How people learn systems

Report for the CIPD by Stephen Gourlay and Carol Baily of Kingston University

 
An IT 'system' is an integrated complex, consisting not only of the computer system at its heart, but also of the social and organizational systems of which it is part. This implies that an effective system worker knows how their activities relate to the system (that is, to others, and to the overall purpose of the organization) and is not simply an expert at their immediate tasks.

The dominant approach to learning, until recently, treated learning primarily as something that happened away from where the learning was to be applied; as something accomplished by an individual; and as something that should be designed and delivered by a professional tutor. The result was formal training programmes, typically delivered off-the-job, by subject experts.

Recent studies and research have questioned the realism and utility of this model. It is now increasingly the view that learning is a social activity because learners acquire information from their social networks as much if not more than from formal experts (social information processing). While there is a place for formal designed learning activities, learning in relation to, and on-the-job is more effective than off-the-job training. More generally, learning clearly takes place all the time whether or not the individual is aware of learning, or whether the experience they are undergoing has been designed with the intention of teaching something.

Practical implications include:

• managers and trainers need to understand the utility and validity of this expanded perspective on learning
• trainers’ expertise can be used to (a) design off-job training activities that complement on-the-job learning, and (b) advise on designing work in order to facilitate effective learning
• managers need to take account of ways to facilitate effective learning when designing jobs and tasks (and appreciate that certain perspectives on work organization may hinder effective learning).
  
  

Introduction

 
It is impossible to think today of organizations functioning without computers and software. Microsoft Office products, or their OpenOffice equivalents are essential productivity tools for many employees, In addition organizations are increasingly dependent on large proportions of their workforce using large scale IT based systems to carry out their work. These include, for example, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems – SAP being a well-known provider of both types of system. In addition there are systems designed for specific business applications, such as survey software, scheduling systems and the like. Enterprise-wide systems (Grimshaw 1994) are now becoming the order of the day for competitive organizations.

In so far as competitive advantage depends on the successful functioning of such systems, it is increasingly important that individuals, work teams and organisations learn how to “leverage” computing to successfully perform their work (George et al, 1995). Formal training interventions are often viewed as providing the opportunity to disseminate good practice through the organisation (Ennals, 1998). The organisers of a training intervention can often believe that they have been successful based on feedback immediately after the intervention, but this impression can be belied a few months later when employees are found to be using the same processes as before the intervention (Kim, 2004). It is clear there is a widespread problem with training transfer and with preventing a ‘relapse’ of skills and knowledge in post-training situations (Hutchins & Burke 2006). Thus it is important to understand how people most effectively learn systems, and maintain and develop their knowledge.

Training is still seen by management as a viable way to keep employees’ skills relevant in the competitive environment of business today (Hutchins and Burke, 2006) but it is increasingly evident that it is not the panacea many managers seem to believe particularly as regards user acceptance and use of systems (Zimmerman, 2001). Managers tend to believe that more training is better but our inability to conclusively demonstrate a clear link between training and performance is leading researchers to question this assumption (Gallivan et al, 2005). Reliance on outside training organisations can be problematic as students were often unable to transfer the more generic or less contextualized skills learned back into their work places (Levin, 1998). Additionally, the effect of user training is often superseded by contextual and organisational factors which influence behavioural outcomes (Cheney et al, 1986; Johnson and Rice, 1987; Orlikowski et al, 1991; Gallivan et al, 2005). It seems that the relationships between user training and factors such as usage subsequent to the training intervention are far more complex than previously thought.

The changing scale and scope of systems is creating new problems for trainers. As the pace of system development increases, traditional approaches to training are not able to cope (Levin, 1998). Traditional training teaches sequences of instructions (protocols) but this may be less important than having good software design which allows users to teach themselves through graphic displays, for example. From a management perspective, the emphasis might be better placed on working with the software design consultants in the first place, before the software is installed. In this case, it is important to make sure that the learning or training needs drive the technology, rather than the other way round (Etinger et al, 2006). Furthermore, in so far as systems are more than the computer interface with respect to which training is typically given, training to use systems effectively is likely to be a far broader process. There is also often a tendency to misread work practices, leading to the development of the intervention being either too simplistic or too superficial, or both (George et al, 1995).

In order to address some of these questions, this paper looks first at what we mean by ‘system’ so we can consider whether or not enterprise-wide systems have any particular training and development needs. Second, it outlines some perspectives on adult and workplace learning in order to provide a clear framework for thinking about these issues in this context. Research into the learning of systems is also reviewed and finally practical implications for managers and trainers are considered.

System

 
The word ‘system’ entered discussion about organizations through the application of ‘general systems theory’. This proposes that practically anything we care to focus attention on can be considered a ‘system’ meaning that it will have inter-connected parts, and that it itself will be part of some larger system. An organization, for example can be thought of as having management, information, control, technology, human, cultural and so on sub-systems. At the same time, any one organization is part of the industrial system (all IT companies, for example), which is part of the economic system of a country, and so on. A critical point about systems thinking is that systems are mutually inter-related – a change in one will bring about some change in another (and such change is a normal feature of life). While much of this way of thinking is commonplace now, another feature of the system perspective that is relevant in this context – the idea that system goals can usually be met through a variety of ways – is less widely accepted, particularly in management circles. Systems theory regards organisations as arenas for open, active interactions between members, not as static entities (Kim, 2004).

The term ‘system’ which has become synonymous with ‘computer system’ or ‘information system’ thus had a broader meaning that is still relevant today, particularly where enterprise-wide systems are concerned. The term ‘information system’ also has a wider meaning than the ‘computer system’. Kavanagh et al. (1990) for example said an information system is a “ ... system used to acquire, store, manipulate, analyse, retrieve, and distribute pertinent information ... [it] is not simply computer hardware and associated ... software ... it also includes people, forms, policies, procedures, and data.” (Kavanagh et.al. 1990:29). In short, an organization’s information system is virtually indistinguishable from the organization as a system. ERP systems have been defined in similar ways as enterprise-wide software systems that integrate databases and processes across an organization thus providing a means to integrate those processes (Newell et. al. 2003). Thus the older definitions of ‘information system’ also fit them.

Information systems’ researchers also noted that organizations have both formal (in the sense of designed, or intended) information systems, and informal or non-designed systems (e.g. Liebenau and Backhouse 1990). Formal systems include, for example, scheduled meetings, memoranda, reports, policy and procedure manuals, planning and control systems, evaluation and reward systems, and the formal training programme. These tell people how they should work, what they should do, who they should report to, and so on. Informal systems include, for example, the grape-vine, corridor conversations, office gossip, and informal networking.

The emphasis managers place on formal systems is understandable since these are designed with good intentions, and, if they really worked, would facilitate management control over work. However, an emphasis on the formal can be misplaced if as a result the informal systems are overlooked. Attempts in large-scale highly bureaucratic organizations to prevent informal networks from functioning failed (Gourlay 1999) and the discovery of ‘communities of practice’ shows that informal structures can contribute positively to the effective functioning of the whole organizational system (Lave & Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998). It seems that organizations have both formal and informal systems of all kinds which are highly inter-connected, and that managers have to recognize this, and adjust their ways of managing, and of delivering training, to meet this.

The introduction of an ERP system represents an attempt to extend the scope of the formal information system of an organization, particularly as regards integration of activities is concerned. However, since recent research (see below) suggests that social influence or social information processing remains an important feature of how people learn systems, it is likely that the functioning of any ERP system will remain dependent in many ways on these informal systems. The same can be said of other more commonly used software like spreadsheets, or word-processing programs which have in fact been the focus on much research on system use.

Learning

 
To understand ‘learning systems’ we need briefly to consider approaches to understanding learning. In the present context, ‘learning systems’ involves (a) adults learning (b) in relation to and in the context of work. Of course learning continues throughout the entire lifespan of the individual, involving formal (school and university), non-formal (on-the-job training) and informal (knowledge acquired through daily life) learning. Sometimes ‘life-long learning’ is used to refer to this idea (Bostrom, 2003), but in so far as managers and trainers can do little to influence out-of-work experiences we have to focus on in-work, and work-related contexts.

Adult learning theory and practice has been dominated by Knowles’ humanistic approach (Knowles, 1989) which in turn has influenced HRD thinking. Important characteristics of his ideas include an emphasis on human agency in the learning process, the idea of personal fulfilment as a goal, and critical reflection as part of the learning practice. Learning centres on the individual learner (working with a tutor or guide) and is for that individual in a personal sense leaving open the question of utility for the organization. The ‘critical’ or reflective emphasis, like Argyris and Schon’s (1978) idea of double-loop learning, rests on the assumption that an important purpose of learning is to critique existing behaviour and practices.

In so far as adult learning theory has addressed learning in or at work this has been though the ideas of informal, and incidental, learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990; George at al, 1995). Neither form is a designed form of learning (thus both are informal) and simply happen in work situations, when people are engaged in trial and error task processing. Some learning is experiential, and about the task or work being done (informal learning) while some is an unintentional by-product of other activities (incidental learning) (Cseh, Watkins & Marsick, 1998).

Adult learning theory typically overlooks the role of context, and in particular of other people. Marsick, Watkins and their colleagues, however, have draw attention to learning from others, suggesting that professionals, at least, are more likely to learn from their peers (as co-workers or as mentors) than as the isolated individuals envisaged by other adult learning perspectives (Marsick & Watkins, 1990; see also Eraut et al. 1998). Other investigations into how people actually learn how to do their jobs also identified an important group or social perspective, and gave us the term ‘communities of practice’ (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). These have been of particular interest since they are part of the informal system of an organization, and function in ways that are beneficial to the organization, but without direct managerial intervention or intention.

The idea that people learn from each other as much, if not more, than in other ways (particularly those formally designated as learning situations) also challenges the implicit view of Knowles and others that learning is primarily a cognitive, brain-centred activity. This contrast also occurs in other discussion of learning. Lave, and Brown and Duguid, for example, have drawn attention to the idea of situated learning (e.g. Brown et. al. 1989) which claims that classroom learning is often not effective, and that people typically learn as and when they take part in some activity, particularly a work-based activity.

This brief review thus suggests we can distinguish four kinds of situations in which workplace learning, and thus learning systems, takes place (Figure 1):  

 Figure 1: Learning situations

On the one hand, training or learning opportunities are provided, or become available, either as formal opportunities, or informal ones. On the other, the learning process is either largely individual and cognitive, or social and communicative. Traditional adult learning theory emphasised formal and individual/cognitive; Watkins and Marsick drew attention to some important informal aspects of individual workplace learning, as well as to the effects of relations with other people. Situated learning theorists however took the argument one stage further, claiming that effective learning, particularly for work related skills, is primarily informal and social / communicative in nature. Studies of how people learn systems also emphasize the informal, social and communicative nature of the learning process.

Learning systems

 
How do people actually learn systems is a question that has concerned researchers since the 1970s, when computer systems first began to be used extensively in organizations. Early research treated people essentially as ‘black boxes’ (Fulk et al. 1990) and assumed they each had similar training needs, and would all seek the most rational and effective way to use technology i.e. the way the designers thought was effective and rational. Consequently the best way to train people was in formal training sessions. Evidence soon accumulated that the world did not quite work in this way. In particular it was found that system use was facilitated by networks of social support and influence; and was strongly affected by perceptions of how others used the systems. The social influence model (later called social information processing – Gallivan et al. 2005) of computer system learning and use (Fulk et al 1990) was born – although it has remained a rather neglected child.

Brancheau and Wetherbe (1990) conducted one of the first large scale studies of factors influencing system use. They used innovation diffusion theory which suggests that the individual decision to use systems runs through four stages: knowledge (being informed); persuasion (seeing its worth); decision; and implementation. The theory predicted that while interpersonal communication would be important in early phases, it would be less so later on. However, they found that interpersonal communication channels remained important throughout the four stages. Further, they found that IT departments played only a minor role in diffusing any change. The significance of communication networks and social processes was highlighted by the finding that early adopters were more involved in interpersonal communication, and tended to be opinion leaders.

Marketing researchers have known about the importance of word-of-mouth communication in the spread of new products for many years, and Galetta et al. (1995) found this model also helped explain the spread of computer use in organizations. By the late 1990s there was an emerging consensus that information systems use, and thus the learning of systems, is best thought of as a highly social process in which users play a more important role than IT departments, suppliers, or formal trainers (George et al. 1995; Spitler 2005, Gallivan et al. 2005).

