TechTrends

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 40–47 | Cite as

Software engineers helping themselves: The web resource collaboration center

  • Joanna C. Dunlap
Features

Conclusion

By implementing knowledge management features in an EPSS-like structure, the WRCC provided a more effective performance solution that was in alignment with the firm’s business objectives, making sure that both the employees’ learning and performance needs and the firm’s needs were addressed (Stone & Villachica, 2003). The activity of building a WRCC helped the software engineers learn about new tools and languages in the software engineering domain, while constructing a knowledge base to support their future learning and professional development in that domain. In addition, their work on the WRCC helped software engineers strengthen their connections to the larger software engineering communities of practice while they developed a local learning community that encouraged sharing, coaching and mentoring. Ultimately, the firm was able to reduce their reliance on conventional training by 70% - their original goal — by allowing the software engineers to create and use an on-the-job learning architecture that was more situated, social, transparent, open, flexible and respectful of their workplace learning and professional development needs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. Resnick (Ed.).Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January–February). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 32– 42.Google Scholar
  3. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper experi- ment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gery, G. (1991).Electronic performance support systems. Tolland, MA: Gery Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Hannafin, M. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environ- ments: Critical perspectives.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral par- ticipation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Marshall, J., & Rossett, A. (2000). An exploratory study of the relationship between knowledge management and performance professionals.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Palincsar, A. & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J. & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, P. J. (2003). Workplace learning and flexible delivery.Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stevens, G. H., & Krasner, S. M. (2001). Knowledge management: The bedrock of enterprise strategy.Performance Improvement, 40(8), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stone, D. L. & Villachica, S. W. (2003). And then a miracle occurs! Ensur- ing successful implementation of enterprisewide EPSS and e-learn- ing from day one.Performance Improvement, 42(3), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna C. Dunlap

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations