Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning. Developing a Hybrid Organisational Learning Model

7/28/2019 Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning. Developing a Hybrid Organisational Learning Model.

1/80

I

Bradford Centre for International Development.

Knowledge management and organisational learning.Developing a hybrid organisational learning model.

Georgios Charalampidis

Bradford

2005


2/80

II


3/80

III

Abstract.

This paper is an attempt to analyse the dynamics of the learning

organisation by acting complementary to the theoretical schemata

developed for this purpose. For this, the theory of knowledge management

and learning organisations is being revisited. In this desk study, learning

organisations are conceptualised as a dialectical process, in which various

contradictions are synthesised through dynamic interactions between

individuals, the organisation and the environment. Most of the theoreticalschemata proposed for the analysis of a learning organisation do not

usually take under consideration the interaction of the organisation with its

environment and the role of the information technology in an organisation

of this type. This essay acts complementary to the existing theoretical

framework and attempts to develop a hybrid model of learning organisation;

the e-learning . organisation.


4/80

II

Table of contents.

1. Introduction. ................................................................................................................... - 1 -

2. Knowledge and Knowledge Management ..................................................................... - 4 -2.1 The emerge of knowledge as competitive edge for organisations. .......................... - 4 -2.2 What is knowledge? ................................................................................................. - 6 -2.3 levels of knowledge ............................................................................................... - 11 -2.4 Types of knowledge. .............................................................................................. - 12 -2.5 The Knowledge Economy. .................................................................................... - 15 -2.6 Core competencies. ................................................................................................ - 18 -2.7 Knowledge Management. ...................................................................................... - 20 -

3. Learning and the learning organisation. ...................................................................... - 26 -

3.1 Definitions of learning. ...................................................................................... - 26 -3.2 Can organizations learn? ........................................................................................ - 29 -3.3 Organisational learning .......................................................................................... - 33 -3.4 The learning organisation. ..................................................................................... - 36 -

3.4.1 Systems thinking and the learning organization ............................................. - 39 -3.4.2 Dialogue and the learning organization .......................................................... - 40 -

4. Presentation and analysis of the Hidding and Catterall learning organisation model. - 43 -4.1 Anatomy of a learning organisation. ...................................................................... - 43 -4.2 Anatomy of a Learning Organisation? ............................................................... - 45 -

5. Towards an e-learning organisation: a proposal for a hybrid learning organisation model.......................................................................................................................................... - 53 -

5.1 Learning organisations and information technology. ............................................ - 53 -5.2 Information technology solutions .......................................................................... - 55 -

5.2.1 Intranet and Internet ........................................................................................ - 55 -5.2.2 Groupware - Lotus Notes ................................................................................ - 56 -5.2.3 Intelligent Agents ............................................................................................ - 56 -5.2.4 Mapping Tools ................................................................................................ - 57 -5.2.5 Document Management .................................................................................. - 58 -5.2.6 Knowledge Enriched Solutions ...................................................................... - 59 -5.2.7 Information filtering via IT ............................................................................. - 59 -

5.3 From learning to e-learning organisations. ............................................................ - 61 -

6. Conclusion. .................................................................................................................. - 68 -

7. References. ................................................................................................................... - 69 -


5/80

III

List of figures.

Figure 1: Economic eras based on changes in the primary source ofwealth ...6

Figure 2: The knowledge spectrum .6

Figure 3: Learning process component model 6

Figure 4: Anatomy of a learning organisation 6

Figure 5: coordinating mechanisms based on level of discretion... 6

Figure 6: The e-learning organisation model .. 6


6/80

- 1 -

1. Introduction.

In recent years global economic structure has started to acknowledge

knowledge as a distinct factor in production sequence. The reasons for the

development of knowledge as a fundamental asset for companies and

organisations are innumerable and their analysis is beyond the purposes of

this study.

Knowledge economy represents an economic structure in which the

implementation of knowledge replaces, in some degree or entirely, the

traditional means of production; that is capital, land and labour (Drucker,

1993). Organisations and corporations, in order not to lose track and been

left behind as the global economy recognises the importance of knowledge

as a key factor to productivity, adopted new paradigms,( for example

knowledge management and knowledge productivity) and reformed their

organisational structure (e.g. learning organisations).

The main objective to be pursued in this study is the development of a

hybrid model of learning organisation based on the model proposed by

Hidding and Catterall (1998). Although some models of learning

organisations have been proposed by various authors (for example, Argyris

1996, Easterby-Smith 1999, Hidding and Catterall 1998) most of them treat

learning organisations as closed systems. In other words, those models


7/80

- 2 -

neglect to place the learning organisation in the wider societal and

economic context but only emphasise on the internal structure of

organisations of this type.

This desk study util ises secondary data in an attempt to act complementary

to these models of learning organisations and develop a hybrid model that

takes under consideration the interaction and interrelation of learning

organisations with their environment. Taking this hybrid model a step

further the author proposes the creation of the e -learning or ganisation; inorder to signify the importance of the role of information technology in

organisations of this type.

More analytically, this essay starts by addressing issues related to

knowledge and knowledge management (chapter 2). In this chapter a small

reference is made on how knowledge became the key asset for organisations

(2.1) followed by an analysis of what knowledge entails (2.2) and types and

levels of knowledge (chapters 2.3 and 2.4). An analysis of the notion of

knowledge economy (chapter 2.5) and core competencies (chapter 2.6)

follows and in the last section of this chapter (2.7) the concept of

knowledge management is addressed.

Chapter 3 of this essay emphasises on the concepts of learning and learning

organisations. In the first part of this chapter (3.1) an attempt to define the


8/80

- 3 -

term learning takes place. Owing to the fact that learning usually refers

to individuals and not to organisations section (3.2) crit ically examines if

organisations have the ability to learn, followed by an analysis of two

notions that are frequently generate great confusion; organisational

learning (3.3) and learning organisation (3.4). The following chapter

(chapter 4) focuses on presentation (4.1) and critique (4.2) of the Hidding

and Catterall (1998) learning organisation model.

Chapter 5 consists of an analysis towards the development of the hybrid e -learning organisation model. More analytically, in the first section of this

chapter (5.1) evidence are submitted in order to justify the relation among

learning organisations and information technology; while in the next

section (5.2) a more technical approach is adopter to present some

information technology mechanisms and software that are already in use by

organisations, enterprises and businesses. In the following section (5.3) the

e-learning organisation model is presented.


9/80

- 4 -

2. Knowledge and Knowledge Management

Key concepts : Knowledge, Economic Era , Knowledge E ra , Concep t ions of K nowledge,

Level s o f Knowledge, Types of Knowledge, Knowledge Economy, Core Competencie s, Knowl edge Management , Law of Dimini sh ing Retu rns, Law o f Dimin ish ing Marg ina l Ut i l i ty, Compet i t ive Advantage.

This chapter will address issues related to knowledge and knowledge

management. Starting with a historic flashback of the term knowledge

the author gives evidence as far as how knowledge emerged as a

competitive edge for organisations is concerned. This is followed by an

analysis of the terms knowledge, knowledge economy and core

competencies; while in the last section the notion of knowledge

management is being critically presented.

2.1 The emerge of kno wledg e as com pet i t ive edge for o rgan i sa t ions .

Economic history has been divided into economic eras based on the

dominant form of production. Savage (1996) in his book Fif th Generation

Management acknowledges four major economic eras:

Late Agricultural: where land is dominant source of wealth.

Early Industrial: with labour replacing land as main form of

production.


10/80

- 5 -

Late Industrial: with a shift towards capital and

Early Knowledge: with knowledge being the fundamental form of

production.

Figure 1 represents graphically those economic eras based on changes in

the primary source of wealth.

The rise of knowledge as a form of production and a source of wealth

signified the emergence of a new economic era; widely known as the

Knowledge Era. As early as the 1980s many eminent economists, -such as

Drucker (1988) and Machlup (1984), and Romer (1992) -, prognosticated

the ascendancy of knowledge over the other sources of wealth. Also, they

predicted that this dominance of knowledge would give rise to a new

Figure 1

Economic Eras Based on Changes in the Primary Source of Wealth(Source: Savage C. 1996, Fifth Generation Management, p.119)


11/80

- 6 -

economic era; where knowledge would be the fundamental form of

production.

The contemporary proliferation of interest for knowledge in the

organisational context is primarily associated with the high-rate of change

and the emergence of new trends that took place in the environment of the

organisation. There is a great wealth of l i terature that deals with this

subject (Kleine, 1998, Prusak, 1997, Wikstrom & Norman, 1994). Some of

these trends are presented below:

The globalisation of the economy

The recognition of knowledge as a distinct factor in production

The awareness of the value of specialised knowledge in coping with

the pressures of globalisation.

Information technology systems are becoming cheaper.

Changing nature of goods and services

2.2 What i s know ledge?

The debate around what knowledge is or how is perceived is not a newborn

issue. Theaetetus which probably dates from about 369 BC arguably the

greatest work of Plato on epistemology offers a discussion of the question


12/80

- 7 -

what is knowledge (Bostock 1988, Cornford 1935, Sedley 2004, Chappell

2005).

Like many other Platonic dialogues, Theaetetus is dominated by question

and answer exchanges (dialogue=) with Socrates as main

questioner. His two respondents are Theaetetus, a brill iant young

mathematician and Theaetetus tutor Theodorus (Bostock 1988).

Plato as many other Greek philosophers is using the obstetric method( ). Via this method the questioner is trying to assist their

responders through dialogue to express their thoughts on a subject and

gradually reject what is not relevant with the topic. For example, if a area

of interest A is related to X and not to Z and Y a questioner that is

adopting this method, will firstly let you express your thoughts and having

this as a starting point will eventually make you realize that A is not

related to X and Z. The interesting part is that the questioner will not

unveil to you that A is related to X at the end of the dialogue. His/Her

main interest is to guide your thoughts towards the right direction and not

to supply you with an answer. That is the reason why some of these

dialogues were finishing in an impasse (Sedley 2004).

Theaetetus is a dialogue that ends in impasse (), thus the dialogue

is completed without discovering what knowledge is. Theaetetus, though


13/80

- 8 -

offers three significant insights of what knowledge is not (Sedley 2004,

Chappell 2005):

Knowledge is not perception.

Knowledge is not true judgement.

Knowledge is not true judgement with logos (an account).

The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines knowledge as:

a (1) the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained

through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding

of a science, art , or techniqu e b (1) : the fact or condition of b eing aware of

something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding

And continues:

the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles

acqu ired by mankind.

The above stated definition of knowledge is over simplistic when

knowledge is analysed in the context of an organization. This is owing to

the fact that in an organizational context:
http://c/Users/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5/Desktop/diafora%20giorgos/New%20folder%20(2)/%CE%A7%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%91%CE%9B%CE%91%CE%9C%CE%A0%CE%99%CE%94%CE%97%CE%A3%20%CE%93%CE%95%CE%A9%CE%A1%CE%93%CE%99%CE%9F%CE%A3/PTYXIAKH%20MASTER/dissertation/dictionaryhttp://c/Users/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5/Desktop/diafora%20giorgos/New%20folder%20(2)/%CE%A7%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%91%CE%9B%CE%91%CE%9C%CE%A0%CE%99%CE%94%CE%97%CE%A3%20%CE%93%CE%95%CE%A9%CE%A1%CE%93%CE%99%CE%9F%CE%A3/PTYXIAKH%20MASTER/dissertation/dictionaryhttp://c/Users/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5/Desktop/diafora%20giorgos/New%20folder%20(2)/%CE%A7%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%91%CE%9B%CE%91%CE%9C%CE%A0%CE%99%CE%94%CE%97%CE%A3%20%CE%93%CE%95%CE%A9%CE%A1%CE%93%CE%99%CE%9F%CE%A3/PTYXIAKH%20MASTER/dissertation/dictionaryhttp://c/Users/%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5/Desktop/diafora%20giorgos/New%20folder%20(2)/%CE%A7%CE%91%CE%A1%CE%91%CE%9B%CE%91%CE%9C%CE%A0%CE%99%CE%94%CE%97%CE%A3%20%CE%93%CE%95%CE%A9%CE%A1%CE%93%CE%99%CE%9F%CE%A3/PTYXIAKH%20MASTER/dissertation/dictionary


14/80

- 9 -

knowledge means much more than access to informati on and data. It

encompasses our experience and expertise, our sensitivity to the human

factors that are central to the successful use of technology and our belief

that we need to constantly reach out and acquire more knowledge to fuel

our progress (Grenie r and Metes, 1995 p.8).

As a starting point knowledge can be explicated and elucidated at i ts most

rudimentary level as the collection of what an individual knows and

understands and how he/she perceives and interprets the environment. Thelevel of the individual is essential, since the above mentioned simplified

definition insinuates that knowledge is the ramification of the modus

operandi that an individual util ises to transform data to information.

Knowledge is therefore information, combined with experience, context,

interpretation and reflection (Davenport et al . , 1998a).

In the debate towards a definition of knowledge Quintas et al (1997) adopt

a rather contrastive approach to the one mentioned above. They argue that

knowledge is not just a product of the interpretation of facts, neither skills

waiting to be discovered and used but rather a set of relationships in which

power is entailed in a great degree. They also treat knowledge as a process

rather than a product.


15/80

- 10 -

Nonaka and Takaeuchi (1995) are also of the opinion that knowledge is

rather a process and not a product as they propose that knowledge is a

dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs towards the truth.

There are many theoretical schemata that attempt to analyse what

knowledge is and how it can be perceived from dissimilar or contradictory

perspectives (e.g. as a process or a product). In an attempt to unveil some

similarities among them, one can argue that most of these schemata

emphasise on the individual and highlight that knowledge is contextdependent.

Taking into consideration the above mentioned argumentation, an

assumption based on logic should be that in an organisational level

knowledge can be defined as the sum of all the knowledge and skills that

each individual member of the organisation possesses. But is this the case?

In addition to the individual knowledge of each employee; organisational

knowledge might exist in the organisational processes and corporate

information repositories. To synopsise organisational knowledge can be

explicated as the one shared among its employees, shaped and developed

according to the organisational processes, history and environment, is

usually stored in corporate information repositories and allows for

languaging (Von Krogh et. al . 1999) a process in which organisational

language and terminology is constantly advancing.


16/80

- 11 -

2.3 levels of kn ow ledge

In our attempt to define and specify what knowledge is, i t is crucial to

identify the different levels and types (See below Chapter 2.4) of

knowledge that is possible to occur and exist in an organisation. In this

organisational context, a simplified categorisation is the one that identifies

two levels of knowledge:

Lower or Practical; the one closer to action and

Higher or Theoretical; with emphasis on higher level of

understanding that have li t t le or no relation to practical action (Baker

& Badamshina, 2002).

Another approach to identify levels of knowledge is to perceive knowledge

as a three step procedure from recognising elements of concepts, to form

relationships between concepts, to specifying the conditions under which

these relationships apply (Baker and Badamshina, 2002). A similar view

characterizes knowledge as progressing from relational thinking to systems

thinking and, within systems thinking, as progressing from identifying

system characteristics, to detecting system trends, to explaining system

dynamics (Baker and Badamshina, 2002). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

consider knowledge as a process of eliciting from general lower level


17/80

- 12 -

knowledge crucial sections and then amalgamate them in order to generate

higher level expertise- knowledge.

Differentiating between lower and higher levels of knowledge may also

refer to identifying separate knowledge elements as opposed to knowledge

systems. The combination of knowledge elements in order to create

knowledge systems can be seen as a transition from lower to higher levels

of knowledge. Knowledge systems can be frameworks, theories or models

that not only show relationships, suggest connections, facili tatecomparisons, and predict consequences but also can be used to interpret and

incorporate new experiences and information (Baker and Badamshina,

2002).

In practice though, organisations avoid to use each level of knowledge

separately but combine elements from both high and lower levels of

knowledge. This combination of those two levels of knowledge creates a

third level; the one that organisations util ise.

2.4 Types o f kno wledge.

Most authors classify knowledge as explicit or tacit (Cliffe, 1998 Nonaka

and Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge requires small-scale

interpretation. It is usually coded and recorded in some form written or


18/80

- 13 -

electronic- such as a document or database. As a result i t can be transferred

and communicated quickly and easily. It is inactive until transformed and

applied to support decision making. Then it is considered and treated as

information as opposed to raw data.

Tacit knowledge is not usually recorded and as a consequence frequently

requires a high degree of interpretation and analysis. It can be analysed in

two spheres. The first one is the technical sphere, which encircles the

information and expertise captured in the term know -how. The second isthe cognitive sphere. It can be encapsulated as entrenched beliefs and

perceptions, mental models, experiences and actions, ideals and values.

Tacit knowledge is communicated by word of mouth and shared experiences

and it is rather unusual to be found in a structured form (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995).

At this point i t is crucial to underline that explicit and tacit knowledge

should not be interpreted as two contradictory notions that neutralise each

other. Nether as two notions that their boundaries are clear in a way that

they are not related to each other. On the contrary, they should be treated

as supplementary and interrelated to each other.

Although this classification of knowledge to explicit and tacit is based on

logical assumptions; i t could be criticised as oversimplifying or l imiting.


19/80

- 14 -

Hidding and Catterall (1998) propose a third type of knowledge which they

name emerging. Emerging knowledge is characteris ed as partly explicit

and partly tacit and usually relates to a cutting edge field of expertise. In

order to obtain it , one draws upon recorded information as well as the

combined knowledge of a group of experts. Problem solving in this area is

not-neither could be- the task of one individual/expert. Usually of a group

of experts should be involved and collaborate in order to provide solutions

and ways forward. They graphically represented their thoughts in a schemathey called the knowledge spectrum.

Figure 2 : The knowledge spec t rumSource: (Hiddi ng an d Cat teral l , 1998 p.8)


20/80

- 15 -

2 .5 The Know ledge Econo my .

In chapter 2.1 we briefly commented on how knowledge emerged as the

dominant source of production and generated the foundation for the passage

to a new economic era; the knowledge economy. In this chapter we will

analyse in great depth the semantics of this new economic epoch.

According to Drucker (1993) Knowledge economy exemplifies an economic

form and structure where the application of knowledge substitutes in some

degree capital, raw materials and labour as forms of production. In other

words, knowledge economy signifies the passage from the late industrial

era to the knowledge revolution and era (see also chapter 2.1).

As a starting point, i t has been argued that in the knowledge-based

economy the success of the organisation will depend on developing,

expanding, protecting, and renewing knowledge and then speeding it to

market in a stream of rapidly and continually improved products and

services (Stewart, 1997). The rate at which organizations acquire, create,

and effectively util ize knowledge to produce better products and services

will become the only sustainable competitive advantage (Stata 1989). This

view focuses on the knowledge outputs, i .e. , knowledge-infused products


21/80

- 16 -

and services. It also suggests the line between services and products will

become blurred (Stewart 1997, Davenport & Prusak, 1998b).

While this may be true, the idea that organizations will need to rapidly

develop and deliver knowledge-infused products and services does not go

very far in detailing how our economic landscape will be transformed.

Hamel (2000) and Malhotra (2000) see the new economy as having at least

as much to do with radically new business concepts or models as with new

knowledge-infused services and products.

Demographics are considered to be the principal force that drives this shift

towards the knowledge economy. (Drucker, 1993). In the near future the

under population of the developed world will dictate (if this is not the case

already) that economic growth will no longer be achieved by employing

more people or from increasing consumer demand; but from efficiently

utilising the one form of production that developed countries sti l l have the

competitive advantage: knowledge. In addition to demographics this

argumentation can also be backed up by two fundamental Laws of

Economics:

the Law of Diminishing Returns; that states that as extra units of one

factor of production (in our argument labour) are employed with all

the others held constant, the output generated by each additional unit

will eventually fall and


22/80

- 17 -

The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utili ty; that states that as extra

units of a commodity are consumed by an individual the satisfaction

gained from each unit will fall (Bannock et al . , 2003).

The efficient util isation of knowledge as a new factor of production will

significantly reduce the possibili ty of those two laws to take effect. This is

owing to the fact that the new factor of production, knowledge, is not

seems to be a limited or scarce resource in quantity or quality but, on the

contrary, globally accessible and available. Knowledge, though, as a

resource for production has a major disadvantage. It makes itself

superseded much more frequently than the other forms of production. This

is the consequence of the radical every day advancement of knowledge

especially on the sphere of expertise. In economic eras prior to knowledge

economy (e.g. industrial era), an organisations competitive advantage was

based simply on the efficient utilisat ion of the forms of production.

In the emerging knowledge era, an organisations competitive advantage

emanates from knowledge. Knowledge is the foundation on to which every

knowledge era organisation develops its core competencies. The

advancement of the cutting edge of knowledge (knowledge expertise) is

considered to be fundamental for the survival of organisations in this

highly competitive environment. This is owing to the fact that the core


23/80

- 18 -

competencies of an organisation in the knowledge economy are developed

and enhanced analogically to the advancement of knowledge expertise.

2.6 Core com petencies .

At this point i t is crucial to make a small reference to what core

competencies are. The main notion of core competencies where developed

by Hamel and Pr ahalad (1994) in their book competing for the future.

They initiate a concept based on the assumption that an organisation is

capable of developing cutting edge areas of expertise which are innovative

and distinctive and at the same time crucial to organ isations long term

survival and growth. As they state:

in the 1990s managers will be judged on their abili ty to identify, cultivate

and exploit the core competencies that make growth possible. Indeed, they

will have to rethink the concept of the corpora tion itself (Hamel &

Prahalad, 1994).

Tampoe posits that core competencies are the technical sub -system of an

organization and therefore embedded within its production and

management process (Tampoe, 1994, p. 68).


24/80

- 19 -

Core competencies are not and for this reason should not be seen as being

fixed. By nature they could not be characterised as static. On the contrary,

core competencies have a dynamic edge. This means that they reform

according to the needs of the organisational environment. This implies that

core competencies are characterised by a high level of flexibili ty and

adjustability.

A great number of authors that deal with core competencies (Gallon,

Stillman and Coates, 1995, Hamel & Prahalad, 1994, Tampoe, 1994) adoptan adaptive approach on the subject. As organisations evolve and adapts to

new circumstances and opportunities, so its core competencies will have to

adapt and change. In other words, those authors are of the opinion that core

competencies are d eveloped as a consequence of the organisations

adjustment to the new environment. Although this is an argument that is

based on logic there is a possibility that fi rst an organisation develops and

changes its core competencies and as a consequence the org anisations

environment adjusts to this change. For example, Microsoft, a leading

computer software enterprise; firstly invented the software package called

Windows and then adjusted its production line and marketing on this

software.

According to Hamel and Prahalad (1994) organisations of the knowledge

economy should aim achieve a combination of the following:


25/80

- 20 -

Dramatically shift consumer needs/tastes in an existing market.

Rapidly enter emerging markets.

Create new markets.

In order to accomplish this, organisations should identify and develop its

core competencies. In addition to this, organisations should be able to

acknowledge what kind of core competencies should need in the future; in

order to maintain or expand their percentage of the mark er. In other

words, core competencies could be characterised as a fundamental step in

the strategic planning procedure of organisations. There is a great wealth of

l i terature (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994, Tampoe, 1994, Gallon, Stil lman and

Coates, 1995) that underlines the necessity of acknowledging and

developing core competencies as the basis upon which organisations initiate

their growth.

2.7 Know ledge Managem ent .

Knowledge Management is considered to be an over-researched area and

there is also a great wealth of l i terature that deals with this subject. For the

above mentioned reasons, at this part of this essay an attempt is made to


26/80

- 21 -

present some of the cri ticisms and develop a discussion on this area rather

than just present a l i terature review on knowledge management.

There is a dispute as far as the origins of the term knowledge management

are concerned. Some writers insist that the term knowledge management

was first introduced in a 1986 keynote address to a European management

conference (American Productivity and Quality Center, 1996). Sveiby

(2001) highlights that Karl Wiig used the term Knowledge Management for

the first t ime in a presentation in 1986 for the first t ime and went on to publish several books on his teams experiences (Wiig, 199 4). Wiig in

1990, according to Sveiby (2001), wrote possibly the first article in the

world with Knowledge Management in the ti t le: Knowledge Management:

An Introduction" in Proceedings of IAKE Second Annual International

Conference. Despite the dispute about the origins of knowledge

management, the term had immediate and vast appeal and, at the same time,

spawned strongly felt crit icism.

The major crit icisms of knowledge management are that (Baker and

Badamshina, 2002):

It has associated closely with information management and

information technology (IT).

It entails that knowledge can be managed.

It tends to be as broad and vague as to have li t t le meaning.


27/80

- 22 -

It tends to focus on knowledge creation, capture, sharing, use and

reuse, rather than providing a true vision and strategy that conveys

how knowledge-based enterprises will function and succeed in the

new knowledge-based economy.

In addition to the above generalised in approach- crit icisms of knowledge

management, more precise crit icisms have been developed at more specific

aspects of knowledge management. The most widely used and abused

definition of knowledge management is the one that interprets i t as a group

of processes that aim towards the creation, capture, storage, sharing,

application and reuse of knowledge. (Sydanmaanlakka, 2000). This type of

definition is crit icized for making knowledge management appear to

involve somewhat mechanistic and sequential process steps and for

focusing attention on explicit knowledge artefacts as opposed to tacit

knowledge. Knowledge engineering reflects this view of knowledge

management. Alternative interpretations of knowledge management have

been proposed that emphasise into the intricacies of knowledge and

knowledge management. For example, Snowden (2000) defines knowledge

management as:

The identification, optimization, and active management of intellectual

assets, either in the form of explicit knowledge held in artefacts or as tacit

knowledge possessed by individuals or communities. The optimization of


28/80

- 23 -

explicit knowledge is achieved by the consolidating and making available

of artefacts. The optimization of tacit knowledge is achieved through the

creation of communities to hold, share, and grow the tacit knowledge .

And continues:

The active management of intellectual assets is the creation of

management processes and infrastructure to bring together artefacts and

communities in a common ecology that will sustain the creation, util izationand retention of intellectual capital.

This definition acknowledges that knowledge management should focus on

both explicit and tacit knowledge, as well as the interrelation and synthesis

among them, and recognises some of the procedures for achieving this. It

does not, conversely, unveil and recognise other aspects of knowledge

management, such as how knowledge will be util ised or how a knowledge-

based endeavour/organisation will eventually operate .

Baker and Badamshina (2002) are of the opinion that the difficulties with

the definition of the notion knowledge management are possible to be

surmounted if one thinks of knowledge management as building and

enhancing knowledge systems and embedding work systems within these

knowledge systems, rather than managing something as nebulous as


29/80

- 24 -

knowledge per se (Baker and Badamshina, 2002, p.10). Hence, a more

holistic definition of knowledge management would be creating

knowledge-rich environments and knowledge-rich interactions in the

conduct of work and developing and managing integrated, well-configured

knowledge systems and increasingly embedding work systems within these

knowledge systems (Baker and Badamshina, 2002, p.10).

Approached in this manner, knowledge management downgrades the role of

IT. It is obvious that both knowledge systems and the processes of embedding work systems within knowledge systems can be managed.

Finally, this definition is broad enough to capture all aspects of knowledge

management but at the same time precise on defining what a knowledge

system is.

The above mentioned definition does not excessively emphasise on the

knowledge management to the point of ignoring the bigger picture. On the

contrary, i t encompasses an organisation-wide vision an approach that is

not present in the li terature-, although there is a documented need for both

vision and strategy. This perspective of knowledge management empowers

the organization to recognize its essential knowledge fields, i ts present and

future knowledge priorities, aims and objectives, and to act towards

contracting fundamental knowledge systems and embedded work systems

within them. Last but not least, i t assists the organization to recognise the


30/80

- 25 -

most suitable set of knowledge management practices and determine how

information technology (IT) and artificial intelligence (AI) can best enable

these knowledge systems and the embedded work systems within them.

To summarise, this chapter offered an insight to some of the most

fundamental issues regarding knowledge and knowledge management. The

following chapter will look upon issues related to the n otions of learning

and the learning organisation.


31/80

- 26 -

3. Learning and the learning organisation.

Key concepts: Learning, Organisational Context of Learning, Low/High Level of Learning,

Individual/Organisational Learning, Organisational Theory-In-Use, Adaptive/Proactive Learning,Social/Technical Approach to Organisation Learning, Learning Organisation, Learning Company, Top-to- Down/ Democratic Approach to LO, Systems Thinking, Dialogue.

In the following sections of thi s chapter an analysis of the term learning

and related to it notions takes place. After learning is defined at the

beginning of the chapter emphasis is given on the organisational context o f

learning. A critical examination of if organisations are capable to learn is

presented and then the notions of the organisational learning and

learning organisation are being exemplified.

3.1 Definitions of learning.

A definition of learning could be retrieved from Longman Dictionary of

Contemporary English that define learning as knowledge gained trough

reading and study. In the same dictionary the entry learn is expressed

as:

To gain knowledge of a subject or skill in an activity, by experience, by

studying it or by being taught. To find out information, news etc by hearing

it from someone else. To get to know something so well that you can easily


32/80

- 27 -

Learning(Individual and Organisational)

Knowledge skills values andaltitude

Behaviour

Figure 3: Learning Process Component ModelSource: Stewart, 1991

remember it To gradually understand a situation and start behaving in the

way people expect you to behave. To understand a situation or develop a

skill by learning from your mistakes and experience s .

Stewart (1991) characterises learning as a natural, continuous and

inevitable process that manifests i tself rather instinctively. The author

insinuates that learning could be perceivable on organisational and

individual level. Stewartss model of the learning process component is

shown below (Figure 3).

According to the Learning Process Component Model, learning entails

changes in both individual and organizational level. Those changes in


33/80

- 28 -

skills, values and alti tude result in changes in the behaviour of the

individual and the organisation.

Another classification of learning is the one that separates it into low level

and high level. Low level learning emphasises on the behaviour that may or

may not be repetition of the past behaviour and it forms a cognitive

association (Applebaurn & Gorans, 1997, Fiol & Lyles, 1985). This

distinction among high and lower level of learning is similar to the learning

procedure that Argyris and Schon (1978) define as a single loop learning inwhich the individual responds to the unorthodox situation by adjusting

approaches, strategies and assumptions.

High level learning, on the other hand, is related to the implementation of

complex systems, rules and directives in interaction with new initiatives

and understanding of causality (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). This type of learning

often mobilises and affects the whole organisational structure. It is related

to Argyris and Schons (1978) theory of double loop learnin g, in which the

respond to an identified malfunction or error takes the format of a mutual

examination into the organizational norms in an attempt to enhance

consistency and effectiveness.


34/80

- 29 -

3.2 Can o rganizat ion s learn?

In most occasions the term learning is related to the ability of individuals

and rarely in an organisational context. The main question that will pursue

to answer in this section is if organisations are capable (or not) of learning.

One of the authors in this field (Prange 1999, p. 27 ) remarks that on e of the

greatest myths on organizational learning is the who question , that is, the

way in which learning might be considered organizational . There are those

who argue that i t is individuals, not organizations, who learn. In other

words, learning refers to the processes that incarnate within the individual

mind.

Salomon (1993) is of the opinion that the learning/cognitive processes and

the cultivation of skills and competencies, and in general terms everything

cognitive is being residing in the brains of individuals. In addition to this,

the environment acquires a subordinate role; as social, cultural, and

technological factors are not considered to be of great importance by the

author.

This perception is associated with a particular aspect of our ego. According

to this comprehension of our self; our body and especially our skin is

becoming the periphery into which our world is developed. What happens


35/80

- 30 -

outside this periphery is extraneous to us. In this simplistic perception,

three rules exist: (Sampson 1993, p.34):

the boundary of the individual is coincident with the boundary of the

body;

the body is a container that houses the individual;

the individual is best understood as a self-contained entity.

Nevertheless though, in our every day life a rather dissimilar set of

cognitive processes appear. Individuals seem most of the times to cogitate

and act in conjunction with others; after taking under consideration their

environment. The environmental surroundings in this context play a

significant role and affect the cognitive process of individuals.

Moreover, the arrangements functions, and structures of these

environmental surroundings usually transform during this process to

become authentic elements of the learning that results from the cognitive

partnership with them. In other words, i t is not just the person - solo who

learns, but the person - plus, the whole sys tem of interrelated factors.

(Salomon 1993: xiii)

This interrelation, as i t was described above, is not a newborn issue. Cole

and Engestrom (1993) highlighted the importance of environmental


36/80

- 31 -

surroundings and factors in learning. The authors argue that this is related

to a dialogical understanding of selfhood. (Cole and Engestrom, 1993)

One of the earliest examples of how individual and organisational learning

interrelate and interact could be retrieved from the work of Argyris and

Schon (1978,1996). They suggest that each member of an organization

creates his/her own perception of the theory-in-use (1978 p. 16). This

perception is usually interpreted by the individuals as insufficient. For this

reason they are constantly working towards ameliorating their perception of learning.

Consequently, our inquest into organizational learning should not only refer

to non-dynamic entities identified as organizations; but, on the contrary,

with an active process of organizing. Individuals should repetitively be

trying to know the organization, and to know themselves in the context of

the organization. Simultaneously, their continuing efforts to know and to

test their knowledge represent the ob ject of their inquiry. In other words,

organizing is reflexive inquiry.

Other than this, there must be public i l lustrations of organizational

contemporary theoretical schemata (theory-in-use) to which individuals can

refer to. These public i l lustrations are called organisational maps. These


37/80

- 32 -

are the shared perceptions of the organization which individuals jointly

create and util ise in order to guide their own inquiry.

Organizational theory-in-use, continually constructed through individual

inquiry, is encoded in private images and in public maps. These are the

media of organizational learning (Argyris and Schon 1978 pp.16-17). From

another crit ical viewpoint, these could also be characterised as the link

among the individual and organisational learning procedures.

As a consequence, organisations are capable of learning. But how well can

they learn? In their review of individual and social aspects of learning,

Salomon and Perkins comment (1998):

If organizations can learn, this does not mean that they learn very well. A

strong theme in the li terature on organizational learning is the weakness of

the learning system involved. The learning of the collective suffers from a

startling range of l imitations.

Those limitations are aggravated by the organizational character of the

learning. For instance, different individuals within an organization may

interpret success in a dissimilar way. Also, what is perceived as an efficient

policy or a productive idea by a group of people in an organisation might

not perceived in the same way by another group for reasons of


38/80

- 33 -

contradictory interests. In addition to this, the open nature (see below

pp.48-49) and this affects organisati onal learning most of the times in a

negative way.

In summary, organizations, l ike individuals, can learn. Many of the

fundamental phenomena of learning are the same for organizations.

However, organizational learning also has distinctive characteristics with

reference to what is learned, how it is learned, and the adjustments called

for to enhance learning. These derive from the fact that any organization bydefinition is a collective entity.

3.3 Organis at ional learning

The notion of organisational learning has become very prominent.

Generally, one can distinguish between two different processes of

organisational change that are associated with organisational learning

(Senge, 1990):

Adaptive learning

Proactive (generative) learning

Adaptive learning generally signifies a lower degree of organisational

change. This implies that adaptive learning is perceived as a process of


39/80

- 34 -

incremental alterations and changes. Furthermore, adaptive learning is also

seen as more mechanical and less cognitively induced than proactive

learning. Many authors have chosen to name differently what in this essay

is described as proactive and adaptive learning. For example, Single -Loop

versus Double- Loop Learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978), Lower versus

Higher Level Learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985), Tactical versus Strategic

Learning (Dodgson, 1991), Adaptive versus Generative learning (Senge,

1990). All of them though acknowledge the superiority of proactive

learning as compared to adaptive.

As Mark Easterby-Smith and Luis Araujo (1999) have commented the idea

of organizational learning has been present in the management li terature for

decades, but i t has only become widely recognized since around 1990.

Two developments have been highly significant in the development of the

organisational learning li terature. First , i t has attracted the interest of

academics from disparate disciplines that had up ti l l then shown lit t le

interest in the subject of organisational learning. The second one is that

many managers and organisations realised the commercial importance of

organizational learning. Much of the effort of these theorists has been

dedicated to identifying patterns, or ideal forms, which real organizations

could attempt to imitate. (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999, pp. 1-2)


40/80

- 35 -

One of the most the fundamental patterns or ideal forms in the 1990s was

the notion of the learning organization. The li terature on this subject could

be divided into two main categories. The fi rst one consists of theorists that

emphasise on organisational learning as a technical process; while the

second one of those that focuses on organisational learning as a social

process.

According to Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999, pp.3-5), the technical

approach highlights that organizational learning is about the effective processing, interpretation of, and response to, information both inside and

outside the organization. This information may be quantitative or

qualitative, but is generally explicit and in the public domain. The social

approach on organization learning emphasises on the way individuals

comprehend their experiences at workplace. These experiences may

emanate from explicit or tacit sources. Following this syllogism, learning is

something that can originate from social interactions, usually in the

working environment.

A technical approach of the organisational learning procedure can be

retrieved from the writings of Argyris and Schon on single and double-loop

learning (1978, 1996). On the other hand, Wenger (1998) provides a social

approach to organisational learning. Those operating within the social

perspective may view organizational learning as a social constructio n, as a
http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-organization.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-organization.htm


41/80

- 36 -

political process, and/or as a cultural artefact (Easterby -Smith and Araujo

1999, pp.5-7).

3.4 The learning organis at ion.

Peter Senge (1990) was one of the pioneers in the field of learning

organisations. In his book entitled The Fifth discipline (1990) presented a

holistic analysis of The art and practice of the learning organization. This

book created the foundations on to which the notion of learning

organisation was developed and became widely known. Despite the great

wealth of l i terature on the subject; the definition of what a learning

organisation is; is sti l l under debate. There is not a consensus on the

definition of a learning organisation (Kerka, 1995). Ten years later after

the Fifth Discipline Garvin (2000, p.9) underlines that a clear definition

of learning organisation has proven to be elusive. Some selected definitions

of learning organisations are presented below. According to Senge (1990,

p.3)

Learning organization s are organizations where people continually expand

their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and

expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is

set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole

together.
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm


42/80

- 37 -

Another definition of the learning company is proposed by Pedler et. al .

(1991, p.1):

The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not

brought about simply by t raining individuals; it can only happen as a result

of learning at the whole organization level. Learning Company is an

organization that facili tates the learning of all i ts members and

continuously transforms itself.

According to Watkins and Marsick (1992, p.118) learning organisations:

Are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of

collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed

towards shared values or principles.

Those definitions have some similarities and some contrasts as well. To

start with the last first , some writers (such as Pedler et. al . , 1991) seem to

approach learning organizations as a notion that is initiated, created and

developed by senior management. In other words, they adopt a top to down

approach (Hughes and Tight 1998, p. 183). On the other hand, a more

bottom to top or democratic approach has been proposed by Watkins and

Marsick (1992). Other writers have emphasised to the learning company


43/80

- 38 -

(Pedler et. al . , 1991 . Most of them though have made the assumption that

any type of organization can be a learning organization.

In addition to this, another key distinction has been developed between

technical and social variants. This has its roots on the theoretical schemata

of organisational learning (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999, p.8). The

technical variant is based on techniques such as the learning curve (in

which cost is plotted against the cumulative output of a particular product).

This approach though, is usually emphasising on outcomes and resultsrather than the processes of learning. On the other hand, the social

approach of the learning organization looks to interaction and process.

According to Kerka (1995) most theories on the learning organizations are

based on the hypothesis that learning is valuable, continuous, and most

effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to learn.

Also, some features seem to exist in the most dominant approaches.

Learning organizