1. Introduction

The publicity and excitement surrounding learning management systems (LMS) in its earlier periods has somewhat diminished because of the immense opportunities, leveraging, and equity that information andcommunications technology (ICT) has given to contemporary organizations [12]. Information and communications technology presents enterprises with abilities to pursue excellence and to invest in innovative endeavors never before envisaged or possible. Contemporary technologies provide platforms that readily accommodate ICT scalability, availability, and deployment both to enterprises engaged in productive and creative undertakings and to higher institutions of learning[1].

Because of the pervasive and ubiquitous presence of affordable ICT, enterprises can extend learning beyond the borders of educational and other physical buildings. Time, space, and cost are less relevant in the post-modern era. With the application of technology, both enterprises and learners have opportunities to pursue excellence from the perspective of their own convenience[1]. LMS initiatives are inescapable requirements within the modern age for organizations and individuals alike.

The reality of LMS demands for contemporary enterprises is fundamental to knowledge-based economies. Huang[9] reasoned that because of the new thrust toward innovative operation and pursuits, the corresponding demand will increase for knowledge workers. Hung[9] opined that this emerging need for intellectual capital resulted in elevated concentration of “knowledge-intensive companies” (p. 924). The expectation of LMS within this context is therefore a timely one. Carlsson, Acs, Audretsch, and Braunerhjelm[4] proffered that should there be any doubt, persistent or periodic, regarding the relationship between knowledge and economic consequence, one need only examine the influence of research and development (R&D) on organizational activities and outcome. Carlsson et al.,[4] posited that it is through initiatives such as R&D that intellectual property (IP) is created, which advance business profits. It is within this context that one scrutinizes the literature in the ensuing paragraphs.

2. Source and Scope of the Literature

Secondary data gleaned for this report was extracted from two online libraries article databases; EBSCOhost and ProQuest, and from other scholarly journals. The relation between LMS and knowledge workers existing within a knowledge-based economy will be examined in the literature. A historical development of LMS in relation to knowledge workers will precede prevailing contemporary best practices. Trends and opportunities will be examined subsequently. A conclusion will close the review.

3. Historical Development

Watson and Watson[17] posited that there is a tradition to using computers for supported learning. The authors noted three such initiatives, computer-based instruction (CBI,) computer-assisted instruction (CAI,) and computer-assisted learning (CAL.) Watson and Watson[17] opined that these early initiatives focused on individualized training. In addition, content extended “management and tracking, personalized instruction, and integration across system”[17, p. 28] in instances in which integrated learning systems (ILS) were deployed. Although the existing use of LMS refer principally to applications and environments catering to learning, LMS initially meant a learning system without content and independent of the courseware that was especially designed for “PLATO K-12 learning system”[17, p. 28]. It is important to note that LMS is a management platform that handles learning protocols and not a content management system (CMS)[17]. The authors reasoned that CMS are tools intended for online and blended learning. Too often these terms are used interchangeably although such application is inaccurate[17].

However, the LMS term continues to be popular for many types of e-learning activities. Korin-Lustig and Lukaric[10] argued that e-learning is an expectation of the contemporary learner. The authors opined that because of this anticipation, the antiquated methods employed in teaching will not suffice. Korin-Lustig and Lukaric[10] stated that although there are technological and disciplinary challenges to adaptation, e-learning has many advantages. The authors noted such benefits to include effective updating, monitoring, communication, grading, and administration.

E-learning may be regarded as any type of learning enabled through network technologies, including intranets and the Internet and is used either alternatively or supplementally to conventional learning practices[18]. Nevertheless, this relatively new approach to acquiring knowledge is still growing. E-learners have many choices and reasons for participating in e-learning activities. For example, learners may choose to build skill-sets, improve knowledge abilities, or adjust attitudes and behaviors[18]. There is a plethora of software available for e-learning initiatives. The open source community offers Moodle, Ilias, Olat, eFront, Claroline, Sakai, and Dokeos whereas the proprietary dealers offer Adobe eLearning Suite, Blackborad, and ActivePresenter among many other choices. Schools and businesses use these tools for course delivery and management and for corporate training respectively[19]. Whereas schools may focus on assignments, discussions, quizzes, and workshops, etcetera, enterprises employ the tools in their online training needs for customer retention, better profit margins, and loyal staff[19].

However, e-learning in general and LMS in particular are information systems incorporating technology and people. Users understanding and acceptance of technology is therefore pertinent to success. Al-Busaidi and Oman proffered that “social norm and perceived ease of use significantly affect perceived usefulness; while computer anxiety and personal innovativeness significantly impact the perceived ease of use”[19, p. 78]. In addition, learning depends on whether interaction is self-paced or instructor driven[19]. Inherent in this discussion therefore, are certain limitations to LMS and e-learning. Constraints may include time spent interacting with experts, available bandwidth, upfront investment costs, including staff, equipment, training, infrastructure, standards, copyright infringements, and social isolation[18]. Social isolation, for example can result in diminished learning because of missing body language and other forms of observable peer-to-peer activities resulting from the communications technologies involved in the process of learning[18]. One’s intellectual property rights also has the looming threat of becoming a commodity as multiple access to one’s creative endeavor has the potential to occur in unethical ways.

Three characteristics are of fundamental importance to e-learning and LMS. First, functionality, reliability, interactivity, and response are imperative to system quality[19]. Second, timeliness, completeness, sufficiency, relevance, understandability, accessibility, and format are essential to information quality[19]. Third, assurance, empathy,tangibility,responsiveness,reliability,completeness, sufficiency, format, and accessibility are vital to service quality. Although not necessarily easy to achieve, these characteristics are not insurmountable.

Notwithstanding, LMS offer substantial possibilities and advantages to learning institutions and organizations. Universities took on a revolutionary role in their attitudes toward knowledge creation following the civil war of 1865[4]. Prior to the war, universities focused on training pupils in the existing knowledge. Knowledge creation was never a focus, notwithstanding the establishment of noble institutions, such as Harvard and other Ivy Leagues in the early 17^th century[4]. After the passage of the war, however, universities were mandated to pursue “agricultural experimentation and extension services, industrial training, teacher education, home economics, public health, and veterinary medicine”[4, p. 1198]. The emerging focus set new standards, especially within the agriculture industry. Endeavors in agricultural pursuit demonstrated that a merger between industrial and educational discourse and activities can bring about substantial economic benefits. These initial initiatives resulted in the contemporary world establishing many institutions of higher learning pursuing research and development (R&D) practices[4].

The demands of the contemporary era pose a new challenge. During the period of the agricultural boom, skills predominate. The term “knowledge workers” did not exist. However, ICT enabled information and communications channel created globalization[9]. Within this global context, there are no tolerance for procrastination or latency of knowledge and information adaptation and use. In addition, globalization shares a phenomenological relationship with ICT, “the trend of globalization also facilitates development of information technology and knowledge economy”[9, p. 925]. Huang[9] opined that because each economy can capitalize on their individual strengths, both cross-national and competent management skills becomes pertinent to organizational survival. The author noted that not much choice exist therefore, for enterprises to study knowledge workers in disparate markets because otherwise they are not likely to achieve “global management”[9, p. 925].

Aydin and Tirkes[1] reasoned that technology has not changed only learning but also has increased opportunities, especially within the last 10 years. The authors stated that enterprises are using LMS to enhance their organizational knowledge base. Aydin and Tirkes[1] argued that because of the advantages of distance learning, businesses are investing more resources in learning technologies. The authors proffered that installation and support costs of LMS can be substantially reduced by using open source software such as OpenOffice or StarOffice.

According to Sebestova and Rylkova[15], traditional approaches to acquiring skill-sets and abilities ignored “behavior of elements” (p. 955). The authors noted that individuals were ill-prepared to gain innovative skills through knowledge acquisition. However, the prevailing circumstances demand proactive actions. Enterprises must respond immediately and appropriately to challenges if they are to survive within the current context. Aydin and Tirkes [1] reasoned that to effect such response, enterprises should customize learning to organizational demands because “organizational learning should be positively related to innovation” (p. 955). Innovation results from tools such as LMS applied in ways that sustain and enhance learning[1].

4. Contemporary Best Practices

According to Parisi and Graziano-King[13], a fundamental challenge to learning communities is to maintain philosophical integrity or the premise guiding behavior. The authors reasoned that especially within the context of collaborative learning, the “assimilative,Cartesian”[13, p. 28] knowledge acquisition approach is irrelevant to contemporary learning. Parisi and Graziano-King[13] posited that a more applicable means to knowledge learning is to adopt Kuhn’s perspective. That is “social artifact … maintained and established by communities of knowledgeable peers”[13, p. 28]. The authors opined that one’s outlook is also important to effectiveness.

