Here is the link to Performance Support and the modern workforce as discussed in my presentation. This software is a great step forward in just-in-time learning.
The peer review for the second assignment provided an opportunity to explore the collaborative nature of Design Based Research (DBR) to solve real problems (Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004). My plan to gain peer review also aimed to allow flexibility in my approach so I could learn off my peers.
Firstly, I planned to generate a peer review on my blog. In one of my posts, I discussed the problems I faced in my role as a training manager involved in ERP implementations. I also flagged three potential research questions. David responded and prompted me to think about stakeholder mindsets surrounding ERP implementations and the impact of these on successful knowledge transfer. I came across an article by Marsh (2000), who identified that one of the failure factors in ERP implementations is stakeholder mindsets, which views ERPs as quick technological fixes rather than as strategic investments.
On October 23, I added a post where I discussed my success of using LinkedIn to generate further discussion around my identified issue. I felt that this was successful because I received four useful responses; one from an organisational change manager, Laurice Asmar, one from Francis McDowell the Director of Innovative Thinking one from Sandra a colleague and finally a late response from James another colleague. Francis’ response encouraged me think about the loss of knowledge at the various phases of the ERP projects. Laurice’s response encouraged me to think about the problems around vendor selection and who owns the knowledge management plan. Sandra’s response was on the day I planned to post this blog. She asked me to to consider research around the perceived importance of content and how this differs across auidences with the aim of ensuring that the content is accurate, focussed, important and will lead to the desired outcomes. Sandra also highlighted the problems she faces in knowledge transfer in ERP projects which I correlated with the literature and she pointed me towards Chris Kenyon’s work and an article titled ‘Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning.’ Finally, James asked me to consider how I could use a blog to as a narrative to lead towards more creative sharing.
Once the problem was analysed by practitioners I was able to move onto pursuing both knowledge and interventions to address the problem (McKeeney & Reeves, 2013). The peer review provided information, which allowed me to focus on solutions linking literature and commence building a draft design based upon a theoretical framework. Through this iterative cycle, I was able to test and refine the solutions based upon the scaffolding of responses within the Google doc. Course colleagues, Anne Trethewey, Deb Liriges and Annelise Mitchell took the time to provide feedback on my proposal. Many of the contributions were around clarity and requests for references but also around the nature of ERP issues. Deb challenged me to think about drilling down and not casting such a broad net – as a result, I refined my research questions. Deb also asked whether I could provide some context relevant examples to illustrate key points as well as requesting a diagram to illustrate the knowledge management processes. ERP implementations were new for Annelise and she encouraged me to rethink my language choice to assist those who may not have an ERP background.
The benefit of using NGL principles within the DBR proposal meant that I was able to reflect and take advantage of the iterative process. The learning was cyclical and through connecting and sharing with a network I was able to not only find new information but to rethink some of my beliefs around NGL principles.
In hindsight, I would have liked to have generated more discussion and I think more time would have helped. One of the principles of NGL lies in the richness of diversity of opinions. Siemens (2014) suggests that such diversity is needed to learn effectively. I discovered first-hand the benefit of Connectivism where one learns as knowledge is created (Kop & Hill, 2008). With more time I would have like to have traversed more networks, which would have potentially provided linkages between concepts and ideas (Siemens, 2008).
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Marsh, A. (2000). ‘The implementation of enterprise resource-planning systems in small-medium manufacturing enterprises in South-East Queensland a case study approach”, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Int. Conf. Manage. Innov. Technol. 2: 592-7.
McKeeney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A Development Research Agenda for Online Collaborative Learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 54(4), 53-66.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism A learning theory for today’s learner. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from Connectivism: http://www.connectivism.ca/about.html
How can Connectivism and Networked Global Learning (NGL) principles be used in ERP system implementations?
The aim of this design-based research (DBR) proposal is to present a theory-informed plan for using NGL to transform my approach to supporting ERP system implementations as a training manager. The structure of this proposal is based on the first two phases of a DBR project as described by Herrington et al (2007).
PHASE 1: Analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners in collaboration
1.1 Statement of the problem and context
When organisations introduce new technology, end users need to learn how to use it. However, they are often time limited, have competing priorities and different learning styles that are often difficult to address in time starved projects. According to Dockery (2014), underestimating the importance of employee training has become the downfall for some and ERP implementation success is ninety percent about people, process, culture and politics and only ten percent about IT.
Knowledge transfer is recognised as an important success factor in IT implementation projects of any type (Gallivan, Spilter and Koufaris, 2004; Hines and Goodhue, 2003; Karlsen and Gottschalk, 2004) and the success of any ERP deployment primarily comes down to three criteria one of which is system adoption and continued use by end users (Paradis, 2011). However, the problem is that knowledge is often lost during the transfer from consultants or experts to the final users of the ERP system during its implementation and this cause innumerable of problems (Lech, 2011). My aim is to address this problem through the use of NGL principles and Connectivism.
As a training manager for technology projects, my practice has been affected by the problems identified and described above. In a recent ERP system implementation there were knowledge transfer related issues that caused problems for end users who needed to learn how to use the system.
1.3 Research questions
The following research questions have emerged from the identified problem of knowledge transfer for ERP system implementations.
RQ1. Can Networked Global Learning (NGL) principles and Connectivism support end users learn how to use new software products?
RQ2. Can NGL principles reduce dependence upon IT support desks?
RQ3. Can NGL principles reduce retraining costs post implementation?
1.4 Literature Review
In a knowledge economy, the ability for organisations to manage knowledge is critical not only for survival but to maintain competitive advantage (Li & Zhao, 2006; Shariq, 1997). IT projects are knowledge-intensive activities (Tiwana, 2003) and the role of knowledge management (KM) in ERP system implementations is complex. Knowledge in ERP implementations is not the only important factor, other equally important factors include communication, change management and stakeholder involvement (Akkermans & Van Heldon, 2002; Leknes & Munkvold, Unknown).
There are many problems and challenges in implementing new IT support systems (Hanisch, Lindner, Mueller, & Wald, 2009) and whether the implementation involves an off-the-shelf software package or a newly developed system, the end goal is to create multiple sources of knowledge about technologies and business processes to create organisational value (Reich, Germino & Sauer, 2008). Effective knowledge management during ERP projects involves both application of principles and processes as well as the integration of knowledge (Lech, 2011). The key is to make relevant knowledge available to the project team at the right time.
Knowledge transfer during ERP system implementations has been highlighted as a critical element of project success (Enand, 1999; Mazzawi, 2014; Wachnick, 2013). As ERP implementation failures are so high and the impact to businesses so detrimental it is important to understand the factors causing such failures (Wong, Chau, Scarbrough, & Davison, 2005). However, many of the factors are hidden which result in costs which are often overlooked and underrated.
Knowledge management within an ERP
Knowledge is dynamic in ERP projects. It can be found in people, processes, technology and content as well as intangible assets and intellectual capital (Lech, 2011). McGinnis and Huang (2007) point out that knowledge within an ERP project needs to be managed strategically so that both the knowledge and the network of people that hold the knowledge need to be acknowledged as key assets and treated as such.
KM with an ERP environment involves the ability to identify the strengths and weakness of organisational and individual knowledge; where and how it is created, stored, embedded, applied, transferred and renewed (Wong, Chau, Scarbrough, & Davison, 2005). The success of ERP projects depends not just upon the ability to integrate and manage knowledge (Kasvi, Vartiainen, & Hailikari, 2003) but also on understanding knowledge risks and practices (Leseure & Brookes, 2004). Some organisations have the mindset that knowledge is to be confined to databases. However, organisations at the forefront of KM are focusing on knowledge networks created and used by people and this is where NGL plays an important role (Kop & Hill, 2008).
Extensive meta-knowledge is required in an ERP project to ensure it finds its way into the right format so that learning artefacts, which are developed are fit for purpose. Knowledge taxonomies focus upon enabling the efficient retrieval and sharing of knowledge across an organisation by building structure around workflows to ensure that knowledge is classified and fits an intuitive structure (Pellini & Jones, 2011). Knowledge taxonomies may include specific types of knowledge such as; business, technical, product, company-specific, project management, institutional and communication and coordination knowledge (Lech, 2011). Such taxonomies provide perspective on the ERP project, impact future projects and can provide users with valuable transferable knowledge which can support decision making when using the new software.
Knowledge taxonomies are also important because they can make explicit knowledge available just-in-time (Gertler, 2003). Similarly, they can assist in dealing with the difficulties of tacit knowledge which is locked in the staff experience. This is where networked global learning can be used to promote collaboration and sharing between units, departments and help organisations map and coordinate and knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
In order for an ERP to be successful not only are effective supporting processes required but competency development must be supported (Stephenson, 1994 & McAuliffe et al., 2008 as cited in Blaschke, 2012). Competencies may include problem solving, interpersonal communication, leadership, teamwork, analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, strategic orientation, time, quality and project management (Plan & Willcocks, 2007). The problem is that often these things are overlooked.
