Showing posts with label Handley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Handley. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 August 2009

Consultants and knowledge transfer

"Do you/are you going to include knowledge transfer as a part of value creation?"
someone asked me. But consultants are less purveyors of knowledge than knowledge brokers. They facilitate transfer of knowledge between client parties rather than from themselves to the client. Andrew Sturdy at Warwick knows this. He and his colleagues on an ESRC project spent months doing the sort of research I'd love to do. It was reported here in 2007.

So my thesis will have to explain something about knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange.

Sunday, 19 July 2009

Production

I've produced:
  1. a rewritten paper on my second case study to my supervisors and
  2. a review of a really useful new book by Sturdy et al about consultants
And I've marked a couple of early computing assignments.

Next task must be to work on another case study. And to keep looking for access to IT projects in the public sector.

Monday, 11 August 2008

Participation

I'm trying to distinguish between engagement and other concepts like participation.
  • user participation for developing and testing IT projects
  • dimensions of participation are: responsibility, hands-on activities, user-IS relationships (Barki and Hartwick, 1994 :423)
  • "a set of behaviours or activities performed by users in the system development process" (Barki and Hartwick, 1989)
  • increases bureaucracy {Axelrod, 2001}
  • involves hearts and minds (Handley et al., 2007)
  • leads to involvement (Hartwick and Barki, 1994)
  • refers to a process of taking part and to the relationship with others that reflects the process, i.e. both action and connection, reserved for actors who are members of social communities (p56). It is not collaboration. It is a constituent of meaning so is broader than engagement. (Wenger, 1998)
Now that last point by Wenger, does sound important. Engagement is a sub-set of participation, whereas I'd been thinking of participation as something specialised, that meant users of systems had to participate (because management said so) but that management didn't do. Wenger's point concurs with Mike Hales findings that participation in design can work, but that strategic management has to do something too.


AXELROD, R. H. (2001) Terms of engagement: changing the way we change organizations. Journal for Quality & Participation, 24, 22.
BARKI, H. & HARTWICK, J. (1989) Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13, 53-63.
BARKI, H. & HARTWICK, J. (1994) Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18, 59-82.
HALES, M. (1993) User participation in design - what it can deliver, what it can't and what this means for management. IN QUINTAS, P. (Ed.) Social dimensions of systems engineering: people, processes, policies and software development. Horwood.
HANDLEY, K., CLARK, T., FINCHAM, R. & STURDY, A. (2007) Researching Situated Learning. Management Learning, 38, 173-191.
HARTWICK, J. & BARKI, H. (1994) Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use. Management Science, 40, 440-465.
WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Friday, 23 May 2008

Engagement

I know engagement is a good thing, but I'm not quite clear what it is:
  • commitment
  • participation
  • involvement
  • ?
If clients must engage with consultants, then what does engagement entail? Here's my comparison of understanding of engagement in the literature.


















CategoryCitation Understanding Comments
Government .NAO, 2006 Departments lacked engagement with supplier & community
Engagement should be both of people in the organisation and among the consultants. Engagement implies gaining enthusiasm and energy to see the project through to conclusion.
..
Government .NAO, 2006 Engagement leads to commitment, and NAO
1. developed framework for building commitment &
2. made recommendations to improve engagement
..
Government .NAO, 2006 Conflates senior level engagement and ‘intelligent client’. thus implying the multi-headedness of the client
Government .NAO, 2006 Engagement and collaborative relationships are referred to as if synonyms ..
Practitioner .Czerniawska, 2006 .Argues that extent of engagement between clients and consultants determines the success of consulting projects but doesn’t define engagement. ..
Practitioner Block, 2000 .Devotes a whole chapter to the term & recommends Axelrod ..
Practitioner Axelrod, 2007 .Identifies that participation in the sense of compliance is not enough to be involved .He distinguishes the term as requiring involvement.
Practitioner .Axelrod, 2006 . .Axelrod identifies an engagement gap between those who have initiated a project for change and everyone else. An engagement gap can widen between the groups. An ecumenical i.e. inclusive and collective approach, to change theory will narrow that gap. .Follow up in project research
Academic.Barki, 1989 .defined and examined user participation ..
Academic.Barki, 1994 Hartwick, 1994 examined user participation and user involvement ..
AcademicBarki, 1989 .Barki and Hartwick defined user involvement as a psychological state when the user considers a system to be both important and personally relevant ..
Academic.Hartwick, 1994 Hartwick and Barki talk about involvement
“overall responsibility is the most important antecedent of user involvement and attitude toward the system”
..
AcademicPeled, 2001 Peled recommends that management develop interest in technological projects. ..
AcademicBiehl, 2007 .found that top management involvement and real commitment was a success factor in IS project development on big and complex projects .Biehl refers to commitment as if synonymous with involvement but doesn’t define involvement
Academic.Fincham, 2002 & 1999 .Fincham refers to engagement in and he uses it in a political context with reference to power games. Not useful at the moment
Academic Handley, 2007
.They note a differentiation between participation & engagement:
“What seems to be required is a way of differentiating between participation and what Wenger calls ‘mere engagement in practice’ (Wenger, 1998: 75). A key assumption here seems to be that participation involves ‘hearts and minds’”.
This could be a useful section to work from.



Axelrod, R. H. (2001) 'Why Change Management Needs Changing', Reflections, 2 (3), pp. 46-57. 732
Axelrod, R. H. (2007) 'How to Get Others Involved', Harvard Management Update, 12 (8), pp. 2-2. 743
Axelrod, R. H., Axelrod, E., Jacobs, R. W. and Beedon, J. (2006) 'Beat the Odds and Succeed in Organizational Change', Consulting to Management - C2M, 17 (2), pp. 6-9. 744
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (1989) 'Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement', MIS Quarterly, 13 (1), pp. 53-63. 757
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (1994) 'Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude', MIS Quarterly, 18 (1), pp. 59-82. 746
Biehl, M. (2007) 'SUCCESS FACTORS for Implementing Global Information Systems', Communications of the ACM, 50 (1), pp. 53-58. 700
Block, P. (2000) Flawless Consulting: a guide to getting your expertise used, (2 Edn), Jossey-Bass/Fpeiffer. 27
Czerniawska, F. (2006). Ensuring sustainable value from consultants. 49
Fincham, R. (1999) 'THE CONSULTANT-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE', Journal of Management Studies, 36 (3), pp. 335-351. 522
Fincham, R. (2002) 'The Agent's Agent', International Studies of Management & Organization, 32 (4), pp. 67-86. 500
Handley, K., Clark, T., Fincham, R. and Sturdy, A. (2007) 'Researching Situated Learning', Management Learning, 38 (2), pp. 173-191. 458
Hartwick, J. and Barki, H. (1994) 'Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use', Management Science, 40 (4), pp. 440-465. 749
NAO (2006a) Central Government's use of consultants Vol. HC 128 Session 2006-2007 National Audit Office. 577
NAO (2006b) Central Government's use of consultants: Building client and consultant commitment National Audit Office. 109
NAO (2006c) Delivering successful IT-enabled business change Vol. HC 33-1 National Audit Office. 682
NAO (2006d) Good governance: Measuring Success Through Collaborative Working Relationships HMSO. 818<