In highlighting contemporary best practices for their enterprise, Burki and Mercier[2] proffered that client relation is the first selection for the successful application of LMS. The authors argued that enterprises should engage individuals with the necessary skill-sets to manage the LMS process. Burki and Mercier[2] noted that organizations should be willing to accept change where necessary and that the process should be guided by a comprehensive plan of action.

In considering the survival of enterprises operating in the modern era, Carleton[3] opined that a new paradigm is imperative to advancing knowledge acquisition. The author posited that “globalization, the proliferation of technology, workforce diversity, and the knowledge society have sparked a wave of learning, training and workplace education in organizations from all sectors”[3, p. 460]. Carleton[3] proffered that to cope in this new climate, enterprises must seek individuals who can control uncertainties and vagueness through tacit knowledge problem-solving skills. In this regard, Carleton[3] noted that such skill-sets usually reside in individuals between the ages of 35 and 54. According to Carleton[3], an effective investment in education and skills training for such individuals coupled with active communities of practice participation will likely be rewarding for the organization. She noted that such persons should have the freedom to perform in ways they presumed best. Davenport[5] agreed that knowledge workers should be left to create their own environment for effective performance. Davenport[5] opined that whenever such workers are given freedom to be their own inventors, their contribution to organizational growth tend to improve.

Mladkova[11] reasoned that because of the role of tacit knowledge to contemporary organizational success, it is imperative that such “mental models, experiences, and skills” (p. 106) be converted through appropriate coding for knowledge transfer. Mladkova[11] argued that both process and outcome paradigms should be encouraged within the prevailing climate. The author posited that whereas process emphasize knowledge work, outcome prioritize knowledge management (KM.) Mladkova[11] recognized KM as the epitome to innovative success and competition for enterprise growth.

Raval, Subramanian, and Raval[14] would seem to appreciate Mladkova[11] points of view. Raval et al.,[14] noted that a core knowledge infrastructure (CKI) is essential for enterprises competitiveness. Raval et al.,[14] argued that because “brain potential” (p. 37) is not unique to individual states, organizations pursuing CKI initiatives will likely be successful at the expense of those who do not. The authors cited India and Japan as two such examples advancing in knowledge related enterprises because of the importance with which they treat CKI strategies and techniques.

5. Emerging Trends and Opportunities

Fenwick[6] argued that there exist two fundamental issues concerning enterprises abilities to address workplace learning. First, the author posited that organizations need to have an understanding of how individual learning develops within businesses and second, how group learning occurs. These are the two issues that should determine the direction of organizational response to knowledge workers. Fenwick [6] opined that organizational learning and workplace learning, knowledge gained by the group and the individual respectively, are intertwined with culture, processes, and rules. Understanding these two perspectives is therefore essential to appropriate response. Fenwick[6] proffered that the notion that existed about workplace learning prior to 1985 is dated. She reasoned that contemporary learning consists of “reflective practices, self-directed learning, transformative learning, and learning style concepts filtered into training literature”[6, p. 19]. Organizational learning therefore emerges from the various communities of practice within the enterprise. Opportunities arise within businesses to the extent that enterprises recognize learning as a fundamental purpose and aim of the organization and therefore, they should exhibit the willingness to change existing protocols when new knowledge demands such adjustments[6].

Whereas Fenwick[6] focused on trends and opportunities from a purely business perspective, Sinhaneti[16] assessment is from an educational angle. Sinhaneti[16] noted that benefits are likely to accrue in instances in which offers are drastically increased thereby creating greater choices and more opportunities for participants. Sinhaneti [16] opined that partnerships and collaborative endeavors would possibly accrue substantial benefits to participants and institutions alike. Another area of opportunity is to create multinational and international institutions thereby extending an enterprise brand beyond its national boundaries. In addition to the foregoing, Sinhaneti[16] proffered that organizations should always assess the need for and be prepared to capitalize on new business ventures both internationally and at the community levels. The author opined that enterprises should be willing to extend investments in R&D initiatives that will lead to innovative outcome. The issues dealt with both by Fenwick and Sinhaneti are appropriate for LMS solutions because LMS are management platforms that engage necessary rules to achieve objectives[17]. Deploying appropriate LMS solution in these contexts will therefore possibly produce positive outcomes for enterprises engaged in deploying such solutions.

Guo[7] noted that lifelong learning is an individual responsibility. The author stated that “people have been repositioned as objects of policy to be worked upon in order to ensure their compliance with the brave new world of flexible capitalism”[7, p. 150]. Guo[7] opined that the reality of the learning experience is narrowed to a point in which major learning perspectives are excluded. Guo[7] reasoned that the scope or range and the skills, expertise, and understanding of individuals are too often set aside. The author proffered that one cannot realistically argue about the effects of globalization on enterprises without including migration as a major influencing factor. Guo[7] argued that they are “inextricably intertwined” (p. 150). To the extent that the interwoven relationship exists, enterprises seeking to advance their competitive endeavors must apply learning in ways that complement the association. The relationship includes structure and technology, but because LMS incorporate both management and rules, the learning experience will remain relevant to contemporary enterprises. Migrants’ access to lifelong learning will therefore only enhance organizational effectiveness and thereby create economic efficiencies and advantages. Current or future trends within this context, such as mobile technology and open source platforms will augment the lifelong learning experience of migrating workers as much as it will for anyone else.

According to Hall[8], five trends are essential to the LMS market. Hall[8] stated that software as a service (SaaS) will bring about organizational benefits without the need for reliance on internal facilities. The author posited that talent and performance management are necessary for maintaining productivity. Dholakia[as cited by 8] proffered that “savvy employees will build up by increasing their focus on developing their internal talent” (p. 16). Hall[8] noted that assessment and acceptance of emerging technology is an important requirement for organizational competitiveness. The author argued that mobile learning (M-Learning,) social networking, and collaboration are also key performance enhancing tools for the LMS market. Hall[8] stated that M-Learning is especially important to emerging markets whereas social networking encouragescollaborative endeavors for knowledge sharing.

Pace[12] opined that anything that will enhance and supplement LMS initiatives is worth pursuing. The author noted that the existing issues of usability need to be addressed urgently. Johnson[as cited by 12] argued that “learning professionals want their employees to follow a learning plan that adjusts based on how company structure, employee needs, and job roles change” (p. 16).

According to Davenport[5], however, enterprises should be mindful of the degree to which they employ technology because organizations can suffer from “diminishing returns” (p. 89). Davenport[5] posited that although knowledge workers should be given leverage for optimal performance, such actions are not without issues. The author opined that productivity can be diminished substantially because workers may use tools such as social networking to spend more time socializing than in participating in work related activates. Notwithstanding, Davenport[5] balanced his argument in noting that too much structure within the work environment, especially for knowledge workers also can be disruptive to economic activities and productivity outcomes.

6. Conclusions

Whatever the consequence of LMS on enterprise learning, its demand remains relevant to organizational expectation. The flux and turbulence of the modern era is not making it easier for businesses to deemphasize its importance. Enterprises operate within a global context and therefore, the effects and problems of globalization are also concerns for businesses. Fortunately, technology innovation is helping businesses to keep apace with demands. Information and communications technology offer unique opportunities to businesses to equip their staff, especially their knowledge workers to be innovative for the sake of organizational competitiveness and survival.

Deploying ICT solutions through platforms such as LMS provide a basis for business continuity. LMS and the contending technologies and infrastructures are therefore timely and relevant to the challenges faced by enterprises engaged in active businesses in this contemporary world. As Carlsson et al.,[4] opined, anyone with any doubt regarding if knowledge and economic consequence are related should reexamine the outcomes of R&D initiatives emerging from enterprises and the related influence they transmit through new initiatives and innovations.

LMS applied with appropriate consideration for workers skill-sets and abilities will continue to contribute to business margins. Procrastination or cowardice will only hamper individuals’ opportunities to advance in contemporary organizations and for enterprises themselves to struggle. In addition, the global impact of migration and skills will ensure rapid responses to enterprises innovative acumen. India and Japan, for example, are proving that lifelong learning and quick actions to competitive challenges will dictate those who prosper and those who will become extinct.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SAP Productions wishes to acknowledge all the contributors for developing and maintaining this template.