This paper is based on expertise structure and knowledge management (KM) perspective to develop an empirical ¡§Input-Process-Outcome¡¨ model to examine the relationship among expertise complement, expertise deployment, expertise location, expertise integration, problem-solving competency and project performance in the context of information system development (ISD) teams. We adopted the survey method and focused on the members in ISD teams to collect research data. PLS analysis was employed to examine the research model. A total of 76 ISD teams, including 337 members, confirmed our model. Results revealed that (1) expertise complement and expertise deployment are two antecedents that positively affect expertise integration and problem-solving competency; (2) expertise location is found to have a main impact on expertise deployment and expertise integration; (3) expertise integration and problem-solving competency serving as mediators are found to have a positive impact on project performance. This study offers a perspective for conducting the research and practice, as well as achieving a better insight into the fields of expertise composition structure, KM, and ISD.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1991. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 183-193). Also available via the Internet.

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toledo, 2007. / Typescript. "Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts in Political Science." "A thesis entitled"--at head of title. Bibliography: leaves 50-55.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2004. / Advisor: Dr. John Keller, Florida State University, College of Education, Dept. of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Dec. 17, 2004). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-146). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-146). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 122-136).

Thesis (Master of Arts)--Miami University, Dept. of Psychology, 2005. / Title from first page of PDF document. Document formatted into pages; contains [2], 39 p. : ill. Includes bibliographical references (p. 26-29).

This dissertation is a historical analysis of the dominant framing practices utilized by both liberal and conservative advocacy organizations and individuals in the domain of sex education throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. It is in two parts. In the first part, I construct a strategic narrative to answer the question why did conservative organizations, despite their documented anti-science sentiments, begin to embrace expertise-based frames? Utilizing a mixed-method approach, I analyze primary and secondary documents to trace the diffusion of expertise-based framing practices by liberal and conservative actors in the field of sex education. I find that the domain of sex education has always utilized expertise-based frames, though it has experienced disruptions spurred by major socio-political shifts (e.g., McCarthyism, the AIDS epidemic). In the second part, I present the results of an experimental vignette study. While the strategic narrative focuses on organizational and institutional shifts in framing practices, the experiment seeks insight into whether and how "expert cues" are noticed by a non-scientific professional audience, specifically parents (N=202) of school-aged children (5–17). The results provide weak support for the claim that parents will more favorably evaluate a sex education lesson plan when it includes expert cues, irrespective of their religious and political identities. I conclude by discussing theoretical implications for the study of framing, sociology of science, and public understanding of science as well as future directions for this research.