Communities of Practice (CoPs)
Communities of practice (CoP) are a useful tool to tap into an organisation’s knowledge and their existence is growing due to their organic nature, ability to share what works, steward knowledge and continuously nurture and tap into knowledge (Hasanali, Hubert, Lopez, Newhouse, O’Dell, & Vestal, 2002). CoPs recognise that immense deposits of latent knowledge lie within organisations and through collaboration and sharing, they can tap into that knowledge and encourage it to flow to the right people at the right time.
Many organisations now understand the value of CoPs to the point that they are now being incorporated into internal knowledge management plans (Kerno & Mace, 2010). The strengths of CoPs lie in the model of situated learning which means that learning occurs as a result of engagement in a CoP (Smith, 2009). Members share a joint history, interact frequently, share knowledge and experience similar concerns (Lave & Wenger, 1991). They also tend to develop similar ways of doing things, interpreting events and dealing with unexpected issues. CoPs can be effective tools for learning and working in and across organisations and are useful to support ERP implementations. Hislop (2003) found that CoPs influenced the innovation process through their knowledge sharing processes.
Social learning is of great importance for ERP implementations. The value of sharing knowledge means that organisations can innovate quickly based upon the knowledge exchange between users (Williams, Steward and Slack, 2005). In the ERP world, learning communities, even though they may be distributed, can support end users with knowledge transfer. They can support concrete learning needs for people who may not have opportunities to come face-to-face for training or meetings.
Knowledge does not need to remain internal. Social learning means that there is potential for connecting across and between organisations. For example, consider an organisation with a geographically dispersed workforce. Imagine people in isolated communities who need help in using new software which their organisation has implemented – they have no peers with whom to interact and whose local networks may lack the necessary diversity, knowledge and experience to provide assistance. Social learning, with the support of the right technology, offers the potential for trouble-shooting and problem solving together and learning from each other’s successes and mistakes (Fahy & Easterby-Smith, 2014).
Technology – linking Information and Communications Technology (ICT) with people
Technology is the key to linking people and experience. Web 2.0 and social media support a heutagogical approach which means learners can direct and determine their learning path – they become active rather than passive in their learning experience (Blaschke, 2012). As Hildreth & Kimble (2004) suggest, engagement in practice brings about resources that allow shared meanings to develop. So if end users are going to be supported in the use of new technology they must have access to tools that will support them to engage and share knowledge (Blaschke, 2012).
Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they attempt to interact with experiences and makes sense of them (Driscoll, 2000). This is important because in the world of social learning through ICT, learning occurs through connections with networks (Siemens, 2014). Through connectivism knowledge is distributed between such networks and learning involves the ability to construct and traverse those networks (Downes, 2007).
For ERP implementations it is important to note that learners are at the centre of the learning experience – it isn’t the trainer or the organisation. In addition, the networks, which are created to support Connectivism, provide expertise and knowledge as well as guidance (Kop & Hill, 2008). Such networks are diverse and meet the needs of learners (Downs, 2007b) and such diversity means that opinions are varied and this is where knowledge and learning rests (Siemens, 2004).
One of the other attractions of Connectivism is its just-in-time approach. This means that users can access the right information when they need it through active networking within and between occupational groups and teams rather than having to scour the intranet for a solution. Knowledge that is generated through an ERP project is tacit and it can be made available to others through active Connectivism.
Innovation through NGL
Connectivism and NGL supports knowledge for innovation and the fluidity in which knowledge can travel through networks means that knowledge can be codified in ways that are useful to members (Swan & Robertson, 1999). For example, individual employee involvement in professional associations has been shown to facilitate the adoption and diffusion of new ideas. Through such networking users become aware of new technologies and acquire knowledge and information through boundary spanning activities.
In terms of change management activities, internal networking is important as a means to not only understanding innovation processes but also how these are conceived. Critical success factors as highlighted by Gannon-Leary & Fontainha (2007), include the use of technology, trust in and acceptance of, ICTs in communication, a sense of belonging among members, paying attention to cross-national and cross-cultural dimensions of the CoP; shared understandings, a common sense of purpose, use of netiquette and user-friendly language and longevity.
The transfer of knowledge in ERPs
It is important to recognise that the transfer of knowledge occurs at multiple stages throughout the entire ERP development. Knowledge management within an ERP project must acknowledge the different project stages. How this knowledge is managed and transformed will, ultimately impact not only the quality of learning artefacts but how the knowledge is transferred (Lech, 2011). Table 1.0, based upon Usman & Ahmad (2012) identifies the different project stages, knowledge types, the role of KM and the parties involved.
Project phases and knowledge development
|Project phase||KM Types||Role of KM||Parties involved|
|Selecting ERP for implementation||
|Identifying the right package||project manager (PM)
change and communication manager
business process maps
|Creating integration between business and system||PMIT lead
subject matter experts (SMEs)
|Go-live maintenance and support||trouble shooting
transfer of product and company knowledge
|Using, transferring and storing data||PM
IT support team training manager
Knowledge building post implementation
After a software product has been implemented, the need for ongoing end user support is important. The important thing to remember is that as end users interact and troubleshoot with the system, new tacit knowledge is developed (Kapp, 2001) which can be captured, codified and formalised so that the organisation and others can benefit (Lech, 2011). NGL offers the opportunity to make use of tacit knowledge through collaboration between people in a social and contextual community – it is integral and inseparable from learning through social practice (Lam, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Successful online customer communities (OCC) provide examples of how ERP knowledge transfer can occur using NGL principles. OCCs are interactive, often gated websites that are setup for customers to collaborate on topics of mutual interest. It is a place where like-minded individuals come together to collaborate online and discuss brand or a set of products and services (Hinchcliffe, 2008).
Some of the successful OCCs include; Adobe Learning Communities, Caterpillar Caterpillar Community and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Business Community. The important thing to remember is that building end user communities is the key to creating value (Lee, 2013). What organisations need is old-fashioned positive word of mouth and they can achieve this by helping employees build social capital through support groups and communities (Lee, 2013).
Often customer communities emerge without the support of a company. Successful examples include IKEAFANS on IKEA products and HDTalking for Harley-Davidson. These communities are vibrant, active and not affiliated with the business that the communities are focused upon. The goal for organisations implementing an ERP is to create online communities using NGL principles. Such online interaction offers a way to support distributed communities by widening their depth and potentially enriching their learning. Organisations who wish to take advantage of such communities need to understand the power of online networks to ensure they are able to support and leverage groups and communities of all types. By doing this they can take advantage of the benefits of such communities, which include social media marketing, innovation, relationship building and potential sales.
Phase 2: Development of solutions informed by existing design principles and technological innovations
4. A description of the proposed intervention
The plan for the proposed implementation involves a new approach to learning that the organisation has not previously experienced. Based on what Downes (2007) says, it involves providing users access to knowledge that is distributed across a networked of connections where learning based on the ability to traverse those networks. The planned intervention relies upon interactions by self-directed learners (Anderson, 2009) and relies upon the power of social network in information connection, sharing and filtering to take advantage of collective knowledge (Wang, Chen & Anderson, 2014).
The focus of the proposed intervention will be enabling collaboration between end users. This will be done by implementing a platform that reflects NGL principles. The aim is to provide end users with the opportunity for connected learning through Connectivism and experience peer-supported and targeted, relevant learning.
The expected impacts include; both potential negative and positive impacts. Firstly, negative impacts may include complaints about the actual ERP system which could result in negative word of mouth. Another potential negative impact could include possible knee jerk reactions from business stakeholders who are afraid of losing control of the knowledge.
Potential positive impacts could include; knowledge building, the establishment of communities of practice and reduced business costs.
5. A plan for implementation
Stage 1 – creation and communication of online blog
The first stage will involve setting up a blog with a link from the current intranet site, which houses the existing learning artefacts. The blog will be promoted through a range of internal communication. The blog will be initially supported by several subject matter experts who will provide answers to end-users who raise issues around trouble shooting. The aim is to encourage people to collaborate and support people in a situated learning context by creating a dynamic environment which actively integrates a wide range of distributed content that is pulled by the network learner, not pushed towards them.
Stage 2 – removal of subject matter experts
The second stage will involve removing direct support by subject matter experts. The aim is to encourage end user collaboration and sharing of explanations, learning and troubleshooting without direct business support (Vygotsky, 1978). It is based upon the assumption that if end users see that they own the site then they maybe more likely to use it when it is peer supported.
Stage 3 – iterative cycle of testing and refinement of solutions in practice
The implementation design will allow for refinement through an iterative cycle which involves allowing for changes to the implementation. This may involve a range of different platforms to see which is more suitable for end users as well as a range of different communication strategies to market the platform.
The proposed intervention will focus upon what still needs to be learned about knowledge transfer within the context of ERP system implementations and the benefit of support using NGL principles. In particular the benefits of sharing, blogging and whether learning occurs to support ERP implementation through Connectivism. Furthermore, it will be interesting to refer back to the research questions and to see whether, as a result, of the implementation, new organisational mechanisms that reflect the benefits of NGL are a key priority for future project as well as new pedagogies that deliver a higher quality learning experience.
Akkermans, H., & Van Heldon, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 35-46.
Anderson, T. (2009). The dance of technology and pedagogy in self-paced distance education. Paper presented at the 17th ICDE World Congress, Maastricht.
Blaschke, L. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 13(1), 56-71. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076/2087
Dockery, H. (2014, June 5). End-user training: an afterthought or the key to ERP success? Retrieved October 31, 2014, from Training – the source for professional development: http://www.trainingmag.com/end-user-training-afterthought-or-key-erp-success.
Downes, S. (2007). What Connectivism Is. Connectivism Conference: University of Manitoba.
Downes, S. (2007b). What is Connectivism Is. Online Connectivism Conference. University of Manitoba.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fahy, M. K., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2014). The power of spatial and temporal orderings in organizational learning. Management Learning, 45(2), 123-144.
Gallivan, M. J., Spitler, V. K., & Koufaris, M. (2005). Does Information Technology Training Really Matter? A Social Information Processing Analysis of Coworkers Influence on IT Usage in the Workplace. In V. Zwass, Journal of Management Information Systems (Vol. 22, pp. 153-192). M.E Sharpe.
Gannon-Leary, P., & Fontainha, E. (2007). Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors. Elearning papers, 5, 20-29.
Gertler, M.S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography. 3(1), pp. 75-99. doi: 10.1093/jeg/3.1.75.
Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160.
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice. USA: Idea Group Publishing.
Hislop, D. (2003). The complex relations between communities of practice and the implementation of technological innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2). DOI:10.1142/S1363919603000775
Kasvi, J., Vartiainen, M., & Hailikari, M. (2003). Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 571-582.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Kumar, J. A., & Ganesh, L. S. (2009). Research on Knowledge Transfer in Organisations – a Morphology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 161-174.
Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organizational Studies, 21(3), 487-513.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lech, P. (2011, December). Knowledge Transfer Procedures from consutlants to users in ERP Implementations. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 297-364.
Leknes, J., & Munkvold, B. E. (Unknown). The Role of Knowledge Management in ERP Implementation: A Case Study in Aker Kvaerner. Retrieved from October 12, 2014 from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20060153.pdf.
Leseure, m. J., & Brookes, N. J. (2004). Knowledge management benchmarks for project management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 103-116.
Li, L., & Zhao, X. P. (2006). Enhancing competitive edge through knowledge management in implementing ERP. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(2), 129-140.
Mazzawi, R. (2014, May). Enterprise resource planning implementation failure: A case study from Jordan. Journal of Business Administration and Management Sciences Research, 3(5), 79-86.
McGinnis, T. C., & Huang, Z. (n.d.). Rethinking ERP success: A new perspective from knowledge management and continuous improvement. Information & Management, 44(7), 626-634.
Paradis, P. (2011). The three critical success factors for successful ERP deployment. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.dashe.com/blog/erp-training/the-three-critical-success-factors-for-successful-erp-deployment/
Pellini, A., & Jones, H. (2011). A Study of ADB’s Knowledge Taxonomy. Manila: ADB Retrieved from http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5720&title=knowledge-taxonomy.
Plant, R., & Willcocks, L. (2007). Critical success factors in international ERP implementations: a case research approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(3), 60.
Reich, B. H. (2007). Managing knowledge and learning in IT projects: a conceptual framework and guidelines for practice. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 5-17.
Reich, B. H., Germino, A., & Sauer, C. (2008). Modelling the knowledge perspective of IT projects. Project Management Journal, 39(S1), S4-S14.
Sedera, D. (2009). Knowledge management for enterprise systems: observations from small, medium and large organizations. PACIS 2009 Proccedings, paper 1.
Shariq, S. Z. (1997). Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline. Journal of knowledge management, 1(1), 75-82.
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from elearnspace everything elearning: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2014, December 12). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from elearnspace everything elearning: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Swan, J. N., & Robertson, M. (1999). Central agencies in the diffusion and design of technology: a comparison of the UK and Sweden. Organization Studies, 20(6), 905-9321.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation: networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262-275.
Tiwana, A. (2003). Knowledge partitioning in outsourced software development: a field study. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems, 259-270.