George et al. (1995) conducted a case study of professional and clerical employees in one company, using the communities of practice perspective described by Lave and Wenger (1991). They found the two groups differed in the ease with which they could engage in informal activities, and that this was an important factor in explaining how they learned systems. The professional group had a high degree of autonomy as regards how they performed their work, and the programs they used, and so were able to develop their own expertise. The clerical group in the same organization had their work much more tightly controlled, and although they learned some aspects of the system on the job (as there was little formal training) their learning never developed beyond a basic operational minimum. It seems the higher levels of discretion and autonomy the professional employees had in their day to day work was an important factor influencing their ability to interact as and when they wanted to, and thus to develop efficient IT practices.

George and his colleagues’ study drew attention to the potential effect of job, task and role autonomy as mediating the extent to which users were able to conduct their own learning, and to learn effectively. Spitler (2005) also drew on the communities of practice perspective to study junior systems users in a management consultancy. The formal training they received gave only part of what was needed, and crucial element was the role played by “master users” within the group. These were people who had for a variety of reasons developed additional skills, and who had become recognized by less skilled people as someone to whom they could go for advice. This finding echoes that of others who have reported on the influential role of informal experts, product or system champions, and local experts who are often of more significance to end-users than formally designated experts such as IT department advisors, or computer help systems and documentation (see also Gallivan et al 2005; Nelson & Cheney 1987).

Gallivan and his colleagues (2005) have drawn together much of this recent research. They concluded this shows the role of training per se has been exaggerated, and oversimplified; training is but one of a complex of factors that influence users’ learning of IT skills, and the extent of usage whether at the individual, group, or organizational levels. They proposed it is important to recognize that effective system learning is a contextual process, embedded in the workplace, and very strongly influenced by the social processes of an organization or department. Two such contextual levels earlier research has highlighted were (a) official IT support staff, and (b) unofficial local level experts. It seems that on balance the latter are particularly significant.

Gallivan and his colleagues drew on social information processing theory (Fulk et al. 1990) to develop a framework for understanding user learning.Their extensive quantitative study found that group-level factors were major determinants of individual computer system use – specifically, that the level of IT use was related to co-workers’ perceptions of training quality; and to the level of co-workers’ average IT use. The level of actual use was particularly strong. They were able to look further into the causes of this relationship, and found that users did not appear to have internalized expert users’ beliefs and so on about the systems. Rather, there was simply a social compliance of imitation effect: “it simply becomes easier and more valuable to use … software … as more coworkers or peers begin to use it” (Gallivan et al. 2005: 178). Individual level factors, such as attitudes towards computers, amount of individual training and so on are not unimportant – but are certainly less important in explaining system learning and use than social or group factors.

It is interesting to note that these theoretical and empirical findings from information systems research are echoed in debate about learning more generally. Lave (1997) and others (e.g. Greeno et al. 1998; Brown et al. 1989; Valsiner & Leung 1994) have argued and shown that people learn most effectively when their learning is embedded in the context where the learning is to be applied. Studies of the failures of classroom learning also appear to echo criticism of formal training programmes. Some educationists argue that advocates of situated learning may have gone too far in stressing the shortcomings of formal learning approaches (Bereiter 1997), and it is clear such learning can have important orienting effects (Glenberg & Robertson, 1999). However, the fact that two independent streams of research and thinking about learning reach comparable conclusions gives ground for confidence in the finding that learning is a highly social process.

Finally, little of this research has anything to say about the learning of tacit knowledge, increasingly recognized as important for effective work practices (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Wang 2006). It is widely accepted that tacit knowledge can only be acquired by doing something (about which the tacit knowledge is knowledge). It is also clear that we can learn from others by imitating them, sometimes unconsciously (e.g. Frith & Wolpert 2004). This implies that tacit knowledge learning is likely to be largely informal (since we may not be away of what activities contribute to what tacit knowledge) and often social (since interaction with others may be essential).

Implications and suggestions

 
Several themes seem evident from the brief characterization of ‘system’. First, systems are, or involve, an integration of parts. If parts are tightly integrated (dependent on each other) change in one will quickly affect or have implications for another, and vice-versa. The formal system of an organization represents an attempt to tighten up links, by specifying what they are, and how they should function. Enterprise-wide systems are evidently part of the formal system, and while their precise impact remains to be demonstrated, they may contain the potential for moving towards a higher level of formality than hitherto achieved. They appear to make it difficult for organizational ‘silos’ to persist, but to the extent silos do continue in organizations, they are likely to be more detrimental to organizational functioning than in the past. Strongly integrated systems are more vulnerable to disruption if one part malfunctions (as mechanical systems all too readily demonstrate). This implies that the human parts of organizational systems will function better, in the new context, to the extent that they are more knowledgeable about how their specific tasks fit into the wider work system. This in turn implies that they need opportunities to learn about these connections.

Despite the greater formalization of organization systems, it seems clear that human systems, and social relations, remain at the heart of organizational systems, and will continue to do so as long as it is not sensible or feasible to automate work. This means that work is only achieved through the integrated functioning of technical and human systems. Attempts, conscious or otherwise, to eliminate or minimise the impact of the informal (social) system within organizations all seem to have failed, and to be likely to fail. Moreover, the discovery of communities of practice has also reminded us that very often such informal structures and activities can also function to the organization’s benefit. (We should not forget that they can also function ‘selfishly’ and to an organization’s detriment – see Gourlay 1999 – indicating that to get the best from communities of practice, they may need to be facilitated and guided).

Turning to studies of learning, we find there are several competing perspectives on how people learn best. It seems the assumptions that underpinned much adult learning advice, and thus which fed into training and development practices, might have over-stressed the individual cognitive nature of learning processes. Even research into classroom learning has revealed that social factors are important if we are to understand the outcomes, and this appears even more so when learning about, and in, work, is concerned. The social influence, or social information processing, model of how people learn at and about work seems the most promising as regards helping us make sense of data about learning in general, and learning systems in particular.

It would be a mistake to conclude from the social information processing perspectives that we need to drop traditional off-the-job training, and that people outside the specific workplace (such as IT specialists) have little or no role to play. Rather, we need to put these traditional practices into a wider context. Glenberg and Robertson, for example, found clear evidence that formal instruction in the skills involved in using equipment to do a practical task (particularly when done as realistically as possible using demonstrative techniques) equipped people better to do the task then when they were given simply verbal instructions. But equally, it is necessary for people to be able to actually encounter the situations in which the instructions are useable. So there has to be a realistic match of off-the-job training to work needs, and opportunities to deploy those skills on the return to work. This in turn indicates that training is perhaps most effective when provided on an as-is-needed basis, rather than in large comprehensive chunks.

Information systems staff are often not asked to provide support because they are perceived either as unresponsive to the very specific needs of the individual, or not to understand the work systems and software in use at the time (Buch and Tolentino, 2006). Rather than concluding IT staff have no useful role, it may be worthwhile looking at what they can contribute, and how to make them more effective at facilitating system understanding. Pawlowski (2001) for example found that IT professionals were able to function as brokers between different groups of ERP system users. The users themselves were organized into communities of practice, but without the role of link person between the communities, the learning of each one might have been limited. This seems rather like the role of informal expert, local expert and so forth that has been identified in other studies of work based systems learning.

How can organizations respond to some of these challenges?

 
At the general organizational or strategic level, managers should consider taking an organizational learning perspective to designing systems for learning systems. Knowledge management theory suggests that an organisation should do everything in its power to locate, capture and disseminate knowledge and expertise in order to enhance performance. Workers are provided with the right knowledge at the right time to support their job processes (Wang, 2006). Brown and Duguid (1991) recommended that to increase organisational effectiveness, there is a need to integrate learning and innovation in a cohesive strategy. Knowledge management is an on-going cycle of acquisition, application, and innovation. Employees retrieve knowledge from the organisation’s knowledge base (co-workers and their memories and actions in the past). Popper and Lipshitz (1998) have developed the Organizational Learning Mechanisms model that attempts to provide a framework for organizations to understand how their structures, processes, culture and so on impact on learning.

Baskett, Marsick and Cervero (1992) have shown that organizations can encourage informal learning through action learning, peer-assisted learning, practice-based learning, individual learning contracts and mentors, ‘cognitive apprenticeship’, and workplace partnerships. (see also Vince 2002). Woodall & Winstanley (1998), and Maister (1993) would also argue that networking, mentoring, role-modelling and participation in task forces and working parties also create favourable conditions for workplace informal learning. In so far as system use research has found an important role is played by local experts, and that coworkers positive assessment and high use of systems encourages others likewise, this points to a need to identify such individuals, and facilitate their playing these roles.

Informal learning opportunities can also be created by harnessing the power of natural communities of practice, and by creating structures that mimic them. Managers sometimes fear they will lose control by taking steps to facilitate informal structures, but if organizations like the US Army are using them to facilitate knowledge transfer (Sauve 2007) it should be possible for ‘ordinary’ organizations to do likewise. Morgan et al. (2002) for example report that General Motors used communities of practice links to take up new knowledge, and then spread it throughout the organization. The loss of close control and standardized practices that is entailed in allowing such groups to function is, when managed, seemingly more than offset by the gains in terms of buy-in to ideas, and adaptation of local systems.

Relapse prevention is a post-training technique for facilitating and enhancing the training transfer process within an organisation for both management and non-management personnel (Hutchins and Burke, 2006). There is evidence that learning and mastering skills is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the transfer of skills into the workplace to occur. It tackles the critical transfer problem found in formal corporate training provisions. The technique utilises social cognitive learning theory, where the interactions between personal, environmental and behavioural determinants are built into the process. Relapse prevention uses the idea that people can control their own behaviour if they understand where the behaviour has originated from and how to reward or punish the behaviour as appropriate). Support is given to the employee through social persuasion and realistic encouragement, which is intended to promote individual effort. The advantage of relapse prevention as a technique is that it has been shown to keep employees resilient in using and maintaining trained skills in the fast changing work place.

Learning which takes place as a group-level phenomenon is an everyday part of work practices. A continuous learning culture is one where there is an organisation-wide expectation that knowledge acquisition and application (Chiaburu and Tekleab, 2005). Training is only one of many factors that influence users’ IT skills and level of usage. People tend to learn about computing by adopting, using and altering it during their day. Learning occurs through practice. There is a clear and strong relationship between how work groups learn about the computing they use in their jobs and how they perform those jobs (George et al, 1995). There is a critical relationship between group learning-in-context and the emergence of communities of practice around certain computing applications and systems. Learning which happens within the working environment, alongside co-workers, while carrying out the run-of-the-mill tasks is the most efficient form of learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Managers might be more successful in encouraging IT use by identifying key opinion leaders within the work groups, encouraging those people to champion system usage, and encouraging the concept of employees being co-learners within their job and work settings. A related strategy, though often more difficult to implement, entailed involving influential opinion leaders in system development and design, thus ensuring their ideas can be heard, and securing their buy-in to the new system (Gallivan et al, 2005).

References

 
Argyris, C., and Schön, D., 1978 Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley

Baskett, H. K. M., Marsick, V. J. and Cervero, R. M. 1992 Putting theory into practice and practice into theory, in Baskett, H. K. M., and Marsick, V. J. (eds). Professionals’ ways of knowing: new findings and how to improve professional education, San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Bereiter, C. 1997 Situated cognition and how to overcome it, Chapter in Kirschner, D., and Whitson, J. A. (eds) Situated cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 281-300

Bostrom, A-K 2003 Lifelong learning, intergenerational learning, and social capital, Stockholm: Stockholm University

Brancheau, J. C. and Wetherbe, J. C. 1990 The adoption of spreadsheet software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing, Information Systems Research 1 (2), 115-143

Brown, J. S., Collins, C. and Duguid, P.1989 Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational researcher, 18 (1), 32-42

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 1998. Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90.

Buch, K.K. and Tolentino, A., 2006. Employee expectancies for six sigma success. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 27(1/2), pp. 28.

Cheney, P.H.: Mann R.I. and Amoroso, D.L., 1986. Organizational factors affecting the success of end user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(1), pp. 65.

Chiaburu, D.S. and Tekleab, A.G., 2005. Individual and contextual influences on multiple dimensions of training effectiveness. Journal of European Industrial training, 29(8/9), pp. 604.

Cseh, M., Watkins, K. & Marsick, V., 1998 Informal and incidental learning in the workplace, in Torraco, R. J., (ed) Proceedings of the annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development, Baton Rouge, LA: AHRD

Ennals, R., 1998. Partnership for a new organisation of world and Europe as a development coalition. International Journal of Action Research and Organizational Renewal, 3(1)

Eraut, M., Alderton, J., Cole, G., and Senker, P. 1998 Learning from other people at work, Chapter in Coffield, F., (ed), Leaning at work, Bristol: Policy Press, 37-48

Ettinger, A., Holton, V. and Blass, E., 2006. E-learner experiences- key questions to ask when considering implementing e-learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(3), pp. 143.

Frith, C., & Wolpert, D. (2004). The neuroscience of social interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., and Steinfield, C. W. 1990 A social influence model of technology use, Chapter 6 in Fulk, J., and Steinfield, C. W. (eds), Organizations and communication technology, London: Sage, 117-140.

Galetta, D. F., Ahuja, M., Hartman, A., Teo, T., and Peace, A. G. 1995 Social influence and end-user training, Communications of the ACM, 38 (7), 70-79

Gallivan, M. J., Spitler, V., & Koufaris, M. 2005 Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ influence on IT usage in the workplace, Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (1) 153-192

George, J. F., Iacono, S., and Kling, R. 1995 Learning in context: extensively computerized work groups as communities-of-practice, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 5 (3/4), 185-202

Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1-26.

Gourlay, S. 1999 ‘“Communities of practice”: a new concept for the millennium, or the rediscovery of the wheel?’, Organizational Learning, 3rd International Conference. Lancaster University, 6-8 June, vol. 1, 479-495

Greeno, J. G. and the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group (1998), “The situativity of knowing, learning and research,” American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.

Grimshaw, A. S. 1994 Enterprise-wide computing, Science 265, 892-4

Hutchins, H. M. and Burke, L. A. 2006, Has relapse prevention received a fair shake? A review and implications for future transfer research. Human Resource Development Review, 5 (1) 8-24.

Johnson, B. and Rice, R., 1987. Managing Organisational Innovation. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kavanagh, M. J., Gueutal, H. G. and Tannenbaum, S. I. 1990 Human resource information systems: development and application, Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing

Kim, H., 2004. Transfer of Training as a Sociopolitical Process. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), pp. 497

Knowles, M.1989 The adult learner: a neglected species, Houston: Gulf Publishing Company

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991, Situated learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lave, J., 1997, The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding, Chapter 2 in Kirshner, D. and Whitson, J. A. Situated cognition, Mahwah, NJ: LEA

Levin, R., 1998. Train at the speed of change. InformationWeek, (685), pp. A1.

Liebenau, J. & Backhouse, J., 1990, Understanding information, London: Macmillan

Maister, D. 1993 Managing the professional services firm, New York: Free Press

Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K.1990 Informal and incidental learning in the workplace, London: Routledge

Morgan, A. P., Cafeo, J. A., Gibbons, D. I., Lesperance, R. M. 2002 The General Motors’ variation-reduction adviser: an example of grassroots knowledge management development, International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 11 (4), 269-

Nelson, R. R. and Cheney, P. H. 1987 Training end-users: an exploratory study, MIS Quarterly, 11 (4), 547-559

Newell, S., Huang, J. C., Galliers, R. D. and Pan, S. L. 2003 Implementing enterprise resource planning and knowledge management systems in tandem: fostering efficiency and innovation complementarity, Information & Organization, 13, 25-52
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995 The knowledge creating company, London: Oxford University Press

Orlikowski, W.J. and Robey, D., 1991. Information technology and the structuring of organisations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), pp. 143.

Pawlowski, S. 2001 Managing the ties that bind: an investigation of the broker role of IT professionals, PhD, Georgia State University.

Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. 1998 Organizational learning mechanisms: a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning, Journal of applied behavioral science, 34 (2), 161-179

Quinn, R. E. 1988, Beyond rational management: mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance, Jossey-Bass

Sauve, E. 2007 Informal knowledge transfer, T & D, 61 (3), pp 22-5 Spitler, V. 2005 Learning to use IT in the workplace: mechanisms and masters Journal of organizational and end user computing, 17 (2), 1-25

Valsiner, J. and Leung, M-C. 1994, “From intelligence to knowledge construction: a sociogenetic process approach”, Chapter 8, Sternberg, R. J. and Wagner, R. K., (eds), Mind in context. Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-217
Vince, R. 2002 Organizing reflection, Management learning, 33 (1), 63-78

Wang, F., 2006. Applying case-based reasoning in knowledge management to support organisational performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 173

Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Woodall, J. & Winstanley, D. 1998, Management development: strategy and practice, Oxford: Blackwell

Zimmerman, L.V., 2001. Plan for training to Ensure Software Quality. AACE International Transactions, , pp. IT.05.