This diploma‘s thesis deals with the analysis and definition of the requirements for the implementation of a suitable communication and information web portal for OR-NEXT spol. s r.o., an IT business. The company focuses on the implementation of information systems (QI and Lawson M3), system integration in general and with providing post-implementation services. The portal will improve communication with customers and both simplify and speed up business processes on the management of customer portfolios and customer requirements.

The global business environment has changed dramatically in recent years, as competition in complex knowledge-based economies has increased. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have been viewed as a way to manage increased business complexity, leading to the rapid adoption and implementation of such systems, as ERP can support enterprises to improve their competitiveness. Knowledge management (KM) is crucial for ERP systems implementation, however a highly demanding task. Therefore, the primary concern of this research is to examine the effectiveness of knowledge management activities that would contribute to achieve ERP implementation success. This study adopted mixed methods approach by combining semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire to collect empirical data from ERP professionals in both manufacturing and service sector organisations. In the qualitative phase, it develops the “framework of integrative knowledge” based on empirical evidence, that can improve KM competence for ERP implementation success. Data analysis has been undertaken using a combination of thematic analysis and comparative analysis with respect to 14 ERP implementations in the UK. The framework integrates multiple perspectives in terms of knowledge components to enhance KM competence, including knowledge types, knowledge layers, KM lifecycle and knowledge determinants. It discovered 19 knowledge determinants to drive knowledge management activities during ERP projects, which is another vital contribution to the existing knowledge. Furthermore, the study develops the “knowledge network model” for ERP implementations in order to facilitate the knowledge flows between various stakeholders involved in ERP implementations, which can help to understand the interactions between the knowledge components. Moreover, sub-knowledge types (knowledge elements) under each knowledge type were discovered through empirical evidence. The quantitative phase was adopted to extend the findings of the qualitative phase. The knowledge types and knowledge elements were prioritised using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method through an online AHP based questionnaire with 77 responses from ERP professionals involved in UK ERP implementations. Furthermore, knowledge prioritisation demonstrates how effectively the framework of integrative knowledge can be used during ERP implementations with the help of prioritised knowledge. In total 4 knowledge types and 21 knowledge elements were ranked based on their contribution to achieve ERP success; four variables of information quality, systems quality, individual impact and organisational impact were used to measure ERP success. This study has number of theoretical contributions including framework of integrative knowledge, knowledge network model for ERP implementations and ERP knowledge prioritisation. Moreover, the framework of integrative knowledge can provide ERP practitioners with useful guidance on what the key knowledge determinants are and how the relationships between knowledge components should be best managed to achieve ERP implementation success in business reality.

Large resources are invested in healthcare research, but despite this there is a wide gap between research knowledge and healthcare practice. Implementation researchers have addressed this gap, focusing mostly on the role of healthcare practitioners. However, a narrow focus on implementation does not take into consideration the preceding stages and the roles of different actors during the whole innovation process, which starts from research and ends with implementation. The aim of this thesis is to examine the behaviors of three key actors during an innovation process and to explore the influence of selected contextual factors on their behavior. Study I (n=10 funders) identifies several facilitative roles for funders and suggests that implementation risks becoming no one’s responsibility as the funders identify six different actors responsible for implementation, the majority of whom embody a collective or an organization. Study II finds that the implementation knowledge of Swedish funding managers (n=18) is mostly based on experience-based knowledge. The majority of the funding managers define implementation as a process and express limited knowledge of implementation. The findings of Study III (n=4 innovation cases) show that the roles and involvement of academic inventors and ISAs (innovation-supporting actors) are more connected to intellectual property (IP) nature than to intellectual property rights (IPR) ownership. Study IV (n=4 innovation cases) identifies three different logics that influence the behavior of academic inventors: market, academic and care logics. A pattern emerges where the behavior of academic inventors is guided by a unique logic and there is no interaction between logics, despite the existence of multiple logics. The individual strategies to handle multiple logics coincide with the influence of logics. In addition, IP nature, distinguishing between high-tech and low-tech innovations, is connected to the influence of institutional logics: low-tech connected to the care logic and high-tech connected to the market logic. This thesis has three main theoretical and practical implications relevant for practitioners, policymakers and researchers. First, implementation responsibility is an important issue to study and discuss, because without clearly defined responsibilities and management of responsibilities, responsibility might become no one’s responsibility. Second, the finding that experience-based implementation knowledge contributes heavily to policymakers’ knowledge encourages further studies and discussions regarding this relatively neglected issue. Third, the importance of IP nature in shaping innovation processes should be considered and further examined, not only as a factor influencing inventors and ISAs’ roles and involvement, but also as influencing the prevalence of different institutional logics. Further, the relevance of a distinction between low-tech and high-tech IP should be reflected on.