Usman, U. Z., & Ahmad, M. N. (2012, March). Knowledge Management in success of ERP Systems. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 21-28.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachnick, B. (2013). Knowledge transfer in management support system implementation. Informatin and Software Technologies Communications in Computer and Information Science, 403, 46-56.
Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A Framework for Interaction and Cognitive Engagement in Connectivist Learning Contexts. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 15(2), 121-141.
Williams, R., Steward, T., Slack, R. (2005) Social learning in technological innovation and communication technologies. Massachusetts, USA. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wong, A., Chau, P. Y., Scarbrough, H., & Davison, R. (2005). Critical Failure Factors in ERP Implementation. Paper presented at the Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS).
Thanks to all who have had a read and have taken the time to provide feedback on my proposal to date. If anybody requires some extra eyes to go over their work please yell out and I’d be happy to help – I think the more we get involved with each other’s work the better we will all be for it.
I also had a little success by putting a link through my LinkedIn page – well only one comment so far but I rate that as successful! It’s actually a little like fishing – trying to find the right bait. I also have linked my LinkedIn to my twitter account (which I very rarely use) so hopefully that will generate a few responses.
How can NGL principles be used to support ERP implementations? – I’d love some candid and constructive feedback!!
Hi all, here’s the link to my Google Doc. I’d love some feedback.
I’m after some feedback on my research proposal.
Like Brendan’s approach, I’m going to use Google Docs as well as my blog. I have already added some initial ideas to my blog, which, through an iterative approach will be tested and refined as I go along. The idea is to use an approach that is grounded in characteristics of design-based research: ‘Pragmatic, Grounded, Interactive, iterative and flexible, Integratvie and Contextual.’ (Wang and Hannafin, 2005).
This week I aim to link up my Google Doc – it would be great if I could get some feedback on that when it arrives.
To get started and to give some idea about where I am heading I have listed below the problem and some research questions.
Statement of problem
- Knowledge transfer is recognised as an important success factor in IT implementations (Gallivan, Spilter and Koufaris, 2004; Hines and Goodhue, 2003; Karlsen and Gottschalk, 2004). The problem is that knowledge is lost during the transfer from consultants or experts to the final users of the ERP system during its implementation.
- How can NGL be used to support knowledge between the client and consultants regarding business needs and process the system should support?
- How can NGL be used to support the client in how the IT solution works?
- How can NGL be used to ensure end users are not only supported but can build their competency in using new software?
thanks for reading.
A Case Study on Click Connect and Coalesce for NGOs: Exploring the Intersection Between Online Networks, CoPs, and Events
-Bellanet is a Canadian NGO working with the development community to increase collaboration by providing advice and assistance on making more effective use of ICTs
-They started with an email list – KM for Dev (Knowledge Management for International Development Organisations)
-As at Nov 202 that list had 233 members and over 1000 posted messages
-Interchanges focus upon the understanding of KM and its role in development as well as the cultural context most of the members experience working across the globe
-Those who ask questions on the list are frequently answered
-Now vibrant communities which have sprung out of KM workshops organised by Bellanet in Washington DC and Brighton in 2000, Chennai and Maputo in 2001 and The Hague in 2002. These small, highly interactive workshops have not only provided a venue foe knowledge sharing and collaborative work but the nurturing of relationships between individuals and their organisations
-The walls of this CoP are quite permeable…as members from the larger network enter and exit via either workshop participation or the deeper discussions that emerge on the list
-Face to face gatherings are essential to the community
-Steinlin noted, however, as the membership of the list grew and the participating groups at the events varied, that he sensed some dilution of the original community. Steinlin suggests that meeting at least every 18 months and limiting the size of the community is key for a CoP.
-In 2002, Bellanet added an Internet Portal for the community to allow greater sharing of resources. It is still primarily populated by staff members and a few frequent contributors; it does not yet appear to be a core element of either the network or the CoP. Yet, it exists and may see more uptake over time. In addition, Bellanet has been a working experiment on open source portal development: an issue of practical interest to the group.
-Again, a large network (the international development community) feeds into a more defined network (community of interest) that is primarily supported by the KM for Dev email list. Within the network, a rich connected community exists and supports the members in their work to apply KM to development. The community is punctuated and glued more tightly together through the intermittent face-to-face meetings and catalytic moments on the email list. In turn, that CoP is a strong contributing element to the network. The flow goes in both directions, keeping both stronger than they would be on their own.
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice. USA: Idea Group Publishing.