Identity management and e-learning standards for promoting the sharing of contents and services in higher education

In this paper, we present the status of identity management systems and e-learning standards across Europe, in order to promote the mobility and the sharing of contents and services in higher education institutions. With new requirements for authentication, authorization and identity management for Web applications, most higher education institutions implement several solutions to address these issues. At the first level, the adoption of directory Servers like LDAP, Active Directory and others, solve some problems of having multiple logins and passwords for authentication. The growing of Web applications like Learning management Systems, portals, Blogs, Wikis, and others, need a more effective way of identity management, providing security and accessibility. Web Single Sign-On (SSO) resolves some of these issues of identity management, because the authentication is managed centrally and the user can navigate through different Web applications using the same session. One example of a Web SSO system is the Central Authentication Systems (CAS). SSO systems provide an effective way to manage authentication and authorization inside institutions, but are restricted to the administrative domain of each institution. With the implementation of Bologna Process more students, lecturers and staff will be on mobility programs within European higher education institutions. The creation of identity management federations is mandatory to provide the mobility of users and to permit the exchange of contents and services between institutions. The creation of identities federations across Europe is been in discussion by TERENA (Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association) to provide a service federation like the EDUROAM WI-FI network that permits the mobility across Europe. This paper reports on some of the issues highlighted in the light of recent developments. To share contents and services within Europe, the adoption of standards is mandatory. IEEE LTSC (Learning Technology Standards Committee), IMS (IMS Global Learning, Inc) and ADL (Advanced Distributed Learning) are standards organizations that publish a set of standards to promote the interoperability, reusability and integration of e-learning contents and services. The most important standards that promote the sharing of contents and services across Europe are Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), IMS Digital Repositories Interoperability and IMS Learning Design. This paper presents the main features of e-learning standards and how it can be used in conjunction with identity management systems to create collaborative learning objects repositories to promote a more effective learning experience and a more competitive European space for higher education, with respect to the requirements of knowledge based societies

E-Learning as a shared service in shared services centers

Book Subtitle International Conference, CENTERIS 2010, Viana do Castelo, Portugal, October 20-22, 2010, Proceedings, Part IIAn organization is an entity of systemic nature, consisting of one or more people interacting with each other to achieve common goals, being one of its greatest challenges the attempt to follow the evolution of their environment. Adoption of Technologies and Information Systems enables organizations to improve their information flow and, when used strategically positively differentiates, providing competitive advantages, for the dissemination and updating of organizational knowledge. This dissemination in a global world requires the adoption of distance communication procedures, e-learning. Shared Services an organizational management model, continue to be implemented in Economic Groups and Public Administration, with the aim to provision of services appropriate to each Internal Customer or Organizational Unit, collaborative and virtual, supported by a single technology platform and enterprise architecture service-oriented. The implementation model of shared services proposed here, three-layer model, adds e-learning as a shared service

An Analysis of Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes to Online Learning Use in Higher Education in Jamaica: An Extension of TAM

The research presents preliminary work on the perception of students to the use of an e-learning system in a top Jamaican University. E-learning, defined as the act, process or experience of gaining knowledge or skill through the delivery of lessons and instructions via the Internet, has grown as key method in education management over the last couple of decades. Studies have shown that significant investments in this technology are made by Universities yet the full benefits expected have not been realized due to issues and challenges experienced by both learners and instructors in adopting and effectively using e-learning. Our investigation revealed that while this University has not officially launched its e-learning systems it has been available for over five years where instructors across faculties have implemented their classroom with varying results. The study extend the original TAM model to include several other constructs such as faculty encouragement, university climate and access to computers as basis to understand perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the university’s current e-learning system. The study offers both research and practical significance as it is argued that within the developing contexts these variables are importance in understanding as institutions make the transitions to different modes of e-learning. Additionally, while there is growing literature on e-learning, little or no research is done within the context of the English-speaking Caribbean and it is imperative that technology adoption studies are specifically designed to fit the unique contextual settings, such as Jamaica

Monitorización y Evaluación Participativa en Agricultura Regenerativa: Del conocimiento y los impactos locales a la adopción a gran escala

