K-Space and Learning Dr Meliha Handzic Joanne Chia Yi Lin School of Information Systems, Technology and Management The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia Email:
[email protected] School of Computer Science and Engineering The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia Email:
[email protected]
Abstract This paper investigates the idea generation behaviour of future IS knowledge workers and proposes a flexible web-based knowledge space (K-space) to support their individual styles. Seventy-two graduate students of IS undertaking the Knowledge Management Systems and Technology course at UNSW participated in the study. Data on their approaches to information acquisition, change, relationships to others and problem solving were gathered by administering a survey questionnaire. The results are used to guide the design of a flexible webbased K-space that can provide support for different individual styles and maximise students’ learning experience.
Keywords knowledge management, knowledge space, idea generation, individual style, learning
INTRODUCTION Knowledge has been widely recognised as a key factor of organisational survival and success in a dynamic and competitive economy (Holsapple and Singh 2000, Garvin 1998, Nonaka 1998, Drucker 1998). In order for companies to stay competitive in today’s uncertain world, they constantly need to pursue new strategies to differentiate themselves from their competition, such as the introduction of new products or the offering of new services (Satzinger et al. 1999). This requires a major shift in their business focus from tangible to intangible (knowledge) assets (Davenport and Prusak 1998, Davenport et al. 1998, Drucker 1993, Grayson and O’Dell 1998, Stewart 1997). In other words, knowledge must evolve and be assimilated at an even faster rate. To deal with changes, improve services, products and quality, and also to cut costs and compete in the global market, organizations will need to depend upon the creative and innovative ideas produced by its workforce (Covey 1989). It is therefore not surprising that organisations place increasing demands for new skills and capabilities for new-age workers. Recently, creativity and innovation were declared to be the new focus of management (Beaver 2001). New professionals are expected to be skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge (Garvin 1998, Nonaka 1998). They need to be capable of continually expanding their capacity to create desired results, nurture new thinking patterns, set free collective aspirations and learn how to learn together (Senge 1990). The growing importance of knowledge and innovations for modern organisations, and increasing demands for new skills and capabilities, suggest the need for improvement in the learning of future professional and managerial workers. This, in turn, requires an appropriate response from the education sector. So far, these demands have not been adequately addressed by Management Education (Seufert and Seufert 1999). There are calls to base the learning more in reality, to make the learning and thought process visible in order to develop the learners’ metacognition (Joyce and Weil 1986), to achieve better balance between the imparting of knowledge to the learner and the learner’s own construction of it. It is also suggested that education should better nurture students’ qualities such as problem-solving, decision making and creativity through self-directed as well as collaborative creativity and learning. These are skills that they will require in order to be successful in their future roles as innovative professionals and business people.
Given the crucial importance of knowledge and innovation for success in the knowledge economy, the main purpose of this study is to address the issue of students’ learning in the context of graduate IS education. In particular, the paper will investigate students’ idea generation behaviour and propose a web-based K-space as a flexible learning tool to support their individual styles.
LITERATURE REVIEW Idea Generation Idea generation can be defined as the production of novel and appropriate ideas, solutions and work processes. Many theories have been put forward to explore how people come up with new ideas (Wallas 1926, Shneiderman 2000, Gallivan 2002) and there are also a variety of techniques that may enhance idea generation by stimulating people to think outside their familiar boundaries to find more unexpected and effective solutions (Marakas 1999, Couger 1995). A great deal of work has also been published showing that Group Support Systems can be used to improve idea generation by teams (Dennis et al. 1990, Aurum et al. 2002). One of the earliest models of idea generation (Wallas 1926) suggests a four stage process involving: preparation where a problem, need or desire is defined; incubation in which information is acquired and explored; illumination when the flash of insight or the birth of a new idea happens; and verification when what emerged in illumination is evaluated against the problem criteria defined during preparation. The other stream of theories attribute idea generation to intuition. Glasser (1995) believes that some individuals have an “ever-present unconscious illumination” which he refers to as intuition. He also believes that individuals who possess higher intuition are more creative and innovative. However, many researchers are uncomfortable with the idea of intuition being the vital factor leading to successful innovation. Many researchers have attempted to apply Darwinian theory of natural selection to idea generation. Campbell (1960) has published a model based on the “blind-variation and selective retention” notion, stating that this process is fundamental to all inductive achievement, and all genuine increases in knowledge. The model has been further refined by a number of researchers. Essentially, it suggests that nature creates many possibilities through blind trial-and-error and then lets the process of natural selection decide which species survive. Another stream of theories emphasise thinking processes and build upon Aristotle’s laws of association (Gilhooly 1988, Stein 1975). Three ways in which association may be applied in the formation of ideas include: serendipity when the association of ideas is accidental; similarity when the thought of one thing tends to trigger the thought of another; and mediation when ideas are generated though mediation of notions that they have in common (Mednick and Mednick 1964). Bissociation is another widely held view of creative act (Koestler 1964). Although it is similar to association, it varies in that it involves a mixture in one’s mind of ideas that essentially belong to entirely different domains. Leibniz
Locke
Kant
Hegel
Singer
Information acquisition
Searching
Searching
Scanning
Scanning
Scanning
Approach to change
Maintaining
Reacting
Initiating
Initiating
Initiating
Relationship to others
Directing
Mediating
Collaborating
Internalizing
Unpredictable
Problem solving
Retaining
Converging
Diverging
Debating
Unpredictable
Table 1: Five Idea Generation Archetypes A more holistic view of idea generation has been recently provided by Shneiderman (2000). He differentiates three approaches: inspirationalist that concentrates on the intuitive aspects of idea generation; structuralist that emphasises the importance of previous work and method in exploring different possible solutions; and situationalist, that focuses on the social context as a key part of the idea generation process. Vandenbosh et al. (2001) argue that most theories study idea generation in terms of individual characteristics, contexts in which ideas flourish, or details about processes in which ideas are developed. They argue that in real life, people do not come up with ideas in isolation, and that different combinations of contextual and personal characteristics may result in different, but equally effective processes. Taking a broader view of the cognitive styles perspective, they investigate the inter-relatedness of idea generation, problem solving and inquiry to explore the notion of
archetype, based on Churchman’s (1971) system of inquiry. Table 1 shows the proposed classification scheme which involves five idea generation archetypes (Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel and Singer) based on individual approaches to information acquisition, change, relationships to others, and problem solving. In summary, Leibnizian inquirers are seen primarily as the incrementalists, placing a great deal of importance on what they already know. Lockean inquirers are known as the consensus builders typically asking others to generate ideas and focusing on agreement. Kantians are viewed as searchers who combine ideas from diverse sources and unusual associations. Hegelians are known as debaters arguing internally with themselves to develop ideas. Finally, Singerians are considered as most flexible inquirers comfortable with and employing all systems of inquiry. Knowledge Management General knowledge management literature indicates a widespread recognition of the importance of knowledge with respect to the struggle for economic success in a new-age economy (Devlin 1999, Drucker 1993, Stewart 1997). Knowledge has been described as the principal fuel and currency that will drive the economy in a new society (Devlin 1999); a key resource of tomorrow’s organisations in the most competitive society we have yet known (Drucker 1993); and hidden gold embodied in the minds and hands of organisational participants (Stewart 1997). While there is widespread recognition of the importance of knowledge, there is little shared understanding of the construct itself. Sometimes knowledge has been described as deeper and richer information (Davenport and Prusak 1998); information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection (Davenport et al. 1998); valuable information in action (Grayson and O’Dell 1998); and information that has been internalised by a person to the degree that he or she can make use of it (Devlin 1999). Knowledge is further classified as either ‘explicit’ or ‘tacit’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, Nonaka 1998). Explicit knowledge is described as formal, systematic knowledge that can be expressed or communicated without vagueness or ambiguity. It can be stored in books, manuals, databases and in other ways. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is considered as highly personal know-how that is derived from experience and beliefs and usually hard to articulate and communicate. It exists in the individual minds of people. Professional knowledge includes declarative (know-what), procedural (know-how), inferential (know-why) and motivational (care-why) forms of knowledge (Quinn et al. 1996). There are major differences among researchers in what constitutes useful knowledge and the ways in which it is created. A recent review reveals that western theorists show central preoccupation with codified repositories and information processing as enablers of ‘explicit’ objective and systematic knowledge (Baxter and Chua 1999). Eastern theorists, on the other hand, focus more on ‘tacit’ knowledge that people derive from their experiences and through sharing (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, Nonaka 1998). We argue that all sources and forms have to come into play to maximise business specific knowledge. Knowledge management is the most recent response to the need to better understand and manage knowledge for success or survival. Knowledge management is concerned with processes of creation, acquisition, organisation, and transfer of knowledge, as well as organisational, cultural, technological and measurement enablers that may facilitate these processes and foster the development of working knowledge and performance. The central task of those concerned with knowledge management is to determine best ways to cultivate, nurture and exploit knowledge at individual and organisational levels. In other words, it needs to ensure to get the right knowledge to right people at the right time and help people share and put knowledge into action in ways that strive to improve organisational performance (O’Dell and Grayson 1998). Different approaches for knowledge management are possible, coming from cognitive psychology, philosophy, education, science, finance and information technology. While all are valuable, they deliver only a partial view on the whole topic (Raich 2000). Davenport and Prusak (1998) maintain that it is only possible to realise full power of knowledge by taking a holistic ecological approach to knowledge management. Following the holistic approach recommendations by Davenport and Prusak (1998) a core model of KM presented in Figure 1 was proposed by Handzic and Jamieson (2001) for conducting research in KM. The proposed framework presented is essentially a 2x2 matrix with ‘explicit’ and ‘tacit’ knowledge as columns and ‘know-what’ and ‘know-how’ types of knowledge as rows of the matrix. Individual cells contain instances of specific knowledge types and their related sources. For example, explicit know-what comprises facts and figures that may be found in databases or documents. Explicit know-how includes rules and methods available in model databases and manuals, or in procedures. Tacit know-what consists of ideas and beliefs of knowledge workers, while tacit know-how represents their instincts and expertise gained through long term experience. Research may be conducted on issues within a single cell, or across two or more cells.
TACIT
EXPLICIT
W H A T
H O W
Databases Documents Reports
Dialogue Conversation Mentoring Facts Concepts Theories
Beliefs Intuition Values
Routines Instructions Procedures
Skills Expertise Instincts
Manuals Engineering Modelbases
EXPLICIT
Experience Apprenticeship Coaching
W H A T
H O W
TACIT
Figure 1: A Core Knowledge Management Framework Study Objectives Given the current infancy of knowledge management theory and practice, there is little research done regarding the value of knowledge management initiatives in idea generation. Therefore, the first objective of this research is to conduct an empirical study to categorise students’ idea generation behaviour using the Vandenbosch classification as a guideline. The second objective is to apply the knowledge management principles described above to formulate a suitable design for a web-based K-space which would be an innovative learning tool that could accommodate the idea generation styles of different students. If it is clear how academic students approach knowledge, it will be easier to provide better support systems, to encourage knowledge sharing and creativity. This can be helpful for both academic staff and the students. Teachers can assist students more readily if they understand how the students learn and acquire information. Students can develop better learning skills and understand the importance of managing their knowledge as an asset for their future career paths.
DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF EMPIRICAL STUDY Research Design and Subjects A survey study was conducted to determine students’ idea generation behaviour based on the work by Vandenbosh et al. (2001). Subjects for this study were 72 students enrolled in the Knowledge Management Systems and Technology course at the University of New South Wales. The participating students came from different academic and cultural backgrounds, providing a diverse sampling group. The study chose to focus on students’ idea generation behaviour as it was felt that students were “knowledge workers” with much potential to influence their future career organisations with their preferred style. Another reason for choosing academic students as a group to study idea generation behaviour and archetypes, is the belief that results may have some important implications for tertiary education. Students’ preferred idea generation style may trigger more suitable ways of teaching them. Convenience sampling was used to select the participants. There was no attempt to find particularly creative or non-creative students. The survey instrument was adapted from Vandenbosch et al. (2001). It consisted of two types of questions: closed questions where subjects’ self-reported their behaviour by selecting one or more inquiry options and indicating percentage time on each; and open-ended questions for expressing additional opinions about various aspects of their inquiry behaviour. These were used to gain a deeper insight into students’ learning needs.
The closed-questions section was divided into four main sub-sections. Questions were designed to elicit critical incidents regarding students’ approach to information acquisition, problem solving, approach to change and relationship to others. The critical incident technique used has a number of advantages. The questions are set up to follow a structured set of guidelines (coding scheme), so it is easier to analyse and synthesise the results later on. Compared to methods like collecting interview opinions and assessments, results would be more objective as they are based on behaviour responses. Also, using closed-questions in the survey would encourage students to participate in the study due to the reduced time and effort required to fill out the answers to each question. The first part of the survey required the participants to tick the appropriate method listed in each section and then give an approximate percentage of time spent on each selected method. These answers were used to classify students into the appropriate archetypes following the classification scheme presented earlier in Table 1 (Vandenbosch et al. 2001). Due to the page number limit emposed, we are unable to provide the actual survey form in this paper. However, the questionnaire may be obtained directly from the authors on demand. In summary, with respect to information acquisition, respondents were assessed in terms of their inclination to search for information with a pre-determined agenda and focus, or scan for information with a broad agenda and view. With regard to approach to change, the subjects were assessed by their likelihood to react to a real or potential problem, maintain the status quo, or initiate change in order to increase their capacity and influence the environment. Respondents’ relationships to others were assessed in terms of their tendency to direct others, mediate by empowering others, collaborate by joining others in generating ideas and making decisions, or internalise by attempting to resolve problems individually playing through multiple scenarios. Finally, subjects’ problem solving methods were assessed in terms of retain by focusing on ideas that complement and affirm one’s own approach, converge by closing in upon ideas to find an agreeable solution, diverge by considering and expanding upon many ideas to develop a specific solution, and debate by dialectic discussions of several ideas in order to develop a specific solution. Results and Discussion From the responses obtained for the percentage of time spent on different inquiry methods, we were able to categorise the participants into five archetypes. The participants clearly reflected four different types. The results revealed the following composition across these types: Leibnizian (57%), Lockean (29%), Kantian (8%) and Hegelian (6%). These results indicate a dominant Leibnitz type, followed by Lockean, Kantian and Hegelian. An interesting result is that there was no Singerian (0%) type found in the subject group. Singerians are assumed to be very flexible and adaptive and would adopt a variety of different methods for study. However, most of the subjects in this research chose to select a dominant method. The authors hoped to gain a deeper understanding of the subjects’ idea generation from responses obtained to the open ended questions from the part 2 of the survey. In this part, subjects were asked to describe in more detail some recent example of their experience in generating ideas. Unfortunately, most of these responses could not be used for a deeper qualitative analysis. About 40% of the subjects did not attempt on the second part of the survey at all. Furthemore, most of the responses given were too general and could not provide new insights, but rather add support to the quantitative results. The additional time required to make written comments may have contributed to the poor response rate and quality of subjects’ comments. Therefore, our discussion is informed mainly by the descriptive analysis of their quantitative answers. The main findings of this study provide strong support for the extended cognitive style perspective on learning that inter-relates idea generation, problem solving and inquiry approaches. The current study discovered significant differences among student subjects in their systemic approaches to knowledge based on Churchman’s interpretation of philosophies. As such, these findings have a number of important implications for education. More specifically, they suggest the need to design an appropriate learning/teaching support system to respond to different individual students needs. In addition, learning/teaching support systems need to address the needs of the class as a whole, which will generally be a combination of different archetypes. Firstly, Leibnizian tendencies found show that over one half of students believe that knowledge should come from study. They place a great emphasis on facts and they learn using formal logic to make inferences of causes and effects. The Leibnizian type tends to rely heavily on the theory and what they have already learnt. Therefore, providing teaching together with lecture notes and textbooks, would benefit Leibnizians’ learning style. A typical Leibnizian response to acquiring information is “reading from documents and reports provided”. About one third of Lockeans found employ experimental and consensual reasoning. They learn by observing the world, sharing their observations, and creating consensus about what has been observed. To benefit this learning style, group discussions and group assignments could assist students to increase their learning interest and performance, and also for teachers to provide feedback. These are all important sources that help the group to
reach consensus. Experimental results of an issue identification study conducted by Aurum et al. (2002) indicate that groups of 4-5 students can identify the majority of relevant issues. A somewhat smaller percentage of subjects were identified as Kantians, also known as searchers. They like to seek knowledge from diverse sources, and are very broad in their search. They tend to scan internal and external environments for purposeful knowledge. Therefore, in order to satisfy Kantians’ need in learning, educators should provide them with many rich resources and readings outside the textbook. There were also some Hegelians, the debaters who tend to synthesise opposing models into a new worldview. They rely upon the dialectic to resolve opposing viewpoints, and they may generate an entirely new idea as a result. Therefore, facilitating the dialectic process would enable the Hegelian to acquire knowledge and encourage them to generate innovative ideas. Although our survey uncovered none in this group, Singerian inquirers are renaissance people who employ all systems of inquiry. They constantly question and work very hard. In other words, their learning styles are very flexible. Therefore, providing “potential” Singerians with all the above features and facilities enables them to gain knowledge and generate new insights in their studies. Designing an appropriate learning/teaching support system to respond to different individual students’ needs in the one class presents a major challenge. However, new developments in information and communication technologies such as the Internet and Word Wide Web may be able to provide a valuable technology base for innovative learning tools. A web-based K-space designed on the principles of knowledge management may provide necessary place to exchange, share, capture, discover and obtain knowledge resources for a learner. It also may be a valuable virtual learning community for educators and students alike to share and discuss matters relating to the course. In summary, it can enable or facilitate knowledge processes and enhance learning performance. The K-space described in the following section is a good example of one such learning tool that can facilitate the needs of different students.
K-SPACE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND DESCRIPTION A conceptual model of K-space presented in Figure 2 was developed by mapping the core knowledge management framework presented in Figure 1 (see previous section) to the graduate course learning/teaching context. The resulting model is a two-by-two matrix with explicit and tacit knowledge as columns, and knowwhat and know-how as rows. The explicit know-what quadrant consists of the availability of information resources that can be used by students to acquire explicit knowledge. For example, all the students can obtain explicit knowledge found in lecture notes, relevant resources and databases. The explicit know-how quadrant contains search facilities, and rules and patterns discovered by individual students while finding information. The tacit know-what section consists of areas such as discussion forums and announcements that enable students and educators to share information. Finally, the tacit know-how quadrant supports the individual’s tacit knowledge learning that can be gained through personal experience and activities such as assignments/tutorials etc. Knowledge Types
Explicit
Tacit
Know What
Availability of information Lecture notes Relevant resources Databases
Sharing of information Discussion forums Announcement News
Know How
Finding of information FAQ Classifying Search facilities
Learning by doing Exercises Simulation games Feedback/guidance
Figure 2: A conceptual model of K-space
The model suggests: •
Students’ course knowledge can be enhanced by enabling and facilitating availability, sharing and finding of relevant information, as well as learning by doing.
•
In order to minimize information overload, it is also suggested by the framework that students should be supported by intelligent search and mining facilities.
•
The framework also recognizes the importance of tacit knowledge. Past researchers show that students may benefit from sharing knowledge with others as well as from interaction with their peers (Handzic and Tolhurst 2001, Handzic and Low 2001).
•
Self-directed learning such as assignments and self-paced online learning session with continuous guidance and feedback would respond to the need for cultivation of students’ skills for problem-solving, decision making as well as creativity.
The knowledge management principles described above were used for the development of a graduate course Kspace at UNSW. The design presented here is the work of students attending the Knowledge Management Systems and Technology course at UNSW (for more details see Chong et al. 2001). The main objective of the K-space was to provide students with a one-stop point of interaction for all their study needs. A portal that students could go to and obtain lecture notes, assignments, reference materials, discussions, surveys, search facilities, links and many other useful tools. The idea of each section in the K-space was to implement one or more facilities from a quadrant of the knowledge matrix. In addition, each section supported different idea-generation/learning styles. Our study found that different students have preferences for different methods, and if their preferred method is provided, the productivity and enjoyment of the course will be increased. The specific K-space design presented here consists of several parts as follows: •
Home section contains announcements, quotes and news, as well as evaluation forms, polls with results, and search facilities.
•
Contact details incorporates contact person, consultation hours, class and lab venues, additional help and comments.
•
Course details includes recommended text, lecture notes, recommended readings, assignments and course outline. It is expected to be of particular value to Leibnizians, who rely heavily on theory and typically acquire knowledge by studying documents and reports provided.
•
Discussion forum has assignment discussions, lecture comments, additional users posting, and search/posting tools. It represents an ideal support for Lockeans who like to share their observations and create consensus.
•
Resources section contains university links, research papers, field related websites and search engines. It provides an ideal learning support for Kantians who typically seek knowledge by scanning a wide variety of external sources.
•
Solution Finder provides questions and answers, as well as simulation games. It is envisaged as a learning space for Hegelians who tend to construct and internally debate different viewpoints and generate new solutions.
As an example, the Course Details section of the K-space can be seen in Figure 3. The purpose of the Course Details section is to allow users to obtain necessary information necessary to assist them with the course. Course Details provides an overview of the course schedule over the fourteen weeks. This page outlines the week number, week beginning date and the lecture topics. The first two headings of the course outline are selfexplanatory. Under the lecture topics heading it contains folders for each of the fourteen weeks. Furthermore, Acrobat reader software is available for download as all the files are saved in PDF format, and users can easily gain access to these notes. In summary, the K-space supports course learning by facilitating knowledge processes that foster the development of relevant knowledge of different types of students. It allows for taking small steps and incremental learning (Leibnizian), as well as building consensus (Lockean). More importantly, the K-site encourages higher forms of inquiry involving forming associations and combining information from diverse places (Kantian), and constructing ideas through internal debate of all the factors (Hegelian). Finally, it allows for flexibility by considering all forms of inquiry (Singerian) if any such students exist. Other benefits of the proposed K-space for students include enabling global access, ease of use, self-service and collaboration. For
educators, it provides a means to reduce paper work, and to publish and maintain useful and dynamic information in a variety of forms.
Links to lecture notes and additional readings
Figure 3: Course Details section of K-space
CONCLUSIONS The main objective of this paper was to explore students’ idea generation behaviour based on Churchman’s interpretation of different philosophies and to suggest a web-based K-space to support different individual approaches. The study has shown that Leibnizians make up the majority of the student population surveyed, followed by Lockeans, Kantians and Hegelians. No Singerians were found at all in this study. These results suggest that different students would respond differently to alternative learning/teaching methods. Thus, it is important that each have access to methods that most stimulate their study interest, productivity and enjoyment of the course. A web-based K-space designed on the principles of knowledge management is proposed as an innovative learning tool that can facilitate the learning needs of different students. The proposed virtual space features provide support for the availability, finding and sharing of information, as well as learning by doing. The main benefits for educators and students include reduction in paper-based documents and processes, ease of use, selfservice for users more readily available, dynamic information, global access, choice of media (documents may be read off a computer screen or printed), and greater support for an emerging electronically savvy culture. Future research is required to empirically test the implementation success of such a tool among various groups of students and in different course contexts.
REFERENCES Aurum A., Handzic M. and Gardiner A. (2002) Preparing IT Professionals for the Knowledge Economy, Proceedings of IRMA 2002, Seattle. Baxter J., Chua W.F. (1999) Now and the Future, Australian Accounting Review, 9(3), 3-14. Beaver G. (2001) Strategy, Management, Creative and Corporate History, Strategic Change, 10(1), Jan/Feb 2001, 1-4. Campbell D.T (1960) Blind variation and selective retention in creative thoughts as in other knowledge processes, Psychological Review.
Chong R., Jonson C. and Chan M. (2001) Knowledge Website Project Report, Knowledge Management Systems and Technology: Course Assignment, October, UNSW. Churchman C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organisation, Basic Books, Inc., New York. Couger J.D. (1995) Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd&Fraser Publishing Company. Covey S.R. (1989) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Rockfeller Center, New York. Davenport T.H. and Prusak L. (1998) Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Davenport T.H., DeLong D.W. and Breers M.C. (1998) Successful Knowledge Management Projects, Sloan Management Review, Winter, 43-57. Dennis A.R., Valacich J.S. and Nunamaker J.F.Jr. (1990) An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Group Size in An Electronic Meeting Environment, IEEE Transaction System, Man and Cybernetics, 20(5), 1049-1057. Devlin K. (1999) Infosense: Turning Information into Knowledge, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. Drucker P.F. (1998) The Coming of the New Organisation, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Drucker P.F. (1993) Post-Capitalist Society, Harper Business, New York. Gallivan, M.J. (2002) The Influence of Software Developer’s Creative Style on their Attitudes to and Assimilation of a Software Process Innovation, Information & Management. Garvin D.A. (1998) Building a Learning Organisation, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Gilhooly K.J. (1988) Thinking: Directed, Undirected and Creative, Academic Press, London, UK. Glasser M.A. (1995) Intuition: A Newly Recognised Factor for Innovation in R&D, R&D Innovator, Volume 4. Grayson C.J. and O’Dell C. (1998) Mining Your Hidden Resources. Across the Board, 35(4), 23-28. Handzic M. and Low G. (2002) The Impact of Social Interaction on Performance of Decision Tasks of Varying Complexity, OR Insight, Handzic M. and Tolhurst D. (2002) Evaluating Interactive Learning Environment for Decision Making", Educational Technology and Society, Holsapple C.W., Singh M. (2000) Electronic Commerce: From a Definitional Taxonomy Toward a KnowledgeManagement View, Journal of Organisational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(3), 149-170. Joyce B. and Weil M. (1986) Models of Teaching, Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs NJ. Koestler A. (1964) The Act of Creation, Macmillan, New York. Marakas G. (1999) Decision Support Systems in the 21st Century, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA. Mednick S.A. and Mednick M.T. (1964) An Associative Interpretation of the Creative Process, Widening Horizons in Creativity, Proc. of the 5th Utah Creativity Research Conference, New York, USA. Nonaka I. (1998) The Knowledge-Creating Company, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. O’Dell C. and Grayson C.J. (1998), If Only we knew what we know, Free Press. Quinn J. B., Andeson P., Finkelstein S. (1996) Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 71-80. Satzinger J.W., Garfield J.M. and Nagasundaram M. (1999) The Creative Process: The Effects of Group Memory on Individual Idea Generation, Journal of Management Information Systems. Senge P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, Double-day, New York. Seufert S. and Seufert A. (1999) Collaborative Learning Environments for Management Education, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the International Academy for Information Management, 279-284.
Shneiderman B. (2000) Creating Creativity: User Interfaces for Supporting Innovation, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), March, 114-138. Stein M.I. (1975) Stimulating Creativity: Group Procedures, Academic Press, Vol 2., New York, USA. Stewart T.A. (1997) Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations, Doubleday, New York. Vandenbosch B., Fay S. and Saatciglu A. (2001) Where Ideas Come From: A Systematic View of Inquiry, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organizations, Vol 1. Fall. Wallas G. (1926) The Art of Thought, Hartcourt Brace, New York.
COPYRIGHT Meliha Handzic and Joanne Chia Yi Lin © 2003. The authors assign to ACIS and educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to ACIS to publish this document in full in the Conference Papers and Proceedings. Those documents may be published on the World Wide Web, CD-ROM, in printed form, and on mirror sites on the World Wide Web. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.
