Literature Review Example 1

THE EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE Literature Review
MANAGEMENT NX0477
Word Count;
Lit. Review - 4,254
Crit. Reflect – 2,195
An overview of Knowledge Management from its inception to modern NX0475 Ref. – 1,098
day, analysing and critiquing literature on a topic which is constantly
changing and adapting to strategic and technological advancement.
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................3
Overview of development .......................................................................................................................3
Preceding Knowledge Management (1960 – 1990) ................................................................................5
McKinsey and Culture ..........................................................................................................................5
Use of Cycle Systems ...........................................................................................................................6
Inception, Defining and Development of Knowledge Management (1990 - 2010) ................................9
SECI Model .........................................................................................................................................10
Communities of Practice ....................................................................................................................11
Critique of Literature - Lack of Empirical Evidence & Scalability .......................................................11
Contemporary Approaches to Knowledge Management Research (2011 - 2016) ...............................13
Contemporary Innovation .................................................................................................................13
Knowledge-Oriented Leadership .......................................................................................................13
Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................15
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................................16
Critical Reflection Essay .........................................................................................................................21
Team Role ..........................................................................................................................................21
Positive Attitude ................................................................................................................................23
Self-Management ..............................................................................................................................25
Business and Customer Awareness ...................................................................................................27
Leadership Skills .................................................................................................................................28
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................30
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................31
Critical Reflection - Bibliography .......................................................................................................31
E-Learning Journals ............................................................................................................................32
Introduction
This review will look at the evolutionary factors that have affected the area of Knowledge
Management (hereby ‘KM’). To fully capture the subjective matter involved with KM, it can be
broken into its key components; ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Management’ (McInerney, 2002), where a heavy
emphasis of this review will rest on the ‘Knowledge’ area due to its effect on business. The core
belief that knowledge is changing and ‘in a state of flux’ (Sbarcea, 2001) or “fluid” (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998, p. 5), the transient nature means there has to be a system in place to try and capture
this (Buckland, 1991), with the final area of this review looking at the more modern ways that this
capture takes place. The overall aim is to summaries a timeline that captures the change in focus and
approach of research in a very “heterogeneous” area (Begoña Lloria, 2008, p. 79).
Overview of development
Though KM has only been a standalone subject since 1990 by definition, the origins of the area date
back long before this. With formal models dating back to the 1960’s that reference the use of
learning, and therefore knowledge, it is important to gain a longer term view of the evolution of KM
than simply the last 18 years.
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1963) was arguably the early forerunner for what is now known as
KM, which itself, has evolved since its inception. Before the inception, models and frameworks
tended to identify areas to analyse, or just give rough analysis, without really giving any prescriptive
approaches, with repeatability and large applicability being the goals of this concept. Perhaps the
largest developments of this era was the step from having Social Learning Theory becoming a ‘cycle’
(Kolb, 1984) rather than a linear process that has a state of completion, which further got built upon
during the comparison of ‘Knowledge Maintenance’ and ‘Knowledge Creation’.
The concept that Knowledge was now being seen as a core competence thanks to research in the
1980’s, meant that by the 1990’s, this competence was seen as vital to control in order to preserve
competitiveness (Hamel & Prahalad, 1990).
During the 90’s, there was a large boom in this subject which gave rise to different types of literature
analysing the topic; superficial management guidance and terms such as ‘Knowledge Capital’ that
looks to educate but not explain the core reasons for the use of KM (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997),
guidance for implementation which focus more on the results than the causes (Burton-Jones, 1999),
more thorough analysis into the root-causes and etymology of the topic by experts who have
studied since the inception of the field (Davenport, 1997). With so much literature, there is a
necessity to filter through to the more in-depth analysis, though the shallower analysis helps to give
an impression of the landscape at the given time period. The fact that a “Smart – Things You Need to
Know” title (Koulopoulos & Frappaolo, 1999) was written about KM shows the level of zeitgeist it
achieved during its peak development period.
The maturing of the industry led towards the study of codifying and storage of knowledge as a
means to explain the different states it can exist in, with many models adapting and presenting this
theory in new ways. This concept of the different states of knowledge, “Tacit” and “Explicit”, allowed
a models to illustrate this fact clearer, with different cultural touches to the strategies, from Japan’s
SECI Model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company - How Japanese Companies
Create DynamIcs of Innovation, 1995, p. 284) and later, the Anglo-French I-Space (Boisot, 1998). By
coinciding with technological development this would facilitate the formal transfer of this
knowledge rather than encouraging organic transfer of knowledge.
In recent times, the concept of KM is more institutionalised and accepted, as the move toward
competency-based job interviews is done so with the goal of improved team work and knowledge
sharing has increased in the past 5 years.
The development of KM and the topics that will be covered are outlined below;
Culture Learning Cycles
Before KM
Knowledge Transfer Environment
Inception
Future
Preceding Knowledge Management (1960 – 1990)
McKinsey and Culture
The first major framework with a proven record of success was the McKinsey 7 S model (Waterman
& Peters, 1980) which used the same core principles as Social Learning Theory, but applied into a
framework rather than ad-hoc set of guidelines;
Figure 1 - McKinsey 7S framework (Waterman & Peters, 1980)
The creation of this framework was the first step toward creating a prescriptive and clear model
which forms the bases for KM. Even in its presentation, it has a clearer framework approach than
later popular KM models (Garvin, 1993) and (Senge, 1992) which have the same goal. By combining a
clearer template with results from their own studies, there was now a clear system that managers
can try and implement. Even in times of contemporary models, this can still get applied to current
issues such as a Ghanaian research organisation (Garbrah & Binfor, 2013) and automated process
systems within an oil company (Dezdar & Haghighi, 2014).
While the model highlights the key areas that form the basis of KM models moving forward, it is
perhaps shallow in its attempt to link areas together. As a checkbox list, it can help highlight
concepts that needs to be monitored, but once you know to treat staff with compassion and
humility (Rosenberg, 2003), there is no instruction as to the next step moving forward. Thus, the
model more than trying to prescribe a model of KM, is trying to create organisational culture. This is
a natural link to make and somewhat of an offshoot that continued to get looked at in the 1990’s,
but more so as an auxiliary topic.
Culture itself is defined as a “pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration” and simply a “product of joint learning”
(Schein, 1992, p. 17), which help form the foundations for the environment needed for KM. Though
Schein had his own model, the natural progression for the McKinsey 7S framework was the Cultural
Web (Johnson, 1988);
Figure 2 - Cultural Web (Johnson, 1988)
Even at a glance, the similarities of the models are striking, though rather than outlining the
different resources at the disposal of the organisation, it is a much lower level approach by looking
at the core methods and signposts of culture rather than implementers. Though on the surface, this
is analysing the “perceptions of participants” rather than applied top-down strategy trying to be
implemented (Mossop, Dennick, Hammond, & Robbé, 2013, p. 141), this therefore helps to show
the misalignment between strategy and implementation.
In contrast to this, there have been examples where the model has been applied after the fact to
explain results (Kemp & Dwyer, 2001) rather than to prescriptively create a strategy moving forward
(Johnson, 1998). Even applying the model extemporaneously creates an issue in transforming large
sets of “qualitative” interview data “into a cultural web” (McDonald & Foster, 2013, p. 334).
Use of Cycle Systems
Another progression towards a more psychological approach (Daft & Weick, 1984) shows a clear
belief that there is a divergence between the areas of Knowledge and Management, using
“Interpretation” as a tool to explain different behaviour and reactions to events and ability to learn.
Though a more holistic example, the heavy links back to the Social Learning Theory model can be
seen even in the names of the model phases; “Scanning”, “Interpretation” and “Learning”, though
the innovative part of the area is turning this into a cycle/recurring process. This is further built on in
the same year via the Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984) where the cycle is mainly formulated upon.
Figure 4 - Relationships Among Organisation Figure 3 - Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984)
(Daft & Weick, 1984)
The progression of explaining how learning takes place in the organisation was clearly speeding up,
though shortcomings of Kolb’s model
It does manage to capture and identify different areas in the process of cyclical learning, and in turn
can help to show where different types of employee are happier at different stages than others
(Heery & Noon, 2008), which adds a new dimension for understanding the KM system and any
weaknesses therein.
Perhaps the best study into the Learning Cycle was done a decade later when a cross-cultural study
looked at the differences between African, British and Indian middle-managers by trying to employ a
different culture model (Allinson & Hayes, 1988). In doing so, it became more a case of descriptive
findings rather than applicable models, and moves more towards Emotional Intelligence rather than
KM. Though Emotional Intelligence can affection adaption to a KM system, it is a subject area in
itself and takes the focus away from the key aspects of KM. Another study showed that took a
similar approach but with a smaller sample looked at a European management school in French
(Jackson, 1995), and found there are vast cultural differences between the areas. This study shows a
robustness in the widespread validity of the model, applying to Easter European, Iberian and even
UK students, but also shows how a guide can begin to be interpreted to try and apply KM strategies.
Before implementing a strategy, it is important to know the environment and the KOLB cycle clearly
manages to encompass strong cultural identities (Hughes-Wiener, 1986).
Critique of Learning Theory

A cited weakness of implementing these strategies was that of permanence and storage of
information (Mintzberg, 1989), as this underpinned the ‘social’ aspect of Social Learning Theory but
even before the technology was at the current watermark level, there was an assumption that this
would be fixed by technological advancement (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), which has since been
proven right.
The issue of poor implementation due has been attributed to slow reaction to a highly competitive
and complex business environment (Crossan & Guatto, 1996), which would suggest growing pains
due to the infancy of the strategic area, but in turn there is an argument that these “chaotic markets
and technological forces” acted as a driver (Roth, 1996, p. 30) to improve Learning Theory and
develop it into later, KM. More specifically, it has also been argued that the inability to act is due to
the structure of the organisation not being horizontal enough, which inhibits the level at which
Social Learning Theory can take place in the first place (Dlabay, Kleindl, & Burro, 2011).
The resultant formalisation of KM as a separate concept would itself act as a driver moving into the
90’s when it then would enter its more mainstream adoption phase.
Inception, Defining and Development of Knowledge Management
(1990 - 2010)
The natural progression was for Knowledge Management to become a more formal topic, and
though Organisational Learning theory had a growth in publications during the 1980’s, the more
significant growth was in the 1990’s when there was a disproportionate level of growth in this area
(Crossan & Guatto, 1996);
Figure 5 - Graph showing growth in OL publications by year (1969 - 1994) (Crossan & Guatto, 1996, p. 108)
Though there was growth and the essence of KM was understood, there still was no solid and
‘agreed-upon’ definition of KM (Schultze & Stabell, 2004). More focus was put on the word
knowledge, seeing it as a commodity that needed to be sharing of practices and processes
(Gladstone, 2000). With this being the case, the natural progression was to start looking at the flow
of knowledge and trying to capture its permanence.
SECI Model
A model was proposed that laid out the cycle of which knowledge is codified and externalised, whilst
also showing how new information can develop and need to be codified again. Though the concept
of tacit and explicit knowledge dates back to the 1960’s (Polanyi, 1967), the use of the term was no
popularise in KM until the mid-1990’s.
The main assumption in this area is that all tacit knowledge can be reduced for codification into
explicit knowledge (Hetherington, 2011), and this assumption is shown by the Externalisation aspect
of The SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company - How Japanese
Companies Create DynamIcs of Innovation, 1995);
Figure 6 - The SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company - How Japanese Companies Create
DynamIcs of Innovation, 1995)
Though it has been said that “not all knowledge can be codified” (Reed, Scanlan, Wills, & Halliday,
2010, p. 321), the model is robust in that it adds a socialisation aspect which shows pseudo-recoding
of information in tacit form to be later codified, which shows a more scientific approach to
modelling than an idealistic, more philosophical model that was available in the pre-KM era of
research.
Furthermore, this model shows the end goal of an organisation employing a KM model via its
Externalisation stage, which is to codify knowledge into a form of database. As highlighted
previously, technological development has allowed this to happen, but also the driving force of
focusing on KM strategies has equally contributed to this increased emphasis on knowledge
databases.
This model was arguably the first mainstream model to take such a scientific approach, and by
viewing knowledge much in the same way as data in a computer network. This was later expanded
on to illustrate a network in which the knowledge is transferred, called ‘I-Space’ (Boisot, 1998),
which essentially is a 3D version of SECI. Much in the same way that computer networks need to be
robust but dynamic to deal with ever changing technology, the basis for the model which was
formed on the performance management of Japanese organisations, is that companies like Fujitsu
operated in such a way that their entire business was able to cope in a volatile and evolving market
(Nonaka & Teece, 2001, p. 225). So KM was seen as a way for organisations to remain dynamic
despite their large foot print. This is from a large MNE perspective but as will be noted later, there
has been little evidence of it being scaled down for application to SMEs.
This formalisation of the Knowledge Transfer process also implies that knowledge transfer is only
really possible with more “frequent interaction of individuals involved in the exchange”, describing a
subset of the Internalisation process called “Knowledge Aggregation” (Machado & Davim, 2014, pp.
134-135)
A weakness of the model is that it is simplistic by simply defining that knowledge exists in to states,
and that “what is easily articulated by one person may be very difficult to externalize by another”
and “the same content may be explicit for one person and tacit for another” (Dalkir, 2005, p. 8).
In turn, it can be argued that for any model to be scalable and applied to a wide range of
organisations, it has to have some level of normalisation and templating.
Communities of Practice
Though the weakness of participation has since been managed by the introduction of competence
based interviews to try and hire people who are more receptive to these ideas in the first place, with
an emotional basis of this formalised as Communities of Practice (COP) and contributing towards
‘generative social practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1990), there was still criticism later into the KM phase as
the ‘If We Build It’ assumption that firms have (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), believing that this is a
prescriptive approach and that everyone adopts the system. This showed that though there was a
theory in place, the implementation was still a barrier to widespread adoption and only became fully
realised in contemporary strategies. Even later, this was still viewed as a barrier for widespread
implementation, but under the guise of it being a prevalent culture (Gottschalk, 2005, pp. 38-39),
which introduces the concept that the culture of an organisation can both promote and discourage
the adoption of a KM strategy.
The argument was made that this was direct forerunner for more modern concepts such as online
COP (Dubé, Bourhis, & Jacob) and more contemporary mobile COP (Kietzmann, et al., 2013), which
are built on the same core beliefs of “self-regulation, mutual trust and mutual sources of gain” (Ellis,
Oldridge, & Vasconcelos, 2004, p. 156)
Critique of Literature - Lack of Empirical Evidence & Scalability
The main critique of literature in this subject area is the lack of large data analysis due to the
intangibility of it. With a non-tangible area, there is a lack of measurement and often comparative
context therefore causing a reliance on anecdotal studies such as a “pub manager” (Mutch, 2003, p.
385), a South African University (Leila, 2008) or “Yucatec Mayan midwives in Mexico” sharing stories
to help with childbirth (Jordan, 1989, p. 937) (Lave & Wenger, 1990, p. 65). Though unrealistic to
expect metadata for intangible concepts or theories, the limitation of most studies tends to be its
sample size, with the aforementioned studies using sample sizes of 4, 1 and 10 respectively. The
latter study was not necessarily intended to be an example of COP/KM, but was adapted as such,
which is another criticism of research done on the subject as much is performed subsequently due
to the developing nature of the topic.
Furthermore, when studies of large organisations are gathered, due to the nature of multinational
companies, it is hard to generalise a strategy that is best-fit to be applied. For example, instituting
formal COPs focused on “Innovation” or “Knowledge-Stewarding” (APQC, 2001, p. 36) may work and
improve certain organisations, but market volatility or a lack of volatility may negate these benefits.
During this stage, there was much development on theory but little empirical evidence of successful
implementation outside of 2 notable, most-covered examples; IBM “knowledge sharing” in the
1990’s (IBM, 1999, p. 8) (Massey, Montoya-Weiss, & Holcom, 2001), (Gurol & Turer, 2002), and
McKinsey & Company’s culture framework in the 1970’s (Waterman & Peters, 1980), as outlined
earlier. In particular, it is argued that smaller companies and SME’s have even less studies performed
on them and that these are the organisations that most need to leverage these models in order to
grow (Pillania, 2008). The fact that IBM is one of the biggest companies in the world may illustrate
some scalability of models, but does not capture scalability of the model for the biggest portion of
companies making up the economy, which exhibit “constrained resources and different managerial
capabilities and practices” (Cohen & Kaimenakis, 2007, p. 241)
In addition to this, there is a question as to how widely this can be applied in terms of educating a
sample towards acceptance of KM. There has been the collection of data to try and align the
education goals of a whole country in order to try and stimulate an economy (Gensicke, 1998). While
this exercise (essentially a census) is a good way of collecting data, its scalability in terms of affecting
this data from the top-down is impossible to judge. The amount of variables in even gathering data
to justify a person’s level of ‘hedonism’ for example, let alone the external factors that can affect
these levels, makes data unquantifiable and merely becomes a point of social commentary rather
than sign of strategic viability or cultural change, thus showing the scalable limitations.
Contemporary Approaches to Knowledge Management Research
(2011 - 2016)
The issue with a lot of research in this area is that the research and goals tend to be split and too
focused on areas deviating away from KM, which overall contributes to the topic but is more likely to
find individual findings and commentary rather than creation of a model or framework. The main
issues discovered previously have been how the prevalence of so many variables prevent a
prescriptive model being in place. The way to combat this would be to try and fix as many of the
variables as possible, which is arguably the path research has been taking since the inception of
Social Learning Theory. However, the research linking the effects of KM strategies with innovation is
an exception to this.
Contemporary Innovation
By definition, innovation involves implementing new ideas (Borghini, 2005), while part of KM is
about creating new ideas. Therefore, it would seem that these 2 areas are interlinked and are
becoming more so over time (Markatou, 2012), (Soo, Devinney, Midgley, & Deering, 2002). The
inception of KM in the 1990’s coincided with the inception of the internet soon after, and as one
developed and thrived, so did the other. Though this could normally be attributed to correlation
rather than causation, the shift of emphasis from KM to ‘knowledge systems’ and ‘information
systems’, to even ‘rationalising decision making’ (Kroenke & Hatch, 1994, p. 157) represented the
most widespread adoption of these strategies and have proven to be the biggest driver of these
systems. So a term was created in the 1990’s for an organisation’s ability to innovate; “Absorptive
Capacity”, defined as “a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and
apply it to commercial ends“ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128).
Different studies have aimed to prove this with vary degrees of success. From Spain, a study showed
that (López-Nicolás & Merono-Cerdán, 2011) that provided it is done correctly, codification of
information helps to generate innovation. Though the study was limited to Murcia in Spain, it did
encompass 310 organisations. Another theorist also posits the question of whether marketers need
to apply KM and absorptive capacity theories and measures to improve performance (Barrales-
Molina, Martínez-López, & Gazquez-Abad, 2014). It has also been said that KM only works through
social interaction if mediated by absorptive capacity (Hughes, Morgan, Ireland, & Hughes, 2014).
Knowledge-Oriented Leadership
One of the most robust studies looked at how leadership styles affect KM systems’ implementation,
particularly with regards to innovation (Donate & Sánchez de Pablo, 2015). In some ways, the
approach and search for a model echoes back to the first section where researchers were producing
more hierarchical models. This can be illustrated below where the leadership style impacts
performance and the strategy would be enforced much in the way culture was;
Figure 7 - Diagram showing research model used (Donate & Sánchez de Pablo, 2015, p. 368)
Results showed that there was a correlation between the knowledge-oriented leadership and levels
of innovation, though there are still holes in the research. Firstly, though there is a link between
these results, perhaps it is the management style being led by the innovative nature of the
organisation, and this admission regarding causality was made in the report (Donate & Sánchez de
Pablo, 2015, p. 367). However, despite data collection being a questionnaire which is subjective, it
did present data in a statistical manner which compared to earlier studies, evidences the suggested
trend toward more scientific analysis.
A take on this research is type of research is that rather than the leader being a positive force for
KM, it is simply that they are not standing in the way as leaders can be seen as a barrier preventing
knowledge creation/leveraging (von Krogh, Nonaka, & Rechsteiner, 2012).
Conclusion
One theme clearly outlined during this research was that as time progressed, technology progressed
and emphasis increased on the subject area, the nature of research evolved to move from
philosophical points of view (Polanyi, 1967) to more scientific studies (Cohen & Kaimenakis, 2007).
This would be expected as over the lifetime of research, when monetary returns can be attributed to
a subject area, more research will be done to maximise these returns rather than the initial musings
that give birth to the idea.
Models began with a top down approach with a review of culture, to develop more prescriptive
approaches that rely on instructed interactions and scientific influence. Much like the previous point,
it is expected that once an area of research gains credibility, the need for a one-size fits all system
would be desired. The complexity of the research area does make this difficult but as discussed,
there has at least been progress in this area. Obviously, the complexity is the price paid to get such
deep statistical analysis as evidenced in the contemporary research.
Furthermore, it is still curious that a lot of research done in this area is performed from a
philosophical perspective than business, being that they are to be practiced in business. For
example, while the SECI model tends to get accepted a lot to this day, there are studies that deny its
effects and claim it even adversely effects innovation (Ng, Goh, & Eze, 2011). The natural follow up
from this would then be to question the theory. The vast majority does come from an academic
source as expected, but returning to the original statement of KM being both ‘knowledge’ and
‘management, it seems that research may become too fragmented in what would be a cyclical
process.
Finally, it is important to note that such a huge area cannot be captured by a single model.
Throughout all the studies and research conducted into KM, there is yet to be a single model that
has empirical evidence that is scalable to apply to organisations large and small. In addition to this
and the arguments made previously regarding German census data (Gensicke, 1998), research even
shows that between different countries and different cultures, national identity and its effect on the
actors that would be operating in the systems dictate that it faces difficulty in scaling cross-
culturally, with Malaysian people being unassertive as an example (Cheng Ling & Nasurdin, 2010). So
while a lot of theory exists and research now focuses on formalising processes, there will always be
so many variables that make a prescriptive solution difficult.
Bibliography
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1988). The learning styles questionnaire: an alternative to Kolb's
inventory. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 269-81.
Andriessen, D., Frijlink, M., van Gisbergen, I., & Blom, J. (1999). A Core Competency Approach To
Valuing Intangible Assets. Amsterdam: KPMG. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/1947847.pdf
APQC. (2001). Building and Sustaining Communities in Practice: Continuing Success in Knowledge
Management. Houston, TX: American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC).
Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York City, NY: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Barrales-Molina, V., Martínez-López, F. J., & Gazquez-Abad, J. C. (2014). Dynamic marketing

capabilities: Toward an integrative framework. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 397-416.
Begoña Lloria, M. (2008). A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 77-89.
Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge Assets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borghini, S. (2005). Organizational creativity: Breaking equilibrium and order to innovate. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 19-33.
Buchanan, D. A., & Huczynski, A. A. (2010). Organizational Behaviour (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited. Retrieved April 28, 2016
Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as Thing. Journal of the American Society of Information Science,
42(5), 351-360.
Burton-Jones, A. (1999). Knowledge Capitalism - Business, Work and Learning in the New Economy.
New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cheng Ling, T., & Nasurdin, A. (2010). Knowledge management effectiveness and technological
innovation: An empirical study in the Malaysian manufacturing industry. Journal of Mobile
Technologies, Knowledge and Society, 1-13. Retrieved from
http://ibimapublishing.com/articles/JMTKS/2010/428053/428053.pdf
Cohen, S., & Kaimenakis, N. (2007). Intellectual capital and corporate performance in knowledge-
intensive SMEs. The Learning Organisation, 14(3), 241-262.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=5095f7b9-277a-455f-a160-
f4f2f7efeda5%40sessionmgr4008&vid=0&hid=4214&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcC
xzaGliLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=9603111655&db
=buh
Crossan, M., & Guatto, T. (1996). Organizational Learning Research Profile. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 9(1), 107-112.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, L. K. (1984, April). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems.
The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information Ecology - Mastering the information and knowledge

environment. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dezdar, M., & Haghighi, M. (2014). Feasibility of implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) in
the exploitation of oil and gas company of Gachsaran based on McKinsey 7s model.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 223-238.
Dlabay, L., Kleindl, B., & Burro, J. L. (2011). Principles of Business. Mason, OH: Cencage Learning.
Donate, M. J., & Sánchez de Pablo, J. D. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in
knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360-
370.
Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (n.d.). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of
virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2).
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital - Realizing Your Company's True Value by
Finding Its Hidden Brainpower. San Jose, CA: Harper Business.
Ellis, D., Oldridge, R., & Vasconcelos, A. (2004). Community and virtual community. Community and
Virtual Community. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 145-186.
Garbrah, T. F., & Binfor, F. (2013). An Analysis of Internal Environment of a Commercial-oriented

Research Organization: Using Mckinsey 7S Framework in a Ghanaian Context. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(9), 87-103.
Garvin, D. A. (1993, July). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review.
Gensicke, T. (1998). Die Neuen Bundesbürger: Eine Transformation Ohne Integration. Opladen:
Westdeucher Verlag.
Gladstone, B. (2000). From Know-How to Knowledge. London: The Industrial Society.
Gottschalk, P. (2005). Strategic Knowledge Management Technology. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Gurol, Y., & Turer, T. (2002). Knowledge Management Technologies and Case Study: Lotus Notes
Application. The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and
Capabilities. Athens: Warrick University.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68(3), 79-90.
Heery, E., & Noon, M. (2008). A Dictionary of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hetherington, S. (2011). How to Know: A Practicalist Conception of Knowledge. Malden, MA: Wiley
Blackwell.
Hughes, M., Morgan, R., Ireland, R., & Hughes, P. (2014). Social capital and learning advantages: A
problem of Absorptive capacity. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3), 214-233.
Hughes-Wiener, G. (1986). The ‘learn how to learn’ approach to cross-cultural orientation.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 485-505.
IBM. (1999). IBM Annual Report 1999. New York City, New York: IBM. Retrieved from
ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/annualreport/1999/pdf/ibm1999.pdf
Jackson, T. (1995). European Management Learning; A cross-cultural interpretation of Kolb's

Learning Cycle. Journal of Management Development, 14(6), 42-50.
Johnson, G. (1988). Rethinking Incrementalism. Strategic Management Journal, 75-91.
Johnson, G. (1998). Exploring techniques and evaluation in strategic management: Mapping and
remapping organisational culture. . London: Prentice Hall.
Jordan, B. (1989). Cosmopolitical Obstetrics - Some Insights from the Training of Traditional
Midwives. Social Science & Medicine, 28(9), 925-937.
Kemp, S., & Dwyer, L. (2001). An examination of organisational culture: The Regent Hotel, Sydney.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77-93.
Kietzmann, J., Plangger, K., Eaton, B., Heilgenberg, K., Pitt, L., & Berthon, P. (2013). Mobility at work:
A typology of mobile communities of practice and contextual ambidexterity. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 3(4), 282-297.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Koulopoulos, T. K., & Frappaolo, C. (1999). Smart - Things to Know About Knowledge Management.
Oxford: Capstone.
Kroenke, D., & Hatch, R. (1994). Management Information Systems (3rd ed.). Watsonville, CA:
McGraw-Hill Inc.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripharel Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Leila, K. (2008). Constructing identities in online communities of practice : a case study of online
learning. Oxford: Peter Lang.
López-Nicolás, C., & Merono-Cerdán, Á. L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and
performance. International Journal of Information Management, 502-509.
Machado, C., & Davim, J. P. (2014). Transfer and Management of Knowledge. London: ISTE Ltd.
Markatou, M. (2012). Innovation and knowledge creation in Greece: An analysis based on patent
data. Journal of Innovation and Business Best Practice, 1-10.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Holcom, K. (2001). Re-engineering the customer
relationship: leveraging knowledge assets at IBM. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 155-170.
McDonald, S., & Foster, R. A. (2013). The Use of Johnson's Cultural Web to Improve Understanding
of Organisational Culture: A Critical Review. International Journal of Management, 30(4),
340-354.
McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1009-1018. Retrieved
January 14, 2017, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.10109/full
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organisations. New
York City, NY: The Free Press.
Mossop, L., Dennick, R., Hammond, R., & Robbé, I. (2013). Analysing the hidden curriculum: use of a
cultural web. Medical Education, 134-143.
Mutch, A. (2003). Communities of Practice and Habitus: A Critique. Organization Studies, 24(3), 383-
401.
Ng, P. K., Goh, G. G., & Eze, U. C. (2011). The Role Of Knowledge Management In Product
Development Performance: A Review. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(1).
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company - How Japanese Companies
Create DynamIcs of Innovation. New York City, NY: Oxford City Press.
Nonaka, I., & Teece, D. (2001). Managing Industrial Knowledge. London: SAGE Publications.
Pillania, R. K. (2008). Strategic issues in knowledge management in small and medium enterprises.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 334-338.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Reed, N., Scanlan, J., Wills, G., & Halliday, S. (2010). The Inertia Problem: Implementation of a
Holistic Design Support System. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 319-
332.
Rosenberg, M. (2003). A Nonviolent Communication. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation
relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly(22), 956-974.
Roth, A. V. (1996). Achieving strategic agility through Economies of Knowledge. Strategy &
Leadership, 30-36.
Sbarcea, K. (2001). The mystery of knowledge management. New Zealand Management, 48(10), 33-
39.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schultze, U., & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing what you don’t know? Discourses and contradictions in
knowledge management research. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 549-573.
Senge, P. M. (1992). The Fifth Discipline. London: Century Business Press.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Peter Senge and the Learning Organisation. Retrieved from INFED:
http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/
Soo, C., Devinney, T., Midgley, D., & Deering, A. (2002). Knowledge Management: Philosophy,
Processes, and Pitfalls. California Management Review, 44(4), 129-150.
von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Rechsteiner, L. (2012). Leadership in organizational knowledge creation.
A review and framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 240-277.
Waterman, R., & Peters, T. (1980). Structure is Not Organisation. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14-26.
Critical Reflection
This section will look at how I have managed and developed employability skills during the project,
outlining a progression from week 1 to week 10 of the project as the appointed team leader. This is
with the foresight to gain a Data Analysis business role within a large company. I’m not an
operations specialist but that is the role I performed at **** and realistically, I know I will need to
perform several roles in order to excel in a company that size.
Team Role
Firstly, analysis using the Team Roles framework helps to give context to my role and personality
traits;
Figure 8 - Graph showing Belbin team role, survey carried out 25/02/2016 (Belbin, 2015)
The “Shaper” role has always been prevalent in other instances of taking the survey and thus this
year, I have made a concerted effort to develop my leadership skills to maximise strengths which will
become apparent throughout the project;
Though attributes outlined via the Belbin Team Roles theory sound very emotive and superficial, the
underlying sense of assertive leadership coming at the expense of conflict was certainly a theme I
believed applied during this project. Furthermore, I felt I had the best team to work with in terms of
outright ability to perform the task, but as will be shown, this meant that everyone was confident
and assertive in their beliefs, which meant disagreements were more likely to happen.
Positive Attitude
Though often taken as a given, I have always approached group work with a highly positive attitude,
though in previous instances it could be attributed towards being in a group that I perceived as
indolent. The importance to my future is that even at interview level for business roles, enthusiasm
helps to show a willingness to learn, and a competence-based approach to interview is now widely
adopted. Furthermore, to progress further in a company, I feel a positive attitude to the role is
pivotal.
In this group however, I felt that others shared my enthusiasm. The success of this project was
largely down to the attitude that others showed in addition to myself which had several intrinsic
effects such as making meetings easier. When this is the case, discussions are more free-flowing due
to the extra engagement and enthusiasm, though 2 problems arose from this;
• Focus – Due to our existing friendship and naturally enthusiastic personalities, there were
times where we were unable to focus on the task at hand (Week 8 – Teamwork) which I
attribute to the positive attitude maybe needing to be reined in. On several occasions, I had
to pointedly interrupt conversation when it was deviating too far from the topic. I felt as
team leader that I set the tone for how meetings progress so my jovial enthusiasm was
maybe giving the impression that things were not as serious as they were.
• Maintaining Enthusiasm – Though on the whole everyone showed a positive attitude to get
work done, there was a combination of nerves and lack of enthusiasm at 1 point. I’m
confident in my ability and even more confident in the group’s ability collectively, but others
got nervous when seeing the brief and assignment guidelines (Week 1 – Leadership Skills). I
used my leadership skills to put others at ease and on the whole it worked, though I felt by
the end, simple messages congratulating/calming the team became less and less effective.
By the end, I felt we maintained a positive attitude as a group and that this emanated, at least in
part, from myself. I really wanted to make sure that I kept this up over the course of the project and
though by week 9 I was starting to flag after slight disagreements, I feel the project has helped me to
develop an emotional resilience to allow my enthusiasm to wane less in adversity.
This confidence/enthusiasm is shown by the Team Development Cycle (Tuckman, 1965);
Figure 9 - Team Development Cycle (Tuckman, 1965)

The model perfectly captures how the team evolved; from changing team dynamics to different
levels of confidence, there generally was no constant until the final part of the project when
everything seemed to peak just as outlined.
Self-Management
This area was very important to me as one of the major criticisms cited during my work placement
was self-management, which was predicated on my lack of organisation. Thus, I always made a
conscious effort to focus on this area as being team leader means it has added importance on group
performance. Within a future business role, I feel there is a need for good self-management skills as
most roles now have either hot-desking, or as in my experience, remote managers which puts extra
pressure on self-management skills.
As early as week 3 (Week 3 – Self-Management), I encountered issues around maintaining the

minutes from meetings. This information helped underpin the project from an accountability,
planning and data perspective. By week 6 (Week 6 – Self-Management), I found that I had to record
several minutes’ documents at once, which may have created issues with recollection had I not
conferred with other team members to help. I was disappointed that I allowed this to happen
however there were no negative consequences on this occasion. It does highlight however that it’s
an area for development and though I made strides with organising documents, I need to motivate
myself to develop this area rather than just rely on the accountability to others incentivising me to
do better, as I may not have this luxury if I’m not in a team in a data analysis role.
There was development later however when it came to planning the final roadmap of putting the
report together, as shown by the APEL framework for problem solving;
A
Analyse
What is the To deliver a 7,000 word marketing plan and 15 minute
objective? presentation to our client
What resources are • 4 post graduate Business students
available? • Client forthcoming with help and advice
• Uni tutors forthcoming with help and advice
What constraints are • 17 days left before deadline
there? • A member works 3 days a week
• Limited experience with marketing plans, no experience
creating report
th
When has it to be 19 January (Presentation soon after)
done by?
P
Plan
Encourage and • Recommendations were not finalised
develop ideas • Needed ideas for how to present data
Decide how it is to be Basic information -> Detailed information -> Recommendation
done -> Final Formatted Recommendation
Who can do what? • Guy may be only one who can do data
• Ivi best at formatting
• Daniel & Mishbah have owned their respective sections
Delegate, establish Guy – Data Analysis + Online
priorities Ivi – Situational Analysis + Events recommendation
Mishbah – Radio + Facebook Ads recommendation
Daniel – Magazine recommendation
E
Execute
Monitor • We fell slightly behind target but still before deadline
performance against • Currently at 6,000 out of 7,000 words with 5 days left
plan
Motivate where • Giving ownership of sections at recommendation stage
necessary motivates by the trust shown in them.
• Further verbal encouragement is given daily and by text
message
Assist/Reassure Helped with other areas, and received help with data analysis
from other team members
Maintain Standards Constantly question team to make sure we leave no gaps
Give praise but focus to ensure no complacency sets in
L
Learn
What went well? • The final product seems to good and the client has given
positive feedback so far
• No serious arguments over the duration of the project
What could be The plan succeeded in the end but it could have been
improved upon? implemented earlier rather than as an emergency measure
Why did these things • My inability to be assertive as a leader to a group of
happen? friends
• Focus was too short term, not paying attention to the
strategy 1 month ahead
What are the key Analyse and Plan from the beginning. Even though it seems
lessons for next like there is too much to do and you get tempted to start
time? executing, it is better to analyse and plan before so saved
repeating over and over.
Business and Customer Awareness
Throughout my previous work experience, communication in a corporate environment has been

cited as my main area of weakness. It underpinned my failure to gain a graduate role from my
placement at IBM and thus I have tried to improve it ever since 2013. Though roles I will pursue will
focus less on customer-facing aspects, it still lends a focus on this as effectively, other employees
become the customers in a sense.
That being said, I do feel that I had made improvements since then, though this project has provided
me many opportunities to further this development;
• Email – As the leader, I generally controlled email correspondence with the clients. In doing
so I felt it helped to develop my formal style of communication at business level.
Figure 10 - Example of email exchange with client
• Face to Face meetings – I had never experienced meeting a client external to the company
I’m working for. This experience did make me exhibit nerves at first (Week 3 – Leadership
Skills) but I felt as a group that we began to focus more on maximising the meetings rather
than simply surviving them. The clients were maybe more informal than a future meeting
would be as a business analyst trying to sell to a client, but the experience nevertheless was
precious due to the difficulty in simulating such a situation. To develop this further, I need to
talk less and talk more effectively. Though I have not received this as feedback, this is an
instinctive summary of my talking style, that I try to “host” a meeting rather than lead it.
• Unresponsive client – During this project, we encountered an issue with clients becoming
unresponsive (Week 8 – Business and Customer Awareness). As mentioned, we were
advised that this could happen, hence we established a rough timescale with the client of
contacting once a week at a minimum to try and make sure this wouldn’t happen. This
cursory measure helped us to identify quickly when the client was responding less so
benefited us in that way, however we failed to actually put a plan into place until it
happened (Week 8 – Problem Solving). Though we overcame the issue when it presented
itself, it was a stark reminder to us that we should have built a failsafe into our plan formally.
This seems particularly relevant in the business world where I’m likely to encounter this
situation more frequently.
Leadership Skills
This area was of particular relevance and importance during this project. I was chosen as team
leader in a team where everyone possessed the skills and ability to be leader themselves, partially
due to availability and circumstances.
My own confidence in my ability in this aspect stemmed from previous experience in undergraduate
degree projects as well as employment where I have led teams in the past. That being said, I felt I
had to prove this to the team I had as they hadn’t witnessed any of that experience.
• Decision Making – during the project there were several times where the main skill that
separated me from the rest of the team was my decision making. Though elected to the role,
and therefore given the power to make decisions when needed, I showed assertiveness and
quick wits needed to make the right decision in a timely fashion. The first example was
(Week 5 – Leadership Skills) deciding to change our research strategy by using survey data.
This decision came after an unproductive meeting where I felt little progress was being
made. The idea in itself was good, but I felt that the swift decision made to change strategy
is what made the difference in this case as it saved a lot of time and inefficiency. By doing so
within a day of research being started, it meant that only a day would be wasted due to that
reason, and even that day itself was used fairly efficiently in other areas.
Another example was (Week 8/9 – Leadership Skills) deciding to change the plan moving
forward regarding individual assignments. In doing so, I felt it would make most efficient use
of the other team members in my group. I sensed a lack of motivation due to the nerves
being caused, with more and more focus being lost on the project at hand. This being the
case, the decision made to effectively take 2 weeks off from the project to focus on the
individual work helped to rejuvenate the team and allay worries which were building. I felt a
slight lack of development in this area as the previous decision took a day to take while this
took me close to a week to weigh up the situation and make a decision. I still feel that I was
more decisive than any other team member would have been as leader.
• Delegation – I consider my strengths to lie mainly in Operations and having had poor
experiences within other groups I have been placed into in my degree, it was refreshing to
be able to delegate tasks to other members in my team, such as research into areas I’m not
familiar with. Seeing as this is largely a marketing project, I felt that it would be a more
efficient practice to delegate tasks to **** who is more proficient at marketing (Week 2 –
Leadership Skills). As mentioned later in this analysis, it had a dual benefit as it allowed me
to focus on the data analysis tasks which probably couldn’t have been done by anyone else
in the group.
• Motivation – With the group facing something we had not much experience with, I felt it
was important to motivate everyone continuously in order to attain the performance we
were all capable of. I did this quite simplistically throughout via simple text messages
congratulating and encouraging everyone on the task performed (Week 3 - Leadership
Skills). Another method of motivation was through giving responsibility (Week 2 –
Leadership Skills). I did not want to be a dictatorial leader so I delegated responsibility to
others in the group in order to motivate them to take ownership and thrive. When I
delegated the research into marketing tasks to **** it was with the hope that not only
would **** do a better job than I would, but also that it will help encourage and motivate
her to perform to the high standards she has shown in other projects. The results of this
were clear to see as we created a clear and coherent marketing plan and I felt it helped her
gain attachment to the project on an emotional level. I would employ this tactic later in the
project for **** and ****
• This also further evidences the Belbin Team Roles model that we would mesh as a team;
I felt that at any time I could place any combination of people to work together and it would
succeed. Though this can be a prescriptive model to help form teams, this analysis is after
the fact and though it correlates, I cannot claim that it was intention. Though as a group we
think of ourselves as being very similar minded, it was very intriguing to see how opposed
our roles were and how they complimented each other as a team.
Conclusion
Overall, the project managed to develop my skills as not only a business professional but also as a
leader. I felt many of the skills and competences needed were already possessed by me but further
development in the areas of Self-Management and Business Awareness will prove useful in my
future career, and for any ascension within a company, the leadership skills I have developed will be
vital. In the context of Belbin Team Roles, I feel I did not create enemies but did have conflicts at
times, and maybe this would have been worse had the project been longer.
Appendix
Critical Reflection - Bibliography

E-Learning Journals
E-Learning Journal 1 – 05/10/2016

Employability & Leadership Attribute Skills
Use of IT: Initial use of Photoshop in order to design logo for our company, Novo Consultants. This task
was then delegated to Ivi.
Extensive use of MS Office to maintain meeting minutes and create notes for future meetings.
Creation of both Google email account and Google Drive in order to co-ordinate files between all team
members who seem familiar with the system.
I have used all these IT tools before but coordinating them to work together in order to run a project is
a new experience. Using an ecosystem of software seems to be a useful technology solution for
organisation.
Positive attitude to work: I have attended every meeting so far, as most have, and am enthusiastic
about the chances of our group achieving the level we require for 1st class honors. The task, though
initially daunting due to my lack of familiarity around marketing, is very interesting with regards to its
involvement in the 3rd Sector.
Team working: Working in a group chosen completely by ourselves has really helped in this area.
Having worked with both Mishbah and Dan, and being friends with Ivi, it has been a very easy group to
lead. We all have implicit trust in one another and each hold ourselves accountable to one another
also.
Self-management: This area will become more apparent over the following weeks as right now,
complete availability due to lack of employment and lack of uni work mean it is easy to self-manage. In
the future, the scheduling of meetings will become more frequent as the workload increases.
Leadership attributes / skills: Having been leader several times this year, I feel I have been unsuccessful
on most occasions. Whether at the residential or on assessed pieces of work, I feel that I have never
attained the results I wanted, except for during the Business Game. That being said, I feel with the
team I have that we have the potential to really succeed and early signs show we are moving in the
right direction. I try to maintain morale with little messages to boost morale as other team members
seem nervous about the task moving forward. Furthermore, the situation with Ivi returning late was a
key priority to make sure she fit in comfortably. Normally this would be a leadership skill but in this
case I felt it was more friendship, and as a group we all came together to help in this respect.
Use of IT: Used Excel template to create Gantt chart though formatting does seem to be an issue. This
was done in preparation for a university meeting with lecturers though it does help to give an outline
of how short the project is.
Positive attitude to work: Meetings are enjoyable as the whole team contributes. There is never a
feeling that a single team member is not carrying their own weight. Enthusiasm is still high with no
setbacks having been encountered.
Knowledge about your chosen job / career: Interesting researching third sector data, and seeing the
level of administration required by third sector companies. The idea that some companies don’t meet
minimum requirements of cover was new though it makes sense when I researched the scope that
third sector companies covers (community projects etc.)
Team working: The ability to delegate tasks and areas of research to other team members is very
important. Other projects at university have not provided me with this feeling, this allows me to
concentrate on the organizational side. Conversation can almost get heated as views are challenged
but this is ideal as it means that no ideas will progress via group-think if there is always 3 other people
in the group critiquing the ideas.
Leadership attributes / skills: This week was much like last week except with more tasks to perform.
More research needed to be done so it was important to delegate tasks. As I have little to no
experience with marketing, I delegated much of this area to **** to manage, with the dual benefit of
both more efficient research being done, but also further integration of **** into the team. Having
been back for a couple of weeks now, it seems she has handled the immense pressure well and turning
it into a positive. While this area is being covered, it has allowed me to proceed with more client-facing
tasks to prepare for initial meeting.
Positive attitude to work: I felt highly motivated after the meeting. It went well, they seemed happy
and it really helped me appreciate the team’s contribution. Every possible question was covered which
made me feel very proud, which was not necessarily an emotion I was expecting to experience.
Team working: (leadership?) I have arranged for different people to host meetings as a course of
further team bonding. With a meeting being hosted by different team members, I feel as though it
helps people to feel even more comfortable around each other, whilst also helping to share the
responsibility. The main issue with this is ensuring work gets done as meeting up in informal
circumstances can lead to it being more of a party than a meeting.
Self-management: Finding it hard to keep on top of typing up all the meeting minutes but I do feel like
it is an area which I cover the best. Having done this in previous jobs and projects, I have to motivate
myself to perform this by the end of the day in order to not fall behind.
Business and customer awareness: Talking to the client on premises, it allowed use to gain a more
realistic insight into B2B meetings. It felt intimidating as we were walking through the offices, but I felt
we carried ourselves like business people rather than students, and this was a very important aspect
for me as I think the ability to be taken seriously is one area we differentiate ourselves from the other
group doing this project.
Leadership attributes / skills: I felt that I led the meeting with the client and that maybe others in the
team felt intimidated at first, though I would also argue I had some nerves too. This is either due to the
client or my own input, but over time, everyone loosened up and I was perfectly happy with everyone’s
contribution. **** was maybe quieter than others but at the same time, he was the most efficient and
his previous experience in these meetings (which I presume to outrank the rest of the team, myself
included) was evidenced.
Having congratulated everyone on positive performance during the meeting, I feel as though it is time
to stop the customary “thank you” messages as I feel they become meaningless the more I use them.
There has been no issue of confidence or motivation and thus I feel I don’t need to treat the team as if
there is an issue. That being said, I try to talk individually as much as possible to each team member in
order to allow for feedback they may not otherwise give in group situations.
Use of IT: Issue with group email. 1 person reading an email can make it slip through notifications for
other since 4 people access the account. This issue has been solved by everyone declaring in the
communal WhatsApp group when an email is received.
Positive attitude to work: The first time I delegated meeting attendance to other people in my group
due to illness, issues arose so I had to attend. Though I was not happy, I felt that it clarified to myself,
the need to attend and set an example. I have always been hard working, and while everyone else in
the group is too, I feel sometimes people take certain aspects for granted. This helped boost my
opinion of my approach but also re-affirmed my attitude, even when ill.
Self-management: Though the team dynamic is functioning well, I feel that maintaining a single point
of contact (myself) makes it easier for me to track our actions. I believe this would be different in
bigger projects but in this case I believe it to be the right course of action.
Business and customer awareness: Feedback from Uni meetings showed an oversight which we did not
detect; the realism of targets set. While we knew to set targets (SMART objectives), we made an
oversight in judging how realistic they were. This was quite disappointing as none of us notices until we
had it pointed out to us. I felt this was one of the 1 st real mistakes we made though we were quick to
act on it.
Analysis skills: One of the 1st research tasks I performed myself in this project was research into the
company position. This research will help the report for the client and it helps us to guide what data
will be collected. Though my real strength in analysis will be utilized to analyse data collected via
surveys, this was a new facet of this project I had otherwise not performed, partially due to my
leadership position, overseeing everyone else’s contributions in this area.
Positive attitude to work: I really felt myself flagging as we came up against large research targets. This
was the first time I really felt my motivation slip and were it not for other team members working hard,
we could have had real issues. Though the other team members would eventually slow down, I felt
that they really got me through the meeting
Problem solving: The idea I am proudest about is the decision to use the questionnaires to collect
competition data. I felt we were not progressing as a group, and having seen **** and **** spend a lot
of time on research I felt we would not be able to use, I felt I found a unique solution to an issue that
would have presented itself. This saved us time and allows us in the future to narrow our research
when it comes to presenting findings to the client. The team’s willingness to go along with this plan
helped back this assertion.
Relevant work experience: I feel that in any role I go for in the future, be it a business role or data
analytics role, it will be important to use my time wisely and when working to a deadline, decisions
taken like during this week can make or break a project.
Leadership attributes / skills: Though I felt I really generated the idea about using the data collection to
help our research, I felt I allowed the team to contribute their opinions into the decision, and I also felt
they agreed partly due to my idea but partly due to my confidence. Though some of us have experience
in certain areas, we are all relatively inexperienced and sometimes it just takes 1 person to be assertive
in order to make a decision, which I believe was me in this situation.
Use of IT: First use of Qualtrics to create questionnaires to be distributed. After an hour or so of
working with it, I believe I have got the hang of it. I have generally shown good dexterity when using
new applications in my life, so I was confident that it would take me the least time to use this software.
I believe this is one of my skills though until now, never really saw it as such. When having meetings, I
have to explain how to do something in excel or word, and I take it for granted that due to previous
employment or even family history in computing, I tend to have a knack at picking things up quickly in
this regard. This was much of the reason my undergraduate degree was half-IT.
Basic literacy and use of English: I realized while drafting emails to be sent out, as well as in normal
conversation, that I have a particularly wordy way of speaking. I believe I tone it down at the right
times, and have never had an issue with team members not understanding me (even with Ivi having
English as her 2nd language) but people do comment on it. I take it as a positive but this may be an issue
moving forward when trying to garner sympathy from potential survey recipients.
Team working: This client meeting had the best team dynamic yet, with everyone else participating
more. I took more of a backseat while in particular **** and **** really led a lot of the feedback. They
thought of questions I never would have thought of whilst **** had the Marketing insight which
allowed her to understand the client’s thinking more. I tend to look at it from a logic point of view
whilst the client, who works in marketing, takes a different view which I struggle to understand. This
makes me feel very positive moving forward and makes me wonder if we would have managed this
without the late team change which happened at the start. Seeing other team members grow in this
way is probably the most satisfying part of the project so far, until we get our final marks hopefully.
Self-management: I am struggling to keep up to date with minutes. When it is simply myself working
on individual work, I can put headphones in and work away, making sure everything makes sense to
myself only. However, the added responsibility of working in a team means I have to keep everything
up to date and add clarity for everyone else.
International cultural awareness: A personal incident a team member had this week has reminded me
that my personal way of talking and dealing with things does not always translate well, especially over
txt. Sarcasm and even compassion have been misconstrued whilst trying to offer support and maybe
this is due to me trying to be a leader and a friend. Moving forward, I intend to act more professional
to avoid these kinds of issues as certain things can get lost in translation. This is not necessarily a
language barrier thing though.
Business and customer awareness: I feel much more confident when facing clients now. Having talked
to the client face to face on several occasions, and sent a lot of emails, I feel that this aspect was a
development area for me moving forward. I have to consider whether my assertion that I do not like
the corporate business world was just a result of inexperience, and now I would be better prepared for
it.
Positive attitude to work: I felt I led by example this week in this respect, staying up until midnight,
replying to emails. From a client perspective, it shows that we are taking this seriously and should
make the client up their game in this respect. I feel though that having had a week or so where we lost
focus, this week really got us back on track and feeling positive moving forward.
Problem solving: During the meeting with the government contact, the opportunity presented itself
where I felt we could secure an automated distribution channel for our survey (i.e. the contact sends
out on our behalf). I felt once it became clear in the meeting that this was a possibility, it was
imperative that it was agreed upon. In doing so, it allows the group to focus elsewhere while I just
offer some guidance and feedback as opposed to actively sending out emails. The use of the
government contact should enable a higher response rate also. This solution has led to a lot more time
being freed up.
Team working: Once again, I felt the team worked excellently in meeting situation. The fact that 4
inherently talkative people can all contribute without talking over one another, still surprises me. The
only issue was that a monetary inducement for filling out the survey was mentioned when it was not
on offer to the best of my knowledge. Though I felt I covered our bases on this, it would look
unprofessional to suddenly remove this now. It was frustrating but probably the only real mistake we
have made thus far in front of a client.
Relevant work experience: The meeting required a level of negotiation as to setting the scope for the
participation of the government contact. While not wanting to stretch too far that they would disagree
or refuse, it was pleasant to have a suggestion agreed upon in a level of negotiation. This level of
business brinkmanship is hard to replicate outside of actual business roles so was a useful experience.
Business and customer awareness: Having met with a government representative, it helped to re-
affirm progress I have made in contact at a corporate level. Once again, I believe it was slightly more
informal than most meetings, but every goal got attained that we were aiming for and the contact left
feeling very positive, as we did.
Use of IT: Use of FAME website to help develop contingency plan. By downloading a list of 600
perspective charity clients, we now have a database stored in excel which we can dip into if our govt.
contact continues to be quiet.
Problem solving: As a team, we met to plan for contacts going quiet. I felt it was becoming a problem
and if by the 25th we still have no reply; we will have to effectively cold call charities in order to get
enough responses. This plan I felt was devised by myself, but with a lot of back up in its execution by
the rest of the team. Dan in particular helped to navigate the FAME database as a starting point.
Team working: Though when the team attends, the team works hard to achieve goals, I feel there is a
lack of focus at the moment. Team members tend to have an eye on the individual work which to me,
is unacceptable as when we meet, we are there to solve the issue for the client. However, I do not take
it too seriously as it is a) a consequence of also being friends and b) we still get work done. However, it
does flag caution for me as it is something which I may need to act on in future. I have the least
distractions as I am jobless, have less family nearby and can cut myself off to focus easier. I realise that
this is probably an issue everyone faces though.
Self-management: I am preparing to work very hard tomorrow in order to make sure we distribute the
survey far and wide. I feel I have taken ownership of this aspect as I have access to the survey, handle
most of the communication and am the least focused on individual assignments.
Business and customer awareness: The issues of an unresponsive client were mentioned to us at the
start of the project but we did not really prepare for it. The coinciding of the client and govt. contact
going quiet meant we developed a backup plan, but in hindsight, we should have planned for this
earlier rather than scrambling a plan together midweek.
Leadership attributes / skills: Not that I am doubting my skills as a leader, but I do feel that there is
currently a misalignment of goals between team members and the team itself. I feel that with the
current goals we have set, total focus should be put on the group part of the project whilst early 2017
can be focused on the individual aspects. That being said, I am outnumbered 3:1 so will look at how to
adapt our original strategy to satisfy everyone in the team.
Basic literacy and use of English: I gained feedback from our government contact that my wordier
approach was more likely to be successful with data collection as, even though we are talking to
charities, they are still organisations by large. This was good to know as this was my intuition but the
feedback provided by Uni regarding sending emails out is something I will take forward into different
situations, in particular the idea of sending an email out to test the waters, asking if we can send out
further information. This is an insight I had never had.
Positive attitude to work: I have found it hard to motivate myself to concentrate on this project given
team members’ attitudes. I endeavor to get work done but turning up to meetings where people talk
about job interviews or assessment centers are frustrating especially as we meet up as friends and talk
through this stuff then too. I still try to force us forward but the more I try, the more I come across as
dominating I think. It certainly is not as easy as it was in week 1.
Team working: The team still want to get things done, and things are still pleasant, but we get much
less done in meetings than normal so hence a plan is being put into place as outlined in “Leadership
attributes”
Self-management: With the new strategy in place to allow time to focus on individual aspects of the
project, I will continue to manage the data collection side. I have responded to emails sent by outside
actors whilst commuting in to Uni or while walking through town. This assimilation of the project into
everyday life is not ideal but is only for a short amount of time. In the future, I always wanted my job
role to allow complete switch off from the job outside of work hours.
Business and customer awareness: Feedback from survey recipients seemed misplaced but tended to
show that we pegged the email wrong in explaining the use of the survey. Criticism for example that
we had so many types of third sector organization listed as options, whilst later being criticized that
“not all voluntary groups are the same” give us feedback that is hard to apprehend. Also being told
about the experience of a parish clerk being confused by the email (not our part, mind) took me aback
that such a wide range of people would be reading it.
Leadership attributes / skills: I took the situation into my own hands to create a plan to enable people
to focus on individual assignments. My hope is that my relieving some of the stress, it can allow
renewed focus as the most recent meetings have been very inefficient with little getting done.
Leadership attributes / skills: This past week has been the most testing yet, with heightened stress
levels and heightened work load. We are proceeding on track in my opinion but others getting nervous
and getting stressed has taking its toll on me. I have tried to remain positive and upbeat but today’s
meeting was very heated. This whole week we have been cooped up in a pod in the basement which
maybe added unnecessary tension but by the end of the day, we verged on shouting and arguments.
Part of this is my leadership style where I try to be assertive as I have a clear plan on what we are going
to do and when, but others don’t always buy into this and I don’t know how to convince them that it’s
the best way forward.
Criticism of each other’s ideas became less constructive and harsher. On a personal level it is not nice
having friends criticize you but that is just losing sight of the project and it is helping nobody. The
holidays have come at the right time and hopefully can refocus the group’s attention. After today’s
meeting, I am really not looking forward to meeting again to finish this project.

Use of IT: I have become more au-faire with Photoshop the past 2 weeks. I have had to edit photos to
remove backgrounds and format images to suit the documents better. I still feel that this will be a skill
more used in personal life rather than professional life but nevertheless, this has been a pleasing
development.
Basic literacy and use of English: The sheer amount of content being created at the moment has meant
that we have had to practice our English a lot. I feel my English and diction is at a higher level than the
rest of the group but that it is not useful during the report writing process. The balance of using terms
to really sell our product versus being concise so as to not bore the reader is a particular struggle at this
point.
Analysis skills: We are trying to analyse data further than before, and creating more explicit links
between the data and the recommendations that we are making. Though it would sound obvious that
this would be done, it was an area where we operated more on assumption that explicitness.
Self-management: This week has made me realise that I am behind with my individual work and this is
caused by my own lack of organisation. I did plan it this way but I underestimated the amount I have
left to do. That being said, I have worked hard on the group report to ensure there will be extra time in
the final week.
Business and customer awareness: Having continued dialogue with the client has helped us to gain
further insight as to what is expected in this report. The main question of accountability between
ourselves as a group sometimes overcomes the accountability we have with the client, which is not as
issue as long as the outcome is good. That being said, I feel it is important to stress the value placed on
feedback from the client when proceeding with work so we don’t become victims of “group think” and
produce a product that caters to our own beliefs rather than client specifications.
E-Learning Journal 12- – 18/01/2017
Use of IT: I have learnt new aspects of Microsoft Word I have never used before. The issue with
formatting was caused by a column setting I had never seen, whilst I had also never ‘line spaced’ or
‘paragraph spaced’ until now. Seems a necessary skill I seemingly overlooked in the past.
Basic Numeracy skills: Last minute adjustments to the budget required a rare usage of maths. Though I
feel it was probably an area anyone could have handled, it was a good time to display quick arithmetic
to adjust the budget late and split the budget over a 2-year period in order to enhance the marketing
plan
Analysis skills: I found out this week there was a limit to my analysis skills, which I was otherwise
confident about. When analysing raw Google Ads data
Positive attitude to work: Though everyone was focused on finishing work, there was certainly some
flagging through sheer exhaustion at this stage. I am generally living healthier outside of university life
and am hypermotivated by the tough deadlines so feel I am more motivated than ever. I do feel that
this is wearing off on the other members of the team also. This would have been a much harder task
had my team not been so talented.
Problem solving: We suffered an issue regarding the formatting of the report in soft copy form, where
it was being jumbled during file conversion. Having spent an hour concentrating on it and gaining some
good insight from Ivi, I managed to fix it and save some time on deadline day by putting it in print
format early. This was technological but also just a case of trying different solutions to try and solve an
issue before finally fixing it.
Team working: I felt this week was a good week overall for team working but I can isolate examples
where team mates were left with little to do. I would argue when this is the case they should use
initiative and create a job to do but the responsibility still falls on me to delegate tasks. I was simply
too focused and burnt out at times to remedy this.
Business and customer awareness: I had never experienced the concept of having a prep meeting
before the presentation like we had this week but it was very useful and helped us to firm up our
recommendations. It makes sense that it helps all parties involved, they are not wanting to trick us, but
without experience of this, I would never had assumed this would be the case.

Literature Review Example 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Literature Review Example 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature Review Example 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE Literature Review

Culture Learning Cycles

Knowledge Transfer Environment

Figure 1 - McKinsey 7S framework (Waterman & Peters, 1980)

Use of Cycle Systems

Critique of Learning Theory

Critique of Literature - Lack of Empirical Evidence & Scalability

Barrales-Molina, V., Martínez-López, F. J., & Gazquez-Abad, J. C. (2014). Dynamic marketing

Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge Assets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information Ecology - Mastering the information and knowledge

Garbrah, T. F., & Binfor, F. (2013). An Analysis of Internal Environment of a Commercial-oriented

Garvin, D. A. (1993, July). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review.

Gladstone, B. (2000). From Know-How to Knowledge. London: The Industrial Society.

Hughes-Wiener, G. (1986). The ‘learn how to learn’ approach to cross-cultural orientation.

Jackson, T. (1995). European Management Learning; A cross-cultural interpretation of Kolb's

Johnson, G. (1988). Rethinking Incrementalism. Strategic Management Journal, 75-91.

Rosenberg, M. (2003). A Nonviolent Communication. Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dancer Press.

Senge, P. M. (1992). The Fifth Discipline. London: Century Business Press.

This confidence/enthusiasm is shown by the Team Development Cycle (Tuckman, 1965);

Figure 9 - Team Development Cycle (Tuckman, 1965)

As early as week 3 (Week 3 – Self-Management), I encountered issues around maintaining the

Throughout my previous work experience, communication in a corporate environment has been

Figure 10 - Example of email exchange with client

Critical Reflection - Bibliography

E-Learning Journal 1 – 05/10/2016

E-Learning Journal 11 – 11/01/2017

You might also like