Armenakis, A.A., Bedeian, A.G.: Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management 25(3), 293–315 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K., Mead, M.: The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly 11(3), 369–386 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darke, P., Shanks, G., Broadbent, M.: Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal 8(4), 273–289 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., Beers, M.C.: Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39(2), 43–57 (1998)Google Scholar
Dubé, L., Paré, G.: Rigor in information systems positivist case research. MIS Quarterly 27(4), 597–635 (2003)Google Scholar
Galliers, R.D.: Towards the integration of e-business, knowledge management and policy considerations within an information systems strategy framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 8(3), 229–234 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzberg, M.J.: Key recurrent issues in the MIS implementation process. MIS Quarterly 5(2), 47–59 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, V., Davenport, T.H.: General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 5–21 (2001)Google Scholar
Hatch, M.J.: They dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review 18(4), 657–693 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heier, H., Borgman, H.P., Manuth, A.: Siemens: expanding the knowledge management system ShareNet to research and development: Siemens: expanding the knowledge management system ShareNet to research & development. Journal of Cases on Information Technology 7(1), 92–110 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, K.G., Franz, C.R.: Obstacle coping during systems implementation. Information & Management 11(2), 65–75 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, P.G.W., Bronsema, G.S., Zuboff, S.: Implementing common systems: one organization’s experience. Systems, Objectives, Solutions 2(2), 125–142 (1982)Google Scholar
King, W.R., Marks, P.V., McCoy, S.: The most important issues in knowledge management: what can KM do for corporate memory, management thinking, and IS responsibility, as well as for overall business performance? Communications of the ACM 45(9), 93–97 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krovi, R.: Identifying the causes of resistance to IS implementation: a change theory perspective. Information & Management 25(6), 327–335 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A.S.: A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly 13(1), 33–52 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leidner, D.: Information technology and organizational culture. In: Galliers, R.D., Leidner, D.E., Baker, B.S.H. (eds.) Strategic information management: challenges and strategies in managing information systems, 2nd edn., pp. 523–550. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
Leonard, D.: Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
Lewin, K.: Group decision and social change. In: Newcomb, T.N., Hartley, E.L. (eds.) Readings in social psychology, pp. 329–340. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Troy (1947)Google Scholar
Lucas, H.C.: Implementation: the key to successful information systems. Columbia University Press, New York Guildford (1981)Google Scholar
Lucas, H.C., Plimpton, R.B.: Technological consulting in a grass roots action oriented organization. Sloan Management Review 14(1), 17–36 (1972)Google Scholar
Macredie, R.D., Sandom, C.: IT-enabled change: evaluating an improvisational perspective. European Journal of Information Systems 8(4), 247–259 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, M.W.: Using knowledge management to sustain innovation: moving toward second generation knowledge management. Knowledge Management Review 3(4), 34–37 (2000)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Meso, P., Smith, R.: A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systems. Journal of Knowledge Management 4(3), 224–234 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, M.D.: Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 21(2), 241–242 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W.J., Hofman, J.D.: An improvisational model for change management: the case of groupware technologies. Sloan Management Review 38(2), 11–21 (1997)Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A.M.: Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practices. Organization Science 1(3), 267–292 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggles, R.: The state of notion: knowledge management in practice. California Management Review 40(3), 80–89 (1998)Google Scholar
Schein, E.H.: Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar
Schein, E.H.: The corporate culture survival guide: sense and nonsense about culture change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
Seeley, C.: Change management: a base for knowledge-sharing. Knowledge Management Review 3(4), 24–29 (2000)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Spector, B.: From bogged down to fired up: inspiring organizational change. Sloan Management Review 30(4), 29–34 (1989)Google Scholar
Srinivasan, A., Davis, J.G.: A reassessment of implementation process models. Interfaces 17(3), 64–71 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, E.W., Zwass, V.: Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems Research 6(2), 85–117 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storey, J., Barnett, E.: Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure. Journal of Knowledge Management 4(2), 145–156 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J.C., Kellogg, W.A., Erickson, T.: The knowledge management puzzle: human and social factors in knowledge management. IBM Systems Journal 40(4), 863–884 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A.: Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38(4), 8–17 (1996)Google Scholar
Tyran, C.K., George, J.F.: The implementation of expert systems: a survey of successful implementations. Database 24(1), 5–15 (1993)Google Scholar
Urban, G.L.: Building models for decision makers. Interfaces 4(3), 1–11 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R.: Don’t make culture another item on the KM checklist. Knowledge Management Review 3(4), 8–9 (2000)Google Scholar
Yin, R.K.: Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
Zand, D.E., Sorensen, R.E.: Theory of change and the effective use of management science. Administrative Science Quarterly 20(4), 532–545 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case: Siemens Ag Global Development Strategy
Siemens is a huge 155 year old international $77 billion German based companionship operating from side to side 16 big business units by means of one of the world's main infrastructure, electronic and engineering corporation and 1200 fully merges supplementaries in additional than 190 countries, which are sprint by 484,000 workers.
All Siemens businesses are part of a medium organization that combines a central strategic compass reading with decentralized business and local responsibilities. As worldwide entrepreneurs, Siemens' Operating Groups are independently accountable for their universal businesses. Each Group has its own Executive Management, which is accountable for organization Group commerce in accordance with corporation policies distinct by the Managing Board of Siemens AG. The Operating Groups decide how their resources will be second-hand. They develop their possess strategies, manage their possess assets and generate pay in their respective marketplace segments.
Siemens: Vision, Strategy & Principles.
According to the expert analysis a company likes siemens with so a group of people, production sites, products and associates all over the world - needs a solid base of lawful and ethical principles.
Siemens: Corporate Principle"Siemens is a productive innovator and a strong actor in the global commerce stadium. The information, skills and dedication of our populace are crucial to our sustained achievement as a corporation."Source: Siemens Corporate Responsibility Report 20021.We strengthen our CUSTOMERS - to keep them spirited.
2.We push INNOVATION - to form the prospect.
3.We enhance corporation VALUE - to open new opportunities.
4.We empower our PEOPLE - to achieve world-class performance. Our workers are the key to our success. We work jointly as a global network of knowledge and knowledge. Our corporate civilization is defined by variety, by open conversation and mutual admiration, and by clear goals and important leadership.
5.We embrace business RESPONSIBILITY- to advance civilization.
Although every Group of Siemens determines their possess strategies base on these principles. Siemens One is novel company-wide strategy to improve marketplace diffusion and drive enlargement in new fields by ornamental cooperation across the whole association.
"Excellent Employees Guarantee Success"Siemens needs the most excellent and the brightest populace in order to attain outstanding business consequences. Siemens want to be the company of option for extremely capable applicants and offer them exceptional long-term possible by emphasising on staffing, training, sustained education, incentive and development opportunity by means of in the business.
1.Service Provision: To give staffing programmes responsiveness to the require of the department in some business unit of any...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%