Searching the literature for engagement, but it is elusive in the form that I understand it. I think that when the NAO and OGC literature says that senior managers should engage with consultants or suppliers, it means in the sense of committing to a project, building up a relationship that is positive and being involved. However the dictionary and thesaurus suggest engagement in terms of conflict, like engaging with the enemy, and the academic literature seems to be about engaging with tasks and processes rather than with people, and the IT academic literature is about participation, which isn't quite the same.
:(
This blog is of doctoral study at the Open University Business School (OUBS)in the UK, of how public organisations work with their external third party suppliers on IT projects. The research aims to investigate how engagement contributes and influences relationships between clients and consultants and if engagement helps deliver value to a project.
About Me
- eLizH
- Boomer! My business card says I'm a university researcher but another card would say: associate lecturer, tutor, teacher, volunteer, wife, mother, stepmother and grandmother. Or choir member, or glider pilot, or that I have my black belt 2nd Dan in tae kwon do
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(171)
-
▼
July
(19)
- Advice
- Ethics approval
- Working hypotheses
- The question of engagement
- Too much to read
- Engagement
- NVivo difficulties
- Systematic review again
- Mini-viva
- Systematic review
- New! from Cranfield
- Wrong language
- Learning & systems
- Template analysis course
- Qualitative analysis
- Argument for research question
- Robin Wilson
- Careers
- OUBS research week - publishing
-
▼
July
(19)
Pages
Sometimes blogging
Blogging with discipline
1 comment:
Hi again, in the literature there is a lot of confusion about engagement. Whether it should be an outcome, a process, etc, etc. I can be brave in my book and try and define it, but as you say it is a difficult to define subject. David
Post a Comment