Lukemisto EU:n naistutkijoille?

Kirjallisuusarvostelu

Developing of Service Platform Thinking in Modern Electricity Distribution Business

Palvelukehitystoiminta sitoo huomattavan määrän resursseja ja on pitkäkestoista toimintaa. Innovatiivisuuteen tähtäämällä ja systemaattisella tuotekehitystyöllä yritys parantaa jatkuvuutta omassa liiketoiminnassaan. Alusta-ajattelu tuo uuden ulottuvuuden tuotteiden ja palveluiden kehitykseen. Alustan kehittäminen tukemaan tuote- ja palvelukehitystoimintaa ja yksinkertaistamaan tuote/palvelurakenteita antaa yrityksissä lisäpotentiaalia esimerkiksi lyhentyneiden kehitysaikojen, paremman kompleksisuuden hallinnan ja kustannustehokkuuden nousun myötä. Toimintojen tehostuminen yritystasolla saa aikaan mahdollisuuksien lisääntymisen nykyisillä liiketoimintasektoreilla. Palvelualustan kehityksellä päästään palvelurakenteen mallintamisen kautta parempaan liiketoiminnan hallitsemiseen ja systemaattisempaan tuotekehityksen läpivientiin. Palvelualustan yhtenä tärkeimpänä hyötynä on, että palvelun rakenteellisuus saadaan kuvattua alustaan. Lisäksi on tärkeää määritellä vastuutukset alustan kehityksessä, sekä pystyä mallintamaan informaation kulku (rajapinnat) prosesseissa.

Careers of Managers, Comparison between ICT and Paper Business Sectors

The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of how the managers build their early career in information and communication technology industry (ICT business sector) and pulp- and paper industry (paper business sector). The focus of the study is to explore the importance differing a business sectors have in influencing managerial careers. Business sectors can affect careers in several ways.Sectors have different history and traditions. Also the age structure of ICT personnel differs from the age structure of personnel in the paper industry. Managers in the ICT and paper sector are technically educated but in different disciplines. Differences exist also in ways of recruiting and developing commitment inpersonnel. The target group of this research, middle management engineering personnel, work in Finnish ICT and paper companies. Research data were gathered in April-December 2002 in South-Karelia by interviewing 30 managers and six directors working in three Finnish ICT companies and in three paper companies. The research issue is approached on two levels: the individual level and the organizational level. The managers related their career stories in focused interviews. Directors, representing the organizations, described the generalities of the business sector and gave background information on company policies, human relationshippractices, as well as career and human resource development. Results of the study contribute to research discussions of career, life-span reasoning, socialization and commitment. Career is conceived as a series of positions including everykind of hierarchical mobility and all kinds of positions in work. A manager's career develops in interaction with the organization and it can be seen as involving a socializing process in an organization as a consequence of experiences andchanges in positions. This research contributes to the understanding of the nature of career in the context of two business sectors. Universal career theories,for the most part, do not perceive the importance of business sector in determining career experience. This study concentrates on describing and understanding early careers in two different business areas, elements committing managers to particular business sectors and the actions of companies in that particular sector. While career research began in the middle of 1950s, the theoretical basis of career research seems to be quite fragmented still. However, a dichotomy is consistently presented between traditional, hierarchical career research and boundaryless career thinking. In this research we examine how these old and new career concepts are evidence in the ICT and paper sectors. Careers are changing from formal, hierarchy-based structures to more fluid arrangements. The new boundaryless career concept captures territory from old career thinking. Mobility between employers, networks, and changing hierarchical structures in organizations, as well as personal and family reasons are theorized to bring changes to careers patterns in the future. However, the pace of this change in careers will vary between the ICT and paper business sectors. Findings of this research indicate that business sector has an effect on how managerial careers develop. The environment where career is developed differs between ICT and paper sectors. Careers begin differently in the two environments and the speed of career progression is distinct. ICT careers are built within the business sector whereas paper careers are made inside one company. Also recruiting and socialization practices differ from one sector to the other.

Optimizing the Testing Process in Module Testing – Functional Testing Interface

Today's business environment has become increasingly unexpected and fast changing because of the global competition. This new environment requires the companies to organize their control differently, e.g. by logistic process thinking. Logistic process thinking in software engineering applies the principles of production process to immaterial products. Processes must be optimized, so that every phase adds value to the customer, and the lead times can be cut shorter to meet the new customer requirements. The purpose of this thesis is to examine and optimize the testing processes of software engineering concentrating on module testing, functional testing and their interface. The concept of logistic process thinking is introduced through production process, value added model and process management. Also theory of testing based on literature is presented, concentrating on module testing and functional testing. The testing processes of the Case Company are presented together with the project models in which they are implemented. The real life practices in module testing and functional testing and their interface are examined through interviews. These practices are analyzed against the processes and the testing theory, through which ideas for optimizing the testing process are introduced. The project world of the Case Company is also introduced together with two example testing projects in different life cycle phases. The examples give a view of how much effort of the project is put in different types of testing.

Assessment of facilitators' design thinking

Meeting design is one of the most critical prerequisites of the success of facilitated meetings but how to achieve the success is not yet fully understood. This study presents a descriptive model of the design of technology supported meetings based on literature findings about the key factors contributing to the success of collaborative meetings, and linking these factors to the meeting design steps by exploring how facilitators consider the factors in practice in their design process. The empirical part includes a multiple-case study conducted among 12 facilitators. The case concentrates on the GSS laboratory at LUT, which has been working on facilitation and GSS for the last fifteen years. The study also includes ‘control’ cases from two comparable institutions. The results of this study highlight both the variances and commonalities among facilitators in how they design collaboration processes. The design thinking of facilitators of all levels of experience is found to be largely consistent wherefore the key design factors as well as their role across the design process can be outlined. Session goals, group composition, supporting technology, motivational aspects, physical constraints, and correct design practices were found to outline the key factors in design thinking. These factors are further categorized into three factor types of controllable, constraining, and guiding design factors, because the study findings indicate the factor type to have an effect on the factor’s importance in design. Furthermore, the order of considering these factors in the design process is outlined.

Saako historiasta selvää? Monikulttuuriset yläkoululaiset historian lähteillä historian taidot motiivien, seurauksien, historian tulkintojen ja lähteiden luotettavuuden arvioinneissa

The research assesses the skills of upper comprehensive school pupils in history. The focus is on locating personal motives, assessing wider reasons hidden in historical sources and evaluating source reliability. The research also questions how a wide use of multiple sources affects pupils’ holistic understanding of historical phenomena. The participants were a multicultural group of pupils. The origins of their cultures can be traced to the Balkan, the Middle East, Asia and Europe. The number of native Finnish speakers and pupils speaking Finnish as their second language was almost equal. The multicultural composition provides opportunities to assess how culturally responsive learning history from sources is. The intercultural approach to learning in a multicultural setting emphasizes equality as a precondition for learning. In order to set assignments at least to some extent match with all participants only those answers were taken into account which were produced by pupils who had studied history for a similar period of time in the Finnish comprehensive school system. Due to the small number of participants (41), the study avoids wide generalizations. Nevertheless, possible cultural blueprints in pupils’ way of thinking are noted. The first test examined the skills of pupils to find motives for emigration. The results showed that for 7th graders finding reasons is not a problematic task. However, the number of reasons noticed and justifications varied. In addition, the way the pupils explained their choices was a distinguishing factor. Some pupils interpreted source material making use of previous knowledge on the issue, while other pupils based their analysis solely on the text handed and did not try to add their own knowledge. Answers were divided into three categories: historical, explanatory and stating. Historical answers combined smoothly previously learned historical knowledge to one’s own source analysis; explanatory answers often ignored a wider frame, although they were effective when explaining e.g. historical concepts. The stating answers only noticed motives from the sources and made no attempts to explain them historically. Was the first test culturally responsive? All pupils representing different cultures tackled the first source exam successfully, but there were some signs of how historical concepts are understood in a slightly different way if the pupil’s personal history has no linkage to the concepts under scrutiny. The second test focused on the history of Native Americans. The test first required pupils to recognize whether short source extracts (5) were written by Indians or Caucasians. Based on what they had already learned from North American history, the pupils did not find it hard to distinguish between the sources. The analysis of multiphase causes and consequences of the disputes between Native Americans and white Americans caused dispersion among pupils. Using two historical sources and combining historical knowledge from both of them simultaneously was cumbersome for many. The explanations of consequences can be divided into two groups: the ones emphasizing short term consequences and those placing emphasis on long term consequences. The short term approach was mainly followed by boys in every group. The girls mainly paid attention to long term consequences. The result suggests that historical knowledge in sources is at least to some extent read through role and gender lenses. The third test required pupils to explain in their own words how the three sources given differed in their account of living conditions in Nazi Germany, which turned out to be demanding for many pupils. The pupils’ stronghold was rather the assessment of source reliability and accounts why the sources approached the same events differently. All participants wrote critical and justified comments on reliability and aspects that might have affected the content of the sources. The pupils felt that the main reasons that affected source reliability were the authors’ ethnic background, nationality and profession. The assessment showed that pupils were well aware that position in a historical situation has an impact on historical accounts, but in certain cases the victim’s account was seen as a historical truth. The account of events by a historian was chosen most often as the most reliable source, but it was often justified leniently with an indication to professionalism rather than with clear ideas of how historians conduct accounts based on sources. In brief, the last source test demonstrates that pupils have a strong idea that the ethnicity or nationalism determines how people explained events of the past. It is also an implication that pupils understand how historical knowledge is interpretative. The results also imply that history can be analyzed from a neutral perspective. One’s own membership in an ethnical or religious group does not automatically mean that a person’s cultural identity excludes historical explanations if something in them contradicts with his or her identity. The second method of extracting knowledge of pupils’ historical thinking was an essay analysis. The analysis shows that an analytical account of complicated political issues, which often include a great number of complicated political concepts, leads more likely to an inconsistent structure in the written work of pupils. The material also demonstrates that pupils have a strong tendency to take a critical stance when assessing history. Historical empathy in particular is shown if history somehow has a linkage to young people, children or minorities. Some topics can also awake strong feelings, especially among pupils with emigrant background, if there is a linkage between one’s own personal history and that of the school; and occasionally a student’s historical experience or thoughts replaced school history. Using sources during history lessons at school seems to have many advantages. It enhances the reasoning skills of pupils and their skills to assess the nature of historical knowledge. Thus one of the main aims and a great benefit of source work is to encourage pupils to express their own ideas and opinions. To conclude, when assessing the skills of adolescents in history - their work with sources, comments on history, historical knowledge and finally their historical thinking - one should be cautious and avoid cut off score evaluations. One purpose of pursuing history with sources is to encourage pupils to think independently, which is a useful tool for further identity construction. The idea that pupils have the right to conduct their own interpretations of history can be partially understood as part of a wider learning process, justification to study history comes from extrinsic reasons. The intrinsic reason is history itself; in order to understand history one should have a basic understanding of history as a specific domain of knowledge. Using sources does not mean that knowing history is of secondary importance. Only a balance between knowing the contextual history, understanding basic key concepts and working with sources is a solid base to improve pupils’ historical understanding.

Thinking Outside the Box: Enhancing Science Teaching by Combining (Instead of Contrasting) Laboratory and Simulation Activities

The focus of the present work was on 10- to 12-year-old elementary school students’ conceptual learning outcomes in science in two specific inquiry-learning environments, laboratory and simulation. The main aim was to examine if it would be more beneficial to combine than contrast simulation and laboratory activities in science teaching. It was argued that the status quo where laboratories and simulations are seen as alternative or competing methods in science teaching is hardly an optimal solution to promote students’ learning and understanding in various science domains. It was hypothesized that it would make more sense and be more productive to combine laboratories and simulations. Several explanations and examples were provided to back up the hypothesis. In order to test whether learning with the combination of laboratory and simulation activities can result in better conceptual understanding in science than learning with laboratory or simulation activities alone, two experiments were conducted in the domain of electricity. In these experiments students constructed and studied electrical circuits in three different learning environments: laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits), and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits were used simultaneously). In order to measure and compare how these environments affected students’ conceptual understanding of circuits, a subject knowledge assessment questionnaire was administered before and after the experimentation. The results of the experiments were presented in four empirical studies. Three of the studies focused on learning outcomes between the conditions and one on learning processes. Study I analyzed learning outcomes from experiment I. The aim of the study was to investigate if it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory activities than to use them separately in teaching the concepts of simple electricity. Matched-trios were created based on the pre-test results of 66 elementary school students and divided randomly into a laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits) and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits simultaneously) conditions. In each condition students had 90 minutes to construct and study various circuits. The results showed that studying electrical circuits in the simulation–laboratory combination environment improved students’ conceptual understanding more than studying circuits in simulation and laboratory environments alone. Although there were no statistical differences between simulation and laboratory environments, the learning effect was more pronounced in the simulation condition where the students made clear progress during the intervention, whereas in the laboratory condition students’ conceptual understanding remained at an elementary level after the intervention. Study II analyzed learning outcomes from experiment II. The aim of the study was to investigate if and how learning outcomes in simulation and simulation-laboratory combination environments are mediated by implicit (only procedural guidance) and explicit (more structure and guidance for the discovery process) instruction in the context of simple DC circuits. Matched-quartets were created based on the pre-test results of 50 elementary school students and divided randomly into a simulation implicit (SI), simulation explicit (SE), combination implicit (CI) and combination explicit (CE) conditions. The results showed that when the students were working with the simulation alone, they were able to gain significantly greater amount of subject knowledge when they received metacognitive support (explicit instruction; SE) for the discovery process than when they received only procedural guidance (implicit instruction: SI). However, this additional scaffolding was not enough to reach the level of the students in the combination environment (CI and CE). A surprising finding in Study II was that instructional support had a different effect in the combination environment than in the simulation environment. In the combination environment explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much additional gain for students’ understanding of electric circuits compared to implicit instruction (CI). Instead, explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment. Study III analyzed from video data learning processes of those 50 students that participated in experiment II (cf. Study II above). The focus was on three specific learning processes: cognitive conflicts, self-explanations, and analogical encodings. The aim of the study was to find out possible explanations for the success of the combination condition in Experiments I and II. The video data provided clear evidence about the benefits of studying with the real and virtual circuits simultaneously (the combination conditions). Mostly the representations complemented each other, that is, one representation helped students to interpret and understand the outcomes they received from the other representation. However, there were also instances in which analogical encoding took place, that is, situations in which the slightly discrepant results between the representations ‘forced’ students to focus on those features that could be generalised across the two representations. No statistical differences were found in the amount of experienced cognitive conflicts and self-explanations between simulation and combination conditions, though in self-explanations there was a nascent trend in favour of the combination. There was also a clear tendency suggesting that explicit guidance increased the amount of self-explanations. Overall, the amount of cognitive conflicts and self-explanations was very low. The aim of the Study IV was twofold: the main aim was to provide an aggregated overview of the learning outcomes of experiments I and II; the secondary aim was to explore the relationship between the learning environments and students’ prior domain knowledge (low and high) in the experiments. Aggregated results of experiments I & II showed that on average, 91% of the students in the combination environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment, and 76% of them scored also above the average of the simulation environment. Seventy percent of the students in the simulation environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment. The results further showed that overall students seemed to benefit from combining simulations and laboratories regardless of their level of prior knowledge, that is, students with either low or high prior knowledge who studied circuits in the combination environment outperformed their counterparts who studied in the laboratory or simulation environment alone. The effect seemed to be slightly bigger among the students with low prior knowledge. However, more detailed inspection of the results showed that there were considerable differences between the experiments regarding how students with low and high prior knowledge benefitted from the combination: in Experiment I, especially students with low prior knowledge benefitted from the combination as compared to those students that used only the simulation, whereas in Experiment II, only students with high prior knowledge seemed to benefit from the combination relative to the simulation group. Regarding the differences between simulation and laboratory groups, the benefits of using a simulation seemed to be slightly higher among students with high prior knowledge. The results of the four empirical studies support the hypothesis concerning the benefits of using simulation along with laboratory activities to promote students’ conceptual understanding of electricity. It can be concluded that when teaching students about electricity, the students can gain better understanding when they have an opportunity to use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they have only the real circuits or only a computer simulation available, even when the use of the simulation is supported with the explicit instruction. The outcomes of the empirical studies can be considered as the first unambiguous evidence on the (additional) benefits of combining laboratory and simulation activities in science education as compared to learning with laboratories and simulations alone.

Mythology as a key to historical ways of thinking

Kirjallisuusarvostelu

Strategic narratives and competitive advantage : do winners speak differently?

Concepts, models, or theories that end up shaping practices, whether those practices fall in the domains of science, technology, social movements, or business, always emerge through a change in language use. First, communities begin to talk differently, incorporating new vocabularies (Rorty, 1989), in their narratives. Whether the community’s new narratives respond to perceived anomalies or failures of the existing ones (Kuhn, 1962) or actually reveal inadequacies by addressing previously unrecognized practices (Fleck, 1979; Rorty, 1989) is less important here than the very phenomena that they introduce differences. Then, if the new language proves to be useful, for example, because it helps the community solve a problem or create a possibility that existing narratives do not, the new narrative will begin circulating more broadly throughout the community. If other communities learn of the usefulness of these new narratives, and find them sufficiently persuasive, they may be compelled to test, modify, and eventually adopt them. Of primary importance is the idea that a new concept or narrative perceived as useful is more likely to be adopted. We can expect that business concepts emerge through a similar pattern. Concepts such as “competitive advantage,” “disruption,” and the “resource based view,” now broadly known and accepted, were each at some point first introduced by a community. This community experimented with the concepts they introduced and found them useful. The concept “competitive advantage,” for example, helped researchers better explain why some firm’s outperformed others and helped practitioners more clearly understand what choices to make to improve the profit and growth prospects of their firms. The benefits of using these terms compelled other communities to consider, apply, and eventually adopt them as well. Were these terms not viewed as useful, they would not likely have been adopted. This thesis attempts to observe and anticipate new business concepts that may be emerging. It does so by seeking to observe a community of business practitioners that are using different language and appear to be more successful than a similar community of practitioners that are have not yet begun using this different language as extensively. It argues that if the community that is adopting new types of narratives is perceived as being more successful, their success will attract the attention of other communities who may then seek to adopt the same narratives. Specifically, this thesis compares the narratives used by a set of firms that are considered to be performing well (called Winners) with those of set of less-successful peers (called Losers). It does so with the aim of addressing two questions: - How do the strategic narratives that circulate within “winning” companies and their leaders differ from those circulating within “losing” companies and their leaders? - Given the answer to the first question: what new business strategy concepts are likely to emerge in the business community at large? I expected to observe “winning” companies shifting their language, abandoning an older set of narratives for newer ones. However the analysis indicates a more interesting dynamic: “winning” companies adopt the same core narratives as their “losing” peers with equal frequency yet they go beyond these. Both “winners” and “losers” seem to pursue economies of scale, customer captivity, best practices, and securing preferential access to resources with similar vigor. But “winners” seem to go further, applying three additional narratives in their pursuits of competitive advantage. They speak of coordinating what is uncoordinated, adopting what this thesis calls “exchanging the role of guest for that of host,” and “forcing a two-front battle” more frequently than their “loser” peers. Since these “winning” companies are likely perceived as being more successful, the unique narratives they use are more likely to be emulated and adopted. Understanding in what ways winners speak differently, therefore, gives us a glimpse into the possible future evolution of business concepts.