Measuring Software Engineering Evolution: A Rasch Calibration

Dekleva, Sasa M.; Drehmer, David E.

doi:10.1287/isre.8.1.95

Cited by 62 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, from the preceding statements, it is evident that the development of specific organizational capabilities for knowledge management is crucial if the organization intends to gain the advantages that result from sound knowledge management. As well, recent studies support this mantra that the development of specific organizational capabilities for knowledge management is best assured by a maturity model of specific capabilities (Siemens, 2001;Klimko, 2001;Kaner and Karni, 2004;Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001;Dayan and Stephen, 2006;Berztiss, 2002;Johnson and Brodman, 2002;Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001). Hence, the following section discusses the concept of a maturity model for specific organizational capabilities for knowledge management.…”

Section: Knowledge Management Competencies As Specific Organizationalmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…178) propose a competency model for information technology and argue that the expression for particular competencies depends: « (1) Persons that apply their knowledge; (2) The way by which people integrate their knowledge; (3) The way in which people interact with others; (4) The way by which people coordinate their activities ». The work of Venkatraman (1994), Dekleva and Drehmer (2001), Luftman et al (2004), Peppart and Ward (2004), and St-Amant and Renard (2004) on information technology and management supports the improvement of performance levels that an organization may attain after developing specific organizational capabilities for knowledge management.…”

Section: Maturity Models For Knowledge Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…initial processes, unpredictable and weakly controlled (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001), initial processes: organizationally ad hoc and chaotic, expressed and put into place in processes that are not defined (St-Amant and Renard, 2004); 3-process of knowledge application: no formal process, reaction on a case to case basis (Luftman et al, 2004); ♦ KM Skills: 1-capacities to facilitate the continuous process of KM: people apply locally their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004); 2-ability to develop a human resource structure: little motivation or reward (Luftman et al, 2004); 3-abilities to use available technologies for KM: success depends on individual efforts and knowledge (St-Amant and Renard, 2004); 4-knowledge management culture: absence of a culture and an organizational vision aimed at encouraging the capture, conservation, and sharing of knowledge (Armbrecht et al, 2001). …”

Section: Presentation Of the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Low High 279 (Venkatraman, 1994), KM becomes an asset for supporting business affairs but there still remains incompatibility between KM and business (Luftman et al, 2004); 2-on structural infrastructure design: specific structures exist for KM but isolated and non-integrated; ♦ KM Processes: 1-at the process level for generating knowledge: internal integration for processes of KM (Venkatraman, 1994); 2-manipulation of knowledge: structured processes and reproducible (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001); 3-processes for knowledge application: organizational knowledge expressed and put into place in defined and documented processes (St-Amant and Renard, 2004;Harigopal and Satyadas, 2001;Kaner and Kani, 2004;Siemens, 2001;Klimko, 2001); ♦ KM Skills: 1-capacity to facilitate the continuous process of KM: people integrate their knowledge (Peppart and Ward, 2004); 2-Ability to develop a human resource structure: improvement in effort, competencies, and knowledge, both individual and organizational (St-Amant and Renard, 2004); 3-Ability to use available technologies for KM: Success depends on organizational effort and competencies; 4-knowledge management culture: KM is perceived as support for transactions and different company functions for sound decision making (Luftman and al, 2004).…”

Section: Level Of Maturitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…♦ KM Processes: 1-at the process level for generating knowledge: re-engineering of process affairs because of KM (Venkatraman, 1994); 2-manipulation of knowledge: pertinent and integrated processes for KM across the organization (Luftman et al, 2004), processes standardized, coherent, defined and mostly well understood (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001); 3-processes for knowledge application: defined and repeated processes for improving organizational capabilities (St-Amant and Renard, 2004 IT infrastructure and the KMS are extended to outside partners; 2-on structural infrastructure design, creation of a specific structure within the organization to manage the integration of IT and KMS between the organization and its outside partners. ♦ KM Processes: 1-at the process level for generating knowledge: re-engineering of the KM (Venkatraman, 1994); 2-manipulation of knowledge: processes mastered, measured, and controlled (Dekleva and Drehmer, 2001), 3-processes for knowledge application: processes are documented, and their results are quantitatively controllable and measurable (St-Amant and Renard, 2004).…”

Section: Level Of Maturitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Forecasting Stock Exchange Opening with Foreign Stock Markets: Evidence from the NYSE and the SSE

Ye¹

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AcknowledgementsThere is a great deal of work to coordinate and administer all of the activities of the Atlantic Schools of Business Conference. In particular, the coordination of activities from the call for papers to the acceptance process is very extensive. We would like to thank the many people involved to help us with this central aspect of the conference. Thanks to Ms. Amanda Strongman who took on the initiative and perseverance to automate the paper submission process using Easy Chair this year. The use of this tool provided many insights from an organizing perspective that were invaluable. We would also like to thank the track chairs (see next section for a track chair list) who provided timely and helpful feedback about how to improve the process and managed the review process for the papers submitted to their tracks. Their commitment to getting reviews for all papers and providing feedback to authors involved an immense amount of work which we are thankful they took on. Finally, we would like to thank all the reviewers who took the time to review papers in their area of expertise and offer constructive feedback to authors to help improve their work. This process relies on volunteers from across the region. We are grateful that the spirit of academic development and achievement is alive and well! Your contributions in this area make the ASB conference possible! Sincerely, Wendy R. Carroll Conference Chair Atlantic Schools of Business Executive Stream PageAccounting 1 Business Communications 13 Business History 50Finance 84 Human Resources and Industrial Relations 197 Information Systems 258 Management Education 307Marketing 323 Organizational Theory 384Strategy 430 ASB Conference 2011 Proceedings Accounting StreamUniversity of PEI IntroductionCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has received growing attention in the last several decades. Its impact dramatically reached the top echelons of the United Nations when UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed The Global Compact at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 1999 (Bitanga and Bridwell, 2010). The Global Compact has grown to encompass more than 8,700 corporate participants and others stakeholders, including over 7,700 businesses in 130 countries around the world (United Nations Global Compact, 2011a).The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative that relies on public accountability, transparency, and enlightened corporate self-interest. The basic idea is that the voluntary involvement of companies in the areas of human rights, labor rights, environmental degradation, and anti-corruption can encourage private innovation and concern within these areas in a manner that regulation has been unable to adequately achieve, thereby hastening the emergence of a more sustainable and just future (Kell and Levin, 2002).The benefits for companies voluntarily affiliating with the UN Global Compact have been little documented from an empirical perspective. A survey by Cetindamar and Husoy (2007) documented the motivations of some firms for adherin...

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Management Competencies As Specific Organizationalmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Maturity Models For Knowledge Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Presentation Of the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Level Of Maturitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Level Of Maturitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Forecasting Stock Exchange Opening with Foreign Stock Markets: Evidence from the NYSE and the SSE

Ye¹

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An analysis of some ‘core studies’ of software process improvement

Rainer

Hall

2001

Softw Process Imprv Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we analyse 39 publications that have reported issues relating to software process improvement. Together, the 39 publications refer to 14 sites in 11 organizations. The 11 organizations include all five of the organizations that have been awarded the IEEE Computer Society Award for Process Achievement. Twelve of the 14 sites have been assessed at CMM level 3 or higher. Two main issues, and a number of more specific issues, emerge from our analysis. The two main issues are organizational stability and process expertise. We further distinguish between inter‐ and intra‐organizational stability. Several other specific issues are identified and discussed. We direct attention at how the specific issues relate to each other, how the two main issues relate to each other, and how all these issues relate to software process improvement. We speculate that organizational stability provides a stable environment within which to perform the process and to develop expertise. In addition to the 39 publications, the paper provides cross‐references to survey studies and other case studies on process improvement, and studies into process understanding. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract