Peer review of my proposal

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.

As part of my daily PKM I saw Brendan’s post where he outlined his plan to use Google Docs for his review.  I thought this was a great idea and created a link to my Google doc on October 16.

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

Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism A learning theory for today’s learner. Retrieved October 28, 2014, from Connectivism:


About Paul Size

Currently studying a Masters in Learning and Development at the University of Southern Queensland.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s