@misc{GronauUllrichTeichmann2017,
  author    = {Gronau, Norbert and Ullrich, Andr{\´e} and Teichmann, Malte},
  title     = {Development of the industrial IoT competences in the areas of organization, process, and interaction based on the learning factory concept},
  series = {Procedia manufacturing},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Procedia manufacturing},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2351-9789},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.029},
  pages     = {254 -- 261},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Lately, first implementation approaches of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies penetrate industrial value-adding processes. Within this, the competence requirements for employees are changing. Employees' organization, process, and interaction competences are of crucial importance in this new IoT environment, however, in students and vocational training not sufficiently considered yet. On the other hand, conventional learning factories evolve and transform to digital learning factories. Nevertheless, the integration of IoT technology and its usage for training in digital learning factories has been largely neglected thus far. Existing learning factories do not explicitly and properly consider IoT technology, which leads to deficiencies regarding an appropriate development of employees' Industrial IoT competences. The goal of this contribution is to point out a didactic concept that enables development and training of these new demanded competences by using an IoT laboratory. For this purpose, a design science approach is applied. The result of this contribution is a didactic concept for the development of Industrial IoT competences in an IoT laboratory.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Policy analysis in the face of complexity},
  series = {Public policy and administration},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {Public policy and administration},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0952-0767},
  doi       = {10.1177/0952076717733325},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {An ever-increasing number of policy problems have come to be interpreted as representing a particular type of intractable, ill-structured or wicked policy problem. Much of this debate is concerned with the challenges wicked problems pose for program management rather than policy analysis. This article, in contrast, argues that the key challenge in addressing this type of policy problems is in fact analytical. Wicked policy problems are difficult to identify and interpret. The knowledge base for analysing wicked policy problem is typically fragmented and contested. Available evidence is incomplete, inconclusive and incommensurable. In this situation, the evidentiary and the interpretative elements of policy analysis become increasingly indistinguishable and inseparably intertwined. The article reveals the problems this poses for policy analysis and explores the extent to which the consolidation, consensualization and contestation of evidence in policy analysis offer alternative procedural paths to resolve these problems.},
  language  = {en}
}