Knowledge Transfer Processes in the IS Offshore Outsourcing Transition: A Conceptual Model

Despite promising cost saving potential, many offshore software projects fail to realize the expected benefits. A frequent source of failure lies in the insufficient transfer of knowledge during the transition phase. Former literature has reported cases where some domains of knowledge were successfully transferred to vendor personnel whereas others were not. There is further evidence that the actual knowledge transfer processes often vary from case to case. This raises the question whether there is a systematic relationship between the chosen knowledge transfer process and know-ledge transfer success. This paper introduces a dynamic perspective that distinguishes different types of knowledge transfer processes explaining under which circumstances which type is deemed most appropriate to successfully transfer knowledge. Our paper draws on knowledge transfer literature, the Model of Work-Based Learning and theories from cognitive psychology to show how characteristics of know-ledge and the absorptive capacity of knowledge recipients fit particular knowledge transfer processes. The knowledge transfer processes are conceptualized as combinations of generic knowledge transfer activities. This results in six gestalts of know-ledge transfer processes, each representing a fit between the characteristics of the knowledge process and the characteristics of the knowledge to be transferred and the absorptive capacity of the knowledge recipient.

Keeping citizens, companies, and organizations informed by Web KnowARR

For the main part, electronic government (or e-government for short) aims to put digital public services at disposal for citizens, companies, and organizations. To that end, in particular, e-government comprises the application of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to support government operations and provide better governmental services (Fraga, 2002) as possible with traditional means. Accordingly, e-government services go further as traditional governmental services and aim to fundamentally alter the processes in which public services are generated and delivered, after this manner transforming the entire spectrum of relationships of public bodies with its citizens, businesses and other government agencies (Leitner, 2003). To implement this transformation, one of the most important points is to inform the citizen, business, and/or other government agencies faithfully and in an accessible way. This allows all the partaking participants of governmental affairs for a transition from passive information access to active participation (Palvia and Sharma, 2007). In addition, by a corresponding handling of the participants' data, a personalization towards these participants may even be accomplished. For instance, by creating significant user profiles as a kind of participants' tailored knowledge structures, a better-quality governmental service may be provided (i.e., expressed by individualized governmental services). To create such knowledge structures, thus known information (e.g., a social security number) can be enriched by vague information that may be accurate to a certain degree only. Hence, fuzzy knowledge structures can be generated, which help improve governmental-participants relationship. The Web KnowARR framework (Portmann and Thiessen, 2013; Portmann and Pedrycz, 2014; Portmann and Kaltenrieder, 2014), which I introduce in my presentation, allows just all these participants to be automatically informed about changes of Web content regarding a- respective governmental action. The name Web KnowARR thereby stands for a self-acting entity (i.e. instantiated form the conceptual framework) that knows or apprehends the Web. In this talk, the frameworks respective three main components from artificial intelligence research (i.e. knowledge aggregation, representation, and reasoning), as well as its specific use in electronic government will be briefly introduced and discussed.

Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity

Although transdisciplinary research has started addressing important epistemological challenges, as evidenced by the discussion about ‘mode 2’ knowledge production, its relation with postulations of ‘scientific objectivity’ is not yet well clarified. A common way of dealing with the epistemological challenge of situated knowledge production, as proposed by transdisciplinarity, is to point to the fundamental aspect of reflexivity. But reflexivity also includes being aware that power and control over the object is derived from the social position of researchers, an issue not often explicitly discussed in transdisciplinary research. Reflexivity thus represents an important but insufficient principle for guaranteeing appropriate levels of self-reflection within a process of knowledge coproduction. We therefore hypothesize that transdisciplinary research could greatly benefit from feminist scientific tradition, in particular the insights of standpoint theory and the concept of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse, and reflect upon, how a recent transdisciplinary research initiative – conducted together with civil society organizations in (CSOs) in six countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador and India – has benefited from the use of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse how the social position of all stakeholders, including ourselves as the scientific actors in this initiative, influence the process and conditions of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, and we discuss how power and control by scientists affects the process and conditions of interaction. Thereby we argue for the necessity of explicitly assuming sides in contested contexts for reaching objectivity in transdisciplinary research.

The World of Indicators. The Making of Governmental Knowledge through Quantification

The twenty-first century has seen a further dramatic increase in the use of quantitative knowledge for governing social life after its explosion in the 1980s. Indicators and rankings play an increasing role in the way governmental and non-governmental organizations distribute attention, make decisions, and allocate scarce resources. Quantitative knowledge promises to be more objective and straightforward as well as more transparent and open for public debate than qualitative knowledge, thus producing more democratic decision-making. However, we know little about the social processes through which this knowledge is constituted nor its effects. Understanding how such numeric knowledge is produced and used is increasingly important as proliferating technologies of quantification alter modes of knowing in subtle and often unrecognized ways. This book explores the implications of the global multiplication of indicators as a specific technology of numeric knowledge production used in governance. Combination of insights from anthropology of law, history of science, science and technology studies, sociology of quantification, economics and geography will appeal to those who are uncomfortable with the separation between 'theoretical' and 'empirical' approaches and with the current weakness of critique that address the main trends shaping the relations between capitalism, markets, law and democracy Theoretical discussion of the nature and historical formation of quantification will appeal to those who ask questions such as, 'What is new or different about our contemporary reliance on quantitative knowledge?' Groundbreaking empirical case studies uncover the social work and politics that often go into the making of indicators and explore the far-reaching effects and impacts of these numerical representations in specific settings

Inseparable, incapable, or invisible: Why public organizations award no-bid contracts

No-bid contracting is a highly prevalent practice in public procurement of technology services. Alt-hough no-bid contracting is a substantial problem since it reduces competition and welfare, the litera-ture lacks theoretical explanations and empirical tests for why public organizations award no-bid con-tracts. In this paper, we propose three theoretical explanations for no-bid contracting, drawing on transaction cost economics, organizational learning, and institutional theory. We also present how we test these explanations using a comprehensive sample of public procurement transactions. We expect to contribute theoretical explanations for no-bid contracting and practical implications for policy-makers.