The advanced state of land degradation affecting more than 3,200 million people worldwide have raised great international concern regarding the sustainability of socio-ecological systems, urging the large-scale adoption of contextualized sustainable land management. The agricultural industrial model is a major cause of land degradation due to the promotion of unsustainable management practices that deteriorate the quality of soils compromising their capacity to function and deliver ecosystem services. The consequences derived from land degradation are especially devastating in semi-arid regions prone to desertification, where rainfall scarcity and irregularity intensifies crop failure risks and resource degradation, compromising the long term sustainability of these regions. Regenerative agriculture (RA) has recently gained increasing recognition as a plausible solution to restore degraded agroecosystems worldwide. RA is a farming approach foreseen to reverse land degradation, increase biodiversity, boost production and enhance the delivery of multiple ecosystem services by following a series of soil quality restoration principles and practices. Despite its promising benefits, RA has been limitedly adopted in semiarid regions. Major reasons explaining this seemingly incongruous mismatch are the scarce and contrasting empirical data proving its effectiveness, top-down research approaches and lack of farmer involvement in agroecosystem restoration projects and decision-making, and the generally slow response of soils to management changes in semiarid regions, which may delay the appearance of visible results discouraging farmers from adopting RA. In the high steppe plateau of southeast Spain, an on-going process of large-scale landscape restoration through adoption of regenerative agriculture was initiated in 2015. The high steppe plateau is one of the European regions most affected by land degradation and desertification processes and represents one of the world´s largest areas for the production of rainfed organic almonds. In 2015, local farmers created the AlVelAl association with the support of the Commonland Foundation, business entrepreneurs, regional governments, and research institutions, and started to apply RA at their farms. The objective was to restore vast extensions of degraded land for increasing the productivity and biodiversity of their agroecosystems, increasing the resilience to climate change, generating job opportunities and enhancing social cohesion in the region, in a time frame of 20 years following Commonlands´ 4-Returns approach. However, the limited empirical information supporting RA effectiveness, the lack of reference examples in the region, and the slowness with which visible ecological restoration processes usually occur in semiarid regions were considered major obstacles hindering RA adoption in the region. To effectively address this knowledge gap, support farmers and expedite RA adoption, this research proposed horizontal research fostering the creation of learning communities between farmers and researchers, putting together local and scientific knowledge to improve the understanding of RA. This thesis presents a participatory monitoring and evaluation research (PM&E) applying a combination of social and ecological methods to evaluate the potential of PM&E to enhance knowledge exchange between farmers and researchers on Regenerative Agriculture in the context of the high steppe plateau. The aim of this thesis is twofold: on one hand, to increase the understanding on RA impacts, on the other hand, to evaluate the potential contribution of PM&E to enable social learning and contribute to the adaptation and long term adoption of RA in the high steppe plateau and semiarid regions in general. To facilitate PM&E of the impacts of sustainable land management and agricultural innovations like RA, Chapter 2 presents a participatory methodological framework that guides the identification and selection of technical and local indicators of soil quality, generating a monitoring system of soil quality for PM&E by farmers and researchers. The methodological framework includes the development of a visual soil assessment tool integrating local indicators of soil quality for farmers´ monitoring. The framework consists of 7 phases: 1) Definition of research and monitoring objectives; 2) Identification, selection and prioritization of Technical Indicators of Soil Quality (TISQ); 3) Identification, selection and prioritization of Local Indicators of Soil Quality; 4) Development of a visual soil assessment tool integrating LISQ; 5) Testing and validation of the visual soil evaluation tool; 6) Monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management impacts by researchers and farmers using TISQ and the visual soil evaluation tool respectively and; 7) Exchange of monitoring results between all involved participants, and joint evaluation of impacts. To facilitate PM&E of RA in the steppe highlands, Phases 1 to 5 were applied through a series of participatory methods including a first meeting with AlVelAl board members for the definition of research objectives, farm visits, participatory workshops, and conducting formal and informal interviews, among others. Technical indicators of soil quality were identified, selected and prioritized by researchers through an extensive literature review and ad-hoc expert consultation with expertise in soil quality assessment and monitoring. Local indicators of soil quality were identified, selected, prioritized and validated by farmers in two participatory workshops. The co-developed visual soil assessment tool, named the farmer manual, was tested and validated during the second workshop. Local indicators selected by farmers focused mostly on supporting, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services including water regulation, erosion control, soil fertility and crop performance. Technical indicators selected by researchers focused mostly on soil properties including aggregate stability, soil nutrients, microbial biomass and activity, and leaf nutrients, covering crucial supporting services. The combination of local and technical indicators provided complementary information, improving the coverage and feasibility of RA impact assessment, compared to using technical or local indicators alone. The methodological framework developed in this chapter facilitated the identification and selection of local and technical indicators of soil quality to generate relevant monitoring systems and visual soil assessment tools adapted to local contexts, thus improving knowledge exchange and mutual learning between farmers and researchers to support the implementation of RA and optimize the provision of ecosystem services. Implementation of RA usually happens gradually due to socioeconomic, informational, practical, environmental and political constraints Thus, RA adoption by farmers, in practice, translates into different combinations of RA practices, with a diversity of management, based on farmer capabilities, environmental conditions, and expected restoration results. To help the design, adoption and implementation of most effective RA practices to optimize the restoration of agroecosystems, Chapter 3 presents the impacts of the different combinations of RA practices implemented by participating farmers on crucial soil quality and crop performance indicators using previously selected technical indicators of soil quality over a period of 2 years. This chapter corresponds to the application of phase 6 of the methodological framework developed in Chapter 2. RA impacts were assessed in 9 farms on one field with regenerative management and one nearby field with conventional management based on frequent tillage, that were selected together with farmers. Fields were clustered under regenerative management based on the RA practices applied and distinguished 4 types of RA treatments: 1) reduced tillage with green manure (GM), 2) reduced tillage with organic amendments (OA), 3) reduced tillage with green manure and organic amendments (GM&OA), and 4) no tillage with permanent natural covers and organic amendments (NT&OA). The impacts of RA compared to conventional management were evaluated by comparing physical (bulk density and aggregate stability), chemical (pH, salinity, total N, P, K, available P, and exchangeable cations) and biological (SOC, POC, PON, microbial activity) properties of soil quality, and the nutritional status of almond trees (leaf N, P and K). Our results show that GM improved soil physical properties, presenting higher soil aggregate stability. We found that OA improved most soil chemical and biological properties, showing higher contents of SOC, POC, PON, total N, K, P, available P, exchangeable cations and microbial respiration. RA treatments combining ground covers and organic amendments (GM&OA and NT&OA) exhibited greater overall soil quality restoration than individual practices. NT&OA stood out for presenting the highest soil quality improvements. All RA treatments maintained similar crop nutritional status compared to conventional management. We concluded that RA has strong potential to restore the physical, chemical and biological quality of soils of woody agroecosystems in Mediterranean drylands without compromising their nutritional status. Furthermore, farming management combinations of multiple regenerative practices are expected to be more effective than applying individual RA practices. In parallel to researchers´ assessment of RA impacts, farmers assessed RA impacts in their farms by using the farmer manual jointly developed in participatory workshops. Chapter 4 presents the RA impact results from farmers´ assessment, and documented farmers´ insights, in the third year of PM&E, on the visual soil assessment process using the farmer manual, and on PM&E outcomes regarding the facilitation of participation and learning processes. This chapter corresponds to the application of phase 6 and phase 7 of the methodological framework developed in Chapter 2. Farmers´ visual soil assessment indicated regenerative agriculture as a promising solution to restore degraded agroecosystems in semiarid Mediterranean drylands, although observed soil quality improvements were relatively small compared to conventional management, and more time and efforts are needed to attain desired restoration targets. The monitoring results on RA reported by farmers were complementary to researchers´ findings using technical indicators of soil quality. Farmers’ evaluation of the research project highlighted the PM&E research as an educational process that helped them look differently at their land and their restoration efforts and facilitated the creation of relationships of support and trust, learning and capacity building that are fundamental conducive conditions to enhance farming innovation efficiency and adoption. Farmers confirmed that generating spaces for farmer-to-farmer diffusion of knowledge and on-farm experiences is a key driver to expedite farming testing and adoption of innovations. Farmers insights revealed the need to actively involve them in all decision making phases of VSA tools and support them in initial implementation, in order to develop tools that meet farmers´ needs, to enhance VSA tool adoption, and facilitate reaching restoration goals. Furthermore, farmers´ evaluation of the farmer manual suggested the need to reinforce the multipurpose usefulness and potential benefits of collectively recording restoration progress in a systematized way, to enhance VSA tool adoption. Farmers´ insights on the PM&E research reinforces the importance of developing learning communities of farmers and researchers that provide a platform for exchange of experiences and support, as a crucial factor to favor social learning and support the adoption of long-term agricultural innovations. The success of PM&E research for agroecosystem restoration can be improved by integrating iterative phases where farmers can evaluate and adjust research activities and outcomes. We concluded that the process of PM&E that leads to enhanced social capital, social learning and improved understanding of restoration efforts has as much value as the actual restoration outcomes on the ground. Social learning is considered an important precondition for the adoption of contextualized sustainable land management and farming innovations like RA. The main objective of involving farmers and researchers in PM&E of RA was to enable social learning for enhanced understanding of RA impacts and support adoption of RA. Although there is a growing body of literature asserting the achievement of social learning through participatory processes, social learning has been loosely defined, sparsely assessed, and only partially covered when measured. Confirming that a participatory process has favored social learning implies demonstrating that there has been an acquisition of knowledge and change in perceptions at individual and collective level in the people involved in the participatory process, and that this change in perceptions has been generated through social relations. Chapter 5 presents an assessment of how the PM&E research process enabled social learning by effectively increasing knowledge exchange and understanding of RA impacts between participating farmers and researchers, and multiple stakeholders of farmers´ social networks. Occurrence of social learning was assessed by covering its social-cognitive (perceptions) and social-relational (social networks) dimensions. This chapter discusses the potential of PM&E to foster adoption and out-scaling of sustainable land management and farming innovations like RA by promoting the generation of information fluxes between farmers and researchers participating in PM&E and the agricultural community of which they form part. To assess changes in farmers´ perceptions and shared fluxes of information on RA before starting the PM&E and after three years of research, we applied fuzzy cognitive mapping and social network analysis as graphical semi-quantitative methods. Our results showed that PM&E enabled social learning amongst participating farmers who strengthened and enlarged their social networks on information sharing, and presented a more complex and broader common understanding of regenerative agriculture impacts and benefits. This supports the idea that PM&E thereby creates crucial preconditions for the adoption and out-scaling of RA. This study was one of the first studies in the field of natural resource management and innovation adoption proving that social learning occurred by providing evidence of both the socialcognitive and social-relational dimension. Our findings are relevant for the design of PM&E processes, agroecosystem Living Labs, and landscape restoration initiatives that aim to support farmers´ adoption and out-scaling of contextualized farming innovations and sustainable land management. We concluded that PM&E where the democratic involvement of participants is the bedrock of the whole research process and the needs and concerns of the farming community are taken as the basis for collaborative research represents a great opportunity to generate inclusive, engaging, efficient, and sound restoration processes and transitions towards sustainable and resilient agroecosystems

Monitorización y Evaluación Participativa en Agricultura Regenerativa: Del conocimiento y los impactos locales a la adopción a gran escala

The advanced state of land degradation affecting more than 3,200 million people worldwide have raised great international concern regarding the sustainability of socio-ecological systems, urging the large-scale adoption of contextualized sustainable land management. The agricultural industrial model is a major cause of land degradation due to the promotion of unsustainable management practices that deteriorate the quality of soils compromising their capacity to function and deliver ecosystem services. The consequences derived from land degradation are especially devastating in semi-arid regions prone to desertification, where rainfall scarcity and irregularity intensifies crop failure risks and resource degradation, compromising the long term sustainability of these regions. Regenerative agriculture (RA) has recently gained increasing recognition as a plausible solution to restore degraded agroecosystems worldwide. RA is a farming approach foreseen to reverse land degradation, increase biodiversity, boost production and enhance the delivery of multiple ecosystem services by following a series of soil quality restoration principles and practices. Despite its promising benefits, RA has been limitedly adopted in semiarid regions. Major reasons explaining this seemingly incongruous mismatch are the scarce and contrasting empirical data proving its effectiveness, top-down research approaches and lack of farmer involvement in agroecosystem restoration projects and decision-making, and the generally slow response of soils to management changes in semiarid regions, which may delay the appearance of visible results discouraging farmers from adopting RA. In the high steppe plateau of southeast Spain, an on-going process of large-scale landscape restoration through adoption of regenerative agriculture was initiated in 2015. The high steppe plateau is one of the European regions most affected by land degradation and desertification processes and represents one of the world´s largest areas for the production of rainfed organic almonds. In 2015, local farmers created the AlVelAl association with the support of the Commonland Foundation, business entrepreneurs, regional governments, and research institutions, and started to apply RA at their farms. The objective was to restore vast extensions of degraded land for increasing the productivity and biodiversity of their agroecosystems, increasing the resilience to climate change, generating job opportunities and enhancing social cohesion in the region, in a time frame of 20 years following Commonlands´ 4-Returns approach. However, the limited empirical information supporting RA effectiveness, the lack of reference examples in the region, and the slowness with which visible ecological restoration processes usually occur in semiarid regions were considered major obstacles hindering RA adoption in the region. To effectively address this knowledge gap, support farmers and expedite RA adoption, this research proposed horizontal research fostering the creation of learning communities between farmers and researchers, putting together local and scientific knowledge to improve the understanding of RA. This thesis presents a participatory monitoring and evaluation research (PM&E) applying a combination of social and ecological methods to evaluate the potential of PM&E to enhance knowledge exchange between farmers and researchers on Regenerative Agriculture in the context of the high steppe plateau. The aim of this thesis is twofold: on one hand, to increase the understanding on RA impacts, on the other hand, to evaluate the potential contribution of PM&E to enable social learning and contribute to the adaptation and long term adoption of RA in the high steppe plateau and semiarid regions in general. To facilitate PM&E of the impacts of sustainable land management and agricultural innovations like RA, Chapter 2 presents a participatory methodological framework that guides the identification and selection of technical and local indicators of soil quality, generating a monitoring system of soil quality for PM&E by farmers and researchers. The methodological framework includes the development of a visual soil assessment tool integrating local indicators of soil quality for farmers´ monitoring. The framework consists of 7 phases: 1) Definition of research and monitoring objectives; 2) Identification, selection and prioritization of Technical Indicators of Soil Quality (TISQ); 3) Identification, selection and prioritization of Local Indicators of Soil Quality; 4) Development of a visual soil assessment tool integrating LISQ; 5) Testing and validation of the visual soil evaluation tool; 6) Monitoring and assessment of sustainable land management impacts by researchers and farmers using TISQ and the visual soil evaluation tool respectively and; 7) Exchange of monitoring results between all involved participants, and joint evaluation of impacts. To facilitate PM&E of RA in the steppe highlands, Phases 1 to 5 were applied through a series of participatory methods including a first meeting with AlVelAl board members for the definition of research objectives, farm visits, participatory workshops, and conducting formal and informal interviews, among others. Technical indicators of soil quality were identified, selected and prioritized by researchers through an extensive literature review and ad-hoc expert consultation with expertise in soil quality assessment and monitoring. Local indicators of soil quality were identified, selected, prioritized and validated by farmers in two participatory workshops. The co-developed visual soil assessment tool, named the farmer manual, was tested and validated during the second workshop. Local indicators selected by farmers focused mostly on supporting, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services including water regulation, erosion control, soil fertility and crop performance. Technical indicators selected by researchers focused mostly on soil properties including aggregate stability, soil nutrients, microbial biomass and activity, and leaf nutrients, covering crucial supporting services. The combination of local and technical indicators provided complementary information, improving the coverage and feasibility of RA impact assessment, compared to using technical or local indicators alone. The methodological framework developed in this chapter facilitated the identification and selection of local and technical indicators of soil quality to generate relevant monitoring systems and visual soil assessment tools adapted to local contexts, thus improving knowledge exchange and mutual learning between farmers and researchers to support the implementation of RA and optimize the provision of ecosystem services. Implementation of RA usually happens gradually due to socioeconomic, informational, practical, environmental and political constraints Thus, RA adoption by farmers, in practice, translates into different combinations of RA practices, with a diversity of management, based on farmer capabilities, environmental conditions, and expected restoration results. To help the design, adoption and implementation of most effective RA practices to optimize the restoration of agroecosystems, Chapter 3 presents the impacts of the different combinations of RA practices implemented by participating farmers on crucial soil quality and crop performance indicators using previously selected technical indicators of soil quality over a period of 2 years. This chapter corresponds to the application of phase 6 of the methodological framework developed in Chapter 2. RA impacts were assessed in 9 farms on one field with regenerative management and one nearby field with conventional management based on frequent tillage, that were selected together with farmers. Fields were clustered under regenerative management based on the RA practices applied and distinguished 4 types of RA treatments: 1) reduced tillage with green manure (GM), 2) reduced tillage with organic amendments (OA), 3) reduced tillage with green manure and organic amendments (GM&OA), and 4) no tillage with permanent natural covers and organic amendments (NT&OA). The impacts of RA compared to conventional management were evaluated by comparing physical (bulk density and aggregate stability), chemical (pH, salinity, total N, P, K, available P, and exchangeable cations) and biological (SOC, POC, PON, microbial activity) properties of soil quality, and the nutritional status of almond trees (leaf N, P and K). Our results show that GM improved soil physical properties, presenting higher soil aggregate stability. We found that OA improved most soil chemical and biological properties, showing higher contents of SOC, POC, PON, total N, K, P, available P, exchangeable cations and microbial respiration. RA treatments combining ground covers and organic amendments (GM&OA and NT&OA) exhibited greater overall soil quality restoration than individual practices. NT&OA stood out for presenting the highest soil quality improvements. All RA treatments maintained similar crop nutritional status compared to conventional management. We concluded that RA has strong potential to restore the physical, chemical and biological quality of soils of woody agroecosystems in Mediterranean drylands without compromising their nutritional status. Furthermore, farming management combinations of multiple regenerative practices are expected to be more effective than applying individual RA practices. In parallel to researchers´ assessment of RA impacts, farmers assessed RA impacts in their farms by using the farmer manual jointly developed in participatory workshops. Chapter 4 presents the RA impact results from farmers´ assessment, and documented farmers´ insights, in the third year of PM&E, on the visual soil assessment process using the farmer manual, and on PM&E outcomes regarding the facilitation of participation and learning processes. This chapter corresponds to the application of phase 6 and phase 7 of the methodological framework developed in Chapter 2. Farmers´ visual soil assessment indicated regenerative agriculture as a promising solution to restore degraded agroecosystems in semiarid Mediterranean drylands, although observed soil quality improvements were relatively small compared to conventional management, and more time and efforts are needed to attain desired restoration targets. The monitoring results on RA reported by farmers were complementary to researchers´ findings using technical indicators of soil quality. Farmers’ evaluation of the research project highlighted the PM&E research as an educational process that helped them look differently at their land and their restoration efforts and facilitated the creation of relationships of support and trust, learning and capacity building that are fundamental conducive conditions to enhance farming innovation efficiency and adoption. Farmers confirmed that generating spaces for farmer-to-farmer diffusion of knowledge and on-farm experiences is a key driver to expedite farming testing and adoption of innovations. Farmers insights revealed the need to actively involve them in all decision making phases of VSA tools and support them in initial implementation, in order to develop tools that meet farmers´ needs, to enhance VSA tool adoption, and facilitate reaching restoration goals. Furthermore, farmers´ evaluation of the farmer manual suggested the need to reinforce the multipurpose usefulness and potential benefits of collectively recording restoration progress in a systematized way, to enhance VSA tool adoption. Farmers´ insights on the PM&E research reinforces the importance of developing learning communities of farmers and researchers that provide a platform for exchange of experiences and support, as a crucial factor to favor social learning and support the adoption of long-term agricultural innovations. The success of PM&E research for agroecosystem restoration can be improved by integrating iterative phases where farmers can evaluate and adjust research activities and outcomes. We concluded that the process of PM&E that leads to enhanced social capital, social learning and improved understanding of restoration efforts has as much value as the actual restoration outcomes on the ground. Social learning is considered an important precondition for the adoption of contextualized sustainable land management and farming innovations like RA. The main objective of involving farmers and researchers in PM&E of RA was to enable social learning for enhanced understanding of RA impacts and support adoption of RA. Although there is a growing body of literature asserting the achievement of social learning through participatory processes, social learning has been loosely defined, sparsely assessed, and only partially covered when measured. Confirming that a participatory process has favored social learning implies demonstrating that there has been an acquisition of knowledge and change in perceptions at individual and collective level in the people involved in the participatory process, and that this change in perceptions has been generated through social relations. Chapter 5 presents an assessment of how the PM&E research process enabled social learning by effectively increasing knowledge exchange and understanding of RA impacts between participating farmers and researchers, and multiple stakeholders of farmers´ social networks. Occurrence of social learning was assessed by covering its social-cognitive (perceptions) and social-relational (social networks) dimensions. This chapter discusses the potential of PM&E to foster adoption and out-scaling of sustainable land management and farming innovations like RA by promoting the generation of information fluxes between farmers and researchers participating in PM&E and the agricultural community of which they form part. To assess changes in farmers´ perceptions and shared fluxes of information on RA before starting the PM&E and after three years of research, we applied fuzzy cognitive mapping and social network analysis as graphical semi-quantitative methods. Our results showed that PM&E enabled social learning amongst participating farmers who strengthened and enlarged their social networks on information sharing, and presented a more complex and broader common understanding of regenerative agriculture impacts and benefits. This supports the idea that PM&E thereby creates crucial preconditions for the adoption and out-scaling of RA. This study was one of the first studies in the field of natural resource management and innovation adoption proving that social learning occurred by providing evidence of both the socialcognitive and social-relational dimension. Our findings are relevant for the design of PM&E processes, agroecosystem Living Labs, and landscape restoration initiatives that aim to support farmers´ adoption and out-scaling of contextualized farming innovations and sustainable land management. We concluded that PM&E where the democratic involvement of participants is the bedrock of the whole research process and the needs and concerns of the farming community are taken as the basis for collaborative research represents a great opportunity to generate inclusive, engaging, efficient, and sound restoration processes and transitions towards sustainable and resilient agroecosystems

The effectiveness of crowdsourcing in knowledge-based industries: the moderating role of transformational leadership and organisational learning

[EN] Crowdsourcing provides an opportunity for SMEs to exploit collective knowledge that is located outside the organisation. Crowdsourcing allows organisations to keep pace with a fast-changing environment by solving business problems, supporting R&D activities, and fostering innovation cheaply, flexibly, and dynamically. Nevertheless, managing crowdsourcing is difficult, and positive outcomes are not guaranteed. Drawing on the Resource-based View, we study transformational leadership and organisational learning capability as complementary assets to help SMEs deploy crowdsourcing. An empirical study of Spanish telecommunications and biotechnology companies confirmed the moderating effect of organisational learning on the relationship between crowdsourcing and organisational performance.Devece Carañana, CA.; Palacios Marqués, D.; Ribeiro-Navarrete, B. (2019). The effectiveness of crowdsourcing in knowledge-based industries: the moderating role of transformational leadership and organisational learning. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istra ivanja. 32(1):335-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1547204S335351321Amitay, M., Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2005). Leadership styles and organizational learning in community clinics. The Learning Organization, 12(1), 57-70. doi:10.1108/09696470510574269Atapattu, M., & Ranawake, G. (2017). Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behaviours and their Effect on Knowledge Workers’ Propensity for Knowledge Management Processes. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 16(03), 1750026. doi:10.1142/s0219649217500265Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning’s role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 349-359. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.006Bal, A. S., Weidner, K., Hanna, R., & Mills, A. J. (2017). Crowdsourcing and brand control. Business Horizons, 60(2), 219-228. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.11.006Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108Colli, A. (2011). Contextualizing Performances of Family Firms. Family Business Review, 25(3), 243-257. doi:10.1177/0894486511426872Bhatti, W. A., Larimo, J., & Carrasco, I. (2016). Strategy’s effect on knowledge sharing in host country networks. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4769-4774. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.028Bruque-Cámara, S., Vargas-Sánchez, A., & Hernández-Ortiz, M. J. (2004). Organizational determinants of IT adoption in the pharmaceutical distribution sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), 133-146. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000490Cáceres, R., Guzmán, J., & Rekowski, M. (2011). Firms as source of variety in innovation: influence of size and sector. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 357-372. doi:10.1007/s11365-011-0198-8Chi, H.-K., Lan, C.-H., & Dorjgotov, B. (2012). The Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership on Knowledge Management and Organizational Effectiveness. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 40(6), 1015-1023. doi:10.2224/sbp.2012.40.6.1015Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational Learning and Organizational Knowledge. Management Learning, 36(1), 49-68. doi:10.1177/1350507605049906Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapiedra, R. (2007). Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 224-242. doi:10.1108/01437720710755227Coelho, D. A., Nunes, F., & Vieira, F. L. (2016). The impact of crowdsourcing in product development: an exploratory study of Quirky based on the perspective of participants. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 6(1-2), 114-128. doi:10.1080/21650349.2016.1216331Conant, J. S., Mokwa, M. P., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1990). Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: A multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 365-383. doi:10.1002/smj.4250110504Devece, C., Palacios, D., & Martinez-Simarro, D. (2016). Effect of information management capability on organizational performance. Service Business, 11(3), 563-580. doi:10.1007/s11628-016-0320-7Dimitrova, S., & Scarso, E. (2017). The impact of crowdsourcing on the evolution of knowledge management: Insights from a case study. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(4), 287-295. doi:10.1002/kpm.1552Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 587-606. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00053-5Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189-200. doi:10.1177/0165551512437638Flostrand, A. (2017). Finding the future: Crowdsourcing versus the Delphi technique. Business Horizons, 60(2), 229-236. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.11.007García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2008). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Performance through Knowledge and Innovation*. British Journal of Management, 19(4), 299-319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00547.xGrant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. doi:10.2307/41166664King, W. R. (Ed.). (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Annals of Information Systems. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0011-1Lang, M., Bharadwaj, N., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2016). How crowdsourcing improves prediction of market-oriented outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4168-4176. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.020Lee, J., & Seo, D. (2016). Crowdsourcing not all sourced by the crowd: An observation on the behavior of Wikipedia participants. Technovation, 55-56, 14-21. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2016.05.002Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197-224. doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222260108Liu, S., Xia, F., Zhang, J., & Wang, L. (2016). How crowdsourcing risks affect performance: an exploratory model. Management Decision, 54(9), 2235-2255. doi:10.1108/md-12-2015-0604Marjanovic, S., Fry, C., & Chataway, J. (2012). Crowdsourcing based business models: In search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy, 39(3), 318-332. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs009McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. (2002). The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 285-305. doi:10.1002/smj.223Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani. (2004). Review: Information Technology and Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283. doi:10.2307/25148636Naqshbandi, M. M., & Tabche, I. (2018). The interplay of leadership, absorptive capacity, and organizational learning culture in open innovation: Testing a moderated mediation model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 156-167. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.017Assis Neto, F. R., & Santos, C. A. S. (2018). Understanding crowdsourcing projects: A systematic review of tendencies, workflow, and quality management. Information Processing & Management, 54(4), 490-506. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018.03.006Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of «Ba»: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. doi:10.2307/41165942Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V. M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Rezazadeh, A. (2012). Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 64(5-8), 1073-1085. doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4038-yPalacios‐Marqués, D., Peris‐Ortiz, M., & Merigó, J. M. (2013). The effect of knowledge transfer on firm performance. Management Decision, 51(5), 973-985. doi:10.1108/md-08-2012-0562Palacios, M., Martinez-Corral, A., Nisar, A., & Grijalvo, M. (2016). Crowdsourcing and organizational forms: Emerging trends and research implications. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1834-1839. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.065Peris-Ortiz, M., Devece-Carañana, C. A., & Navarro-Garcia, A. (2018). Organizational learning capability and open innovation. Management Decision, 56(6), 1217-1231. doi:10.1108/md-02-2017-0173Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2015). Distant Search, Narrow Attention: How Crowding Alters Organizations’ Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 856-880. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0458Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879Prpić, J., Shukla, P. P., Kietzmann, J. H., & McCarthy, I. P. (2015). How to work a crowd: Developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77-85. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2014.09.005Qin, S., Van Der Velde, D., Chatzakis, E., McStea, T., & Smith, N. (2016). Exploring barriers and opportunities in adopting crowdsourcing based new product development in manufacturing SMEs. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 29(6), 1052-1066. doi:10.3901/cjme.2016.0808.089Rai, Patnayakuni, & Seth. (2006). Firm Performance Impacts of Digitally Enabled Supply Chain Integration Capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 225. doi:10.2307/25148729RAVICHANDRAN, T., LERTWONGSATIEN, C., & LERTWONGSATIEN, C. (2005). Effect of Information Systems Resources and Capabilities on Firm Performance: A Resource-Based Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), 237-276. doi:10.1080/07421222.2005.11045820Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2003). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-37. doi:10.1002/smj.366Schlagwein, D., & Bjorn-Andersen, N. (2014). Organizational Learning with Crowdsourcing: The Revelatory Case of LEGO. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(11), 754-778. doi:10.17705/1jais.00380Schmallegger, D., & Carson, D. (2008). Blogs in tourism: Changing approaches to information exchange. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 99-110. doi:10.1177/1356766707087519Stanko, M. A., Molina-Castillo, F.-J., & Harmancioglu, N. (2014). It Won’t Fit! For Innovative Products, Sometimes That’s for the Best. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 122-137. doi:10.1111/jpim.12238STOCK, R. M., & SCHNARR, N. L. (2016). EXPLORING THE PRODUCT INNOVATION OUTCOMES OF CORPORATE CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(01), 1650009. doi:10.1142/s1363919616500092Templeton, G. F., Lewis, B. R., & Snyder, C. A. (2002). Development of a Measure for the Organizational Learning Construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 175-218. doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045727Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). Measuring organizational learning capability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 428-432. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.079Vukovic, M. (2009). Crowdsourcing for Enterprises. 2009 Congress on Services - I. doi:10.1109/services-i.2009.56Wade, & Hulland. (2004). Review: The Resource-Based View and Information Systems Research: Review, Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107. doi:10.2307/25148626Wu, I.-L., & Chen, J.-L. (2014). Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles of business process capabilities and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(6), 1141-1164. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2014-0192Xie, X., Wang, L., & Zeng, S. (2018). Inter-organizational knowledge acquisition and firms’ radical innovation: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Research, 90, 295-306. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.038Ye, H. (Jonathan), & Kankanhalli, A. (2015). Investigating the antecedents of organizational task crowdsourcing. Information & Management, 52(1), 98-110. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.10.007Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.278

What role does corporate governance play in the intention to use cloud computing technology?

This paper aims to investigate the factors which promote the adoption of cloud-based technology. It strives for a better understanding of the impact of corporate governance on the adoption of this technology. This study concentrated on executives in companies where the use of cloud computing may give a competitive advantage. The main contribution of this work is to propose a model for the influence of corporate governance and other factors that determine the adoption of this technology. A questionnaire was prepared after taking into consideration the reviewed literature. The sample consisted of 164 technology companies from Southern Spain that already use the new economic models for digital solutions. The methodology used to analyze the structural model was the Structural Equation Model (SEM). The results of the survey showed the influence of Corporate Governance and the procedures and practices of the organization on the adoption of cloud computing and the associated business model. This study aims to point out the importance of corporate support and Knowledge Management for the correct and successful adoption of this technology and to show the effects on the new business model of billing for the use of available resources. View Full-Tex

Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms

[EN] The main aim of this study is to establish the effect of the Exploitation and Exploration; and the influence of these learning flows on the Innovative Outcome (IO). The Innovative Outcome refers to new products, services, processes (or improvements) that the organization has obtained as a result of an innovative process. For this purpose, a relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted, and can explains and predicts the cyclical dynamization of learning flows on innovative outcome in knowledge intensive firms. The quantitative test for this model use the data from entrepreneurial firms biotechnology sector. The statistical analysis applies a method based on variance using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Research results confirm the hypotheses, that is, they show a positive dynamic effect between the Exploration and the Innovative as outcomes. In the same vein, they results confirm the presence of the cyclic movement of innovative outcome with the Exploitation.In addition, this research is part of the Project ECO2015-71380-R funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the State Research Agency. Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).Vargas-Mendoza, NY.; Lloria, MB.; Salazar Afanador, A.; Vergara Domínguez, L. (2018). Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 14(4):1053-1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0496-5S10531069144Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test. Technovation, 28, 315–326.Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28, 450–463.Aragón-Mendoza, J., Pardo del Val, M., & Roig, S. (2016). The influence of institutions development in venture creation decision: a cognitive view. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4941–4946.Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541–554.Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison Wesley.Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: two extensions international. Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.Belda, J., Vergara L., Salazar, A., & Safont G. (2018). Estimating the Laplacian matrix of Gaussian mixtures for signal processing on graphs, accepted for publication in Signal Processing.Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.Bontis, N., (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures models. Management Decision, 36, 63–76.Bontis, N. (1999). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows of knowledge: an empirical examination of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and business performance. 1999. Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre, McMaster University.Bontis, N., Keow, W., & Richardson, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and the nature of business in Malaysia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100Bontis, N., Hullan, J., & Crossan, M. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 438–469.Brachos, D., Kostopulos, K., Sodersquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 31–44.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., & Yeh, I. J. (2007). The effects of joint rewards system in new product development. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 276–297.Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) (pp. 294–336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cho, N., Li, G., & Su, C. (2007). An empirical study on the effect of individual factors on knowledge sharing by knowledge type. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 3(2), 1–15.Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalansee & R. D. Willing (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization II. New York: Elsevier.Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive-capacity – a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Cooper, R. G. (2000). New product performance: what distinguishes the star products. Austrian Journal of Management, 25, 17–45.Crossan, M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105.Crossan, M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.Damanpour, F., & Shanthi, G. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of products and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 21–65.Decarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stock and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 953–968.Demartini, C. (2015). Relationships between social and intellectual capital: empirical Evidence from IC statements. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(2), 99–111.Dupuy, F. (2004). Sharing knowledge: they why and how of organizational change. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. I. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2013). Deciphering antecedents of organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(5), 575–584.Ganter, A., & Hecker, A. (2014). Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1285–1292.Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. International Journal of Management Science, 25, 15–28.Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. New York: Oxford University.Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of knowledge management in the west and Japan. In: P. Lorange, B. Chacravrarthy, J. Ross, and J. Van de ven (Eds.) Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use the partial least squares path modeling. In: R. Sinkovics and N. Pervez (Eds.) 277–319.Hsu, I. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge-case studies on nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 326–338.Hsu, I. (2008). Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving organizational performance though human capital: a preliminary test. Expert Systems with Application, 35, 316–1326.Huang, Q., Davison, R., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal Management, 25(3), 451–471.Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement – determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.Iebra, I. L., Zegarra, P. S., & Zegarra, A. S. (2011). Learning for sharing: an empirical analysis of organizational learning and knowledge sharin. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 7, 509–518.Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.Jenkin, T. (2013). Extending the 4I organizational learning model: information sources, foraging processes and tools. Administrative Sciences, 3, 96–109.Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64, 408–417.Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, N. N., Muller, K. E. (1988). Applied regression analysis and other Multivariable’s methods, PWS KENT.Klomp, L., & Van Leeuwen, G. (2001). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), 343–364.Lansisalmi, H., Kivimaki, M., Aalto, P., & Ruoranen, R. (2006). Innovation in healthcare: a systematic review of recent research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(1), 66–72.Laperrière, A., & Spence, M. (2015). Enacting international opportunities: the role of organizational learning in knowledge-intensive business services. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 212–241.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.Lloria, M. B., & Moreno-Luzón, M. D. (2014). Organizational learning: proposal of an integrative scale and research instrument. Journal of Business Research, 67, 692–697.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2, 71–87.Matikainen, M., Terho, H., Parvinen, P., & Juppo, A. (2016). The role and impact of firm’s strategic orientations on launch performance: significance of relationship orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 625–639.Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23, 115–132.Moreno-Luzón, M. D., & Lloria, B. (2008). The role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and integration as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, 19, 250–276.Moskaliuk, J., Bokhorst, F., & Cress, U. (2016). Learning from others' experiences: how patterns foster interpersonal transfer of knowledge-in-use. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 69–75.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12, 1147–1164.Pew, H., Plowman, D., & Hancock, P. (2008). The involving research on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 585–608.Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2004). The role of individual memory and attention processes during electronic brainstorming. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 621–643.Ramadani, V., Hyrije, A. A., Léo-Paul, D., Gadaf, R., & Sadudin, I. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 13, 299–325.Ren, S., Shu, R., Bao, Y., & Chen, X. (2016). Linking network ties to entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and exploitation: the role of affective and cognitive trust. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 465–485.Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 (M3) beta, Hamburg: http://www.smartpls.de .Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). A competence perspective on strategic learning and knowledge management. En Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (eds.) Strategic learning and knowledge management. John Wiley and Sons.Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 133–147.Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 7–28.Tansky, J., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (2010). Linking entrepreneurship and human resources in globalization. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 217–223.Teece, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 159–205.vande Vrande, V., de Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2014). Dynamizing intellectual capital through enablers and learning flows. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(1), 2–20.Vargas, N., & Lloria, M. B. (2017). Performance and intellectual capital: how enablers drive value creation in organisations. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2), 114–124.Vargas, N., Lloria, M. B., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2016). Main drivers of human capital, learning and performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 961–978.Vergara, L., Salazar, A., Belda, J., Safont, G., Moral, S., & Iglesias, S. (2017). Signal processing on graphs for improving automatic credit card fraud detection. Proceeding of 2017 I.E. 51st international Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST 2017), https://doi.org/10.1109/CCST.2017.8167820 , 23–26 Oct, 2017, Madrid, Spain.Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: focus o the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 145–154.Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). Linking innovation and firm performance: a new approach. European International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 674–688.Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47–74). Cambridge: Academic Press.Wold, H. (1985). Factors influencing the outcome of economic sanctions. In Sixto Ríos Honorary. Trabajos de Estadística and de Investigación Operativa, 36(3), 325–337

The antecedents of e-learning adoption within Italian corporate universities: A comparative case study

The implementation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in business education appears to be influenced by a number of organizational issues, such as culture and technological sophistication. However, extant research has had very little to say about the antecedents that shape the adoption and diffusion of ICT across companies. In order to shed light on the phenomenon under investigation, this paper presents a comparative case study between five Italian companies that have instituted a corporate university. By distinguishing companies in typical cases and deviant cases with regard to the extensive use of e-learning technologies, our findings provide some useful insights about the antecedents that make companies more or less prone to employ the new frontiers of technology in their CUs

A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains

Purpose: This paper aims to provide a social network-based model for improving knowledge management in multi-level supply chains formed by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Design/methodology/approach: This approach uses social network analysis techniques to propose and represent a knowledge network for supply chains. Also, an empirical experience from an exploratory case study in the construction sector is presented. Findings: This proposal improves the establishment of inter-organizational relationships into networks to exchange the knowledge among the companies along the supply chain and create specific knowledge by promoting confidence and motivation. Originality/value: This proposed model is useful for academics and practitioners in supply chain management to gain a better understanding of knowledge management processes, particularly for the supply chains formed by SMEs. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Capó-Vicedo, J.; Mula, J.; Capó I Vicedo, J. (2011). A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 16(5):379-388. doi:10.1108/13598541111155884S379388165Archer, N., Wang, S., & Kang, C. (2008). Barriers to the adoption of online supply chain solutions in small and medium enterprises. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 73-82. doi:10.1108/13598540810850337Arend, R. J., & Wisner, J. D. (2005). Small business and supply chain management: is there a fit? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 403-436. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.11.003BERNARDES, E. S. (2010). THE EFFECT OF SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ON ASPECTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE: A SOCIAL NETWORK PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(1), 45-55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2009.03185.xBORGATTI, S. P., & LI, X. (2009). ON SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IN A SUPPLY CHAIN CONTEXT. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5-22. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2009.03166.xBorgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895. doi:10.1126/science.1165821Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge Networks and Innovative Performance in an Industrial District: The Case of a Footwear District in the South of Italy. Industry & Innovation, 14(2), 177-199. doi:10.1080/13662710701253441Cadilhon, J.J. and Fearne, A.P. (2005), “Lessons in collaboration: a case study from Vietnam”,Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 11‐12.Carter, C. R., Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. (2007). THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IN LOGISTICS RESEARCH. Journal of Business Logistics, 28(1), 137-168. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2007.tb00235.xChen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical framework. International Journal of Production Research, 42(1), 131-163. doi:10.1080/00207540310001602865Cheng, J., Yeh, C., & Tu, C. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283-295. doi:10.1108/13598540810882170CHOI, T. Y., & WU, Z. (2009). TRIADS IN SUPPLY NETWORKS: THEORIZING BUYER-SUPPLIER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(1), 8-25. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2009.03151.xCrone, M., & Roper, S. (2001). Local Learning from Multinational Plants: Knowledge Transfers in the Supply Chain. Regional Studies, 35(6), 535-548. doi:10.1080/00343400120065705Egbu, C. O., Hari, S., & Renukappa, S. H. (2005). Knowledge management for sustainable competitiveness in small and medium surveying practices. Structural Survey, 23(1), 7-21. doi:10.1108/02630800510586871Fong, P. S. W., & Kwok, C. W. C. (2009). Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Success at Project and Organizational Levels in Contracting Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12), 1348-1356. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000106Giannakis, M. (2008). Facilitating learning and knowledge transfer through supplier development. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 62-72. doi:10.1108/13598540810850328Giuliani, E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 139-168. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbl014Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.008Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 71-87. doi:10.1108/01443570110358468Hogarth‐Scott, S. (1999). Retailer‐supplier partnerships: hostages to fortune or the way forward for the millennium? British Food Journal, 101(9), 668-682. doi:10.1108/00070709910288865Javernick-Will, A. N., & Scott, W. R. (2010). Who Needs to Know What? Institutional Knowledge and Global Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), 546-557. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000035Johnsen, T. E., Johnsen, R. E., & Lamming, R. C. (2008). Supply relationship evaluation: European Management Journal, 26(4), 274-287. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2007.10.001Kinder, T. (2003). Go with the flow—a conceptual framework for supply relations in the era of the extended enterprise. Research Policy, 32(3), 503-523. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00021-5Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9(2), 1-20. doi:10.1108/09574099810805807Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., & Phillips, W. (2006). A Conceptual Model of Value-Transparency in Supply. European Management Journal, 24(2-3), 206-213. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.010Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., Phillips, W., & Harrison, D. (2005). Sharing Sensitive Information in Supply Relationships: European Management Journal, 23(5), 554-563. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2005.09.010Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439McCarthy, T. M., & Golicic, S. L. (2002). Implementing collaborative forecasting to improve supply chain performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(6), 431-454. doi:10.1108/09600030210437960Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and El Sawy, O.A. (2001), “Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner‐enabled market knowledge creation”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 145‐87.Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., & Manos, B. (2007). A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri‐food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 177-186. doi:10.1108/13598540710742491Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Kafentzis, K., & Georgolios, P. (2006). Inter-organizational networks for knowledge sharing and trading. Information Technology and Management, 7(4), 259-276. doi:10.1007/s10799-006-0276-8Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of Knowledgewithin Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817-835. doi:10.1080/00343400701654178Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2009). Knowledge and Information Networks in an Italian Wine Cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983-1006. doi:10.1080/09654310902949265Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across Projects. Management Learning, 37(2), 167-185. doi:10.1177/1350507606063441Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14Ozkul, A., & Barut, M. (2009). Measuring supply chain relationships: a social network approach. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 5(1), 38. doi:10.1504/ijism.2009.026204Ramírez-Pasillas, M. (2010). International trade fairs as amplifiers of permanent and temporary proximities in clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(2), 155-187. doi:10.1080/08985620902815106Sanderson, J., & Cox, A. (2008). The challenges of supply strategy selection in a project environment: evidence from UK naval shipbuilding. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 16-25. doi:10.1108/13598540810850283Seggie, S. H., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Do supply chain IT alignment and supply chain interfirm system integration impact upon brand equity and firm performance? Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 887-895. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.03.005Soosay, C. A., Hyland, P. W., & Ferrer, M. (2008). Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(2), 160-169. doi:10.1108/13598540810860994Vaaland, T. I., & Heide, M. (2007). Can the SME survive the supply chain challenges? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 20-31. doi:10.1108/13598540710724374Venters, W., Cornford, T., & Cushman, M. (2005). Knowledge about Sustainability: SSM as a Method for Conceptualising the UK Construction Industry�s Knowledge Environment. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 13(2), 137. doi:10.2498/cit.2005.02.05Wagner, B. A., Fillis, I., & Johansson, U. (2003). E‐business and e‐supply strategy in small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8(4), 343-354. doi:10.1108/13598540310490107Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 698-710. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.026Wu, C. (2008). Knowledge creation in a supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 241-250. doi:10.1108/13598540810871280Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763-771. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.06.00