributions to International organizations

f.

Challenges

i.

Recognition and support by tax payers in Japan

ii.

Transfer of responsibilities

iii.

New dimension of Development Assistance,

iv.

Donor coordination

v.

Exploitation of new resources at home

vi.

Integration of ODA organizations

g.

Way forward

i.

To pursuit the Japanese way of aid

ii.

To receive more cooperation than development

iii.

To be in compliance with the expectations of the developing countries

iv.

To be dependable and respectful

v.

To assist as the Japanese Culture

17.

Other possibilities for more IFSAM projects

a.

Rolf Lundin: I want to express that I would like to see the IFSAM name more. I am disappointed that the project of Ursula Hansen was not published.

b.

Sue Bruning: I believe it has been published. I want to add that this project was not funded by IFSAM, but was done in the name of IFSAM.

c.

Alfred Wagenhofer: Do we have control of the content on what is written in these IFSAM publications?

d.

Sue Bruning: IFSAM endorsed the idea, guided the questioner and the results of the questioner. The content of the findings are not controlled.

e.

Ken Smith: At AOM we developed a publishing Strategy. Using a task force we decided to be proactive instead of reactive in publishing. Exploring the branding of the IFSAM name is an idea.

f.

Sue Bruning: I suggest that Pieter Terlouw and Rolf Lundin make a proposal with a scope, budget, sponsors, interested publishers, returns of the project and present this at the 2008 or make a small strategy session prior to the 2008 Council meeting.

g.

Pieter Terlouw: Because I have time this year I

h.

Ken Smith: I think it may be interesting to ask the publisher, as an incremental prosses, to see what they need, what IFSAM’s role is in this book,

i.

Keiji Natsume: We first need to explore the strategy. You can not go ahead with the theme

j.

Dodo Knyphausen-Aufsess: I feel that we can do this parallel, otherwise we stand still. We should explore

k.

Ken Smith: I feel Rolf Lundin and Pieter Terlouw can do this on their own and involve IFSAM at a later date.

l.

Ed Vosselman: I think we need to look at how we indeed dan do this in a parallel session. Pieter and Rolf can go ahead with their book and second we need to look at the strategy.

m.

Alfred Wagenhofer: We do not need a vote on this. If Pieter and Rolf go ahead with their book.