ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The quality of managerial training in telecommunications: a comparison of the marketing and information systems managers' viewpoints
Full text PdfPdf (678 KB)
Source Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research Annual Conference archive
Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research table of contents
San Diego, California, United States
Pages: 48 - 56  
Year of Publication: 2001
ISBN:1-58113-363-4
Authors
Karen Ketler  School of Business, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL
John R. Willems  School of Business, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL
Sponsor
SIGCPR: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 0,   Downloads (12 Months): 7,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/371209.371215
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper compares the results of two studies - the first study targeted the marketing manager while the information systems (IS) managers were the focus of the second study. Both studies questioned the respondents about the quality of their training in thirty telecommunications issues. What was most surprising was the total dissatisfaction with the training in telecommunications voiced by both the marketing and IS managers. The marketing managers did not rate their training on even one issue as average or above. Only one issue, Local Area Networks (LAN), was rated as average or above average in the quality of their training by the IS managers. Training in the currently used applications was rated the highest while training in the advanced or emerging applications was rated the lowest. When these applications are used innovatively, an organization can capture a strategic advantage. Self-study, organizational programs, educational institutions and professional agencies were the primary sources of the training. Training programs provided by professional agencies were rated the highest in quality while the organizational in-house programs were rated the weakest.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Allen, C. (1996). "Corporations grow their own best employees at corporate universities". Journal of Career Planning & Employment. January, 1996. pp. 24-29.
 
2
Bachler, C. J. (1997). "Technology delivers training in new ways". Workforce. June, 1997. pp. 98-99.
 
3
Balakrishnam, A., S. Brown, D. Dunlap, and R. Pahl. (1995). "Interdisciplinary industry-university collaboration: lessons from an operations improvement project". Interfaces. September, 1995. pp. 12-41.
 
4
 
5
Ference, P. (1997). "Technology training: knowledge is power". Health Management Technology. November, 1997, p. 66.
 
6
Fisher, H. E., and R. Weinberg. (1994). "Training: make training accountable - assess its impact". Personnel Journal. March, 1994. pp. 13-14.
 
7
Goff, L. (1999). "Training Takes Time, But Pays Off'. Computerworld. January 25, 1999. p. NA.
 
8
Jackson, R. (1999). "Just in Time: Web Delivered Professional Development". T H E (Technological Horizons in Education) Journal. March, 1999. p. 26.
 
9
Kimmerling, G. (1995). "Surveying the suppliers' market". Training & Development. October, 1995, pp. 34-39.
 
10
Laborde, M. and V. Sanvido. (1994). "Introducing new process technologies into construction companies". Journal of Construction Engineering Management. September, 1994, pp. 488-508.
 
11
Lee, Y. (1996). "Technology transfer and the research university: a search for boundaries of universityindustry collaboration". Research Policy. September, 1996. pp. 843-863.
 
12
Messmer, M. (1996). "Strategies for avoiding short comings in staff: steer clear of the skills gap". Personnel Journal. March, 1996. pp. 44-48.
 
13
Nevin, H. (1993). "Technology training: not for users only". Government Computer News. June 21, 1993, p. 25.
 
14
Nozar, R. A. (1996). "Executives stress tech training". Hotel & Motel Management. July 22, 1996. pp. 4-6.
 
15
Page, H. (1998). "Not-so-basic training". Entrepreneur. November, 1998, pp. 52-54,
 
16
Radding, A. (1989). "End users tell IS: 'stand by me'; IS faces the challenge of providing users with more responsive training methods". Computerworld. November 13, 1989, pp. SR29-30.
 
17
Ray, K. (1998). "Making the most of your training". lnfoWorld. February 2, 1998, p. 81.
 
18
Riggs, J. (1996). "Faster, shorter, cheaper drives training today". Personnel Journal. May, 1996. pp. S 1-$3.
 
19
Stamps, D. (1987). "The tough search for telecom talent". Datamation. December 1, 1987. pp. 65-69.
 
20
Steen, M. (1998). "Training for the future". InfoWorld. October 26, 1998, p. 100.
 
21
Tener, R.K. (1996). "Industry-university partnerships for construction engineering education". Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. October, 1996. pp. 156-162.
 
22
Tinnirello, P. C. (1998). "Improving IS Skills: If It Isn't Your Job, Whose Is It?". PC Week. September 7, 1998. p. 72.
 
23
24

Collaborative Colleagues:
Karen Ketler: colleagues
John R. Willems: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: