Improvements in students' capabilities and advances in their learning maturity through the use of groupware technologies in management teaching can be Monitored via a Capability Maturity Model (CMM). During an academic semester, decisions on the type and intensity of technologies used can determine the added – or subtracted? – value in management capabilities developed by students. This paper presents the findings of a research project at the TEI of Larissa that is closely coupled with the European Commission's European Engineering Manager (EEM) and Virtual Development for Europe (VIDEEO) pilot projects. Based on case studies of student groups, the paper demonstrates the usefulness of the CMM in evaluating the effectiveness and learning outcomes of group assignment projects.
AndreuR.CiborraC. (1998), ‘Organisational learning and core capabilities’, in GalliersR.BaetsW., eds, Information Technology and Organisational Transformation, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
2.
BarneyJ. (1991), ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, Vol 17, No 1, pp 99–120.
3.
BlanasG. (2001), Public Information Systems for Total Quality Networking, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Macedonia.
4.
BlanasG. (1999), ‘Towards a generic template for matching IS capabilities to group management processes in education’, paper presented at New Horizons in Industry and Education International Conference, Santorini, September.
5.
CoallierF. (1995), ‘TRILLIUM: A model for the assessment of telecom product development and support capability’, IEEE TCSE Software Process Newsletter, No 2.
6.
CohoutekH. (1996), ‘Reflections on the capability and maturity models of engineering processes’, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol 12, pp 147–155.
7.
CrosbyP. (1982), Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
8.
DoveR.HartmanS.BensonS. (1996), An Agile Enterprise Reference Model with a Case Study of Remmele Engineering, Agility Forum Project, Paradigm Shift International Agility Forum Report AR 96–04, http://www.parshift.com/docs/aermodAO.htm.
9.
FriedmanD. (1988), The Misunderstood Miracle, Cornell University Press, New York.
HirshleiferJ. (1980), Price Theory and Applications, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
12.
HumfreyW.S. (1989), Managing the Software Process, Addison-WesleyNew York.
13.
ILO (1991), Impact of Technological Change on Work and Training, Report of the Tripartite European Meeting, International Labour Organization, Geneva, 28 October.
14.
ILO (1994), Consequences of Structural Adjustment for Employment, Further Training and Retraining in the Metal trades. Report II, Metal Trades Committee, International Labour Organization, Geneva.
15.
JenkinsRhys (1992), ‘Industrialisation and the global economy’, in Hewitt, eds, Industrialisation and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
16.
KuvajaP.SimilaJ.KrzanikL.BicegoA.KochG.SaukonenS. (1994), Software Process Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP Approach, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
17.
Leonard-BartonD. (1992), ‘Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 13, pp 111–125.
18.
LippmanS.RumeltR. (1982), ‘Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm difference in efficiency under competition’, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol 13, pp 418–438.
19.
NolanR.L. (1984), ‘Managing the crises in data processing’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 57, No 2, March-April.
PurserR.PasmoreW. (1992), ‘Organising for learning’, in WoodmanR.PasmoreW., eds, Research in Organisational Change and Development, Vol 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 37–114.
22.
WilsonD.W. (1997), ‘Maturity models in IS development’, paper presented at International Conference of the Information Resource Management Association, Vancouver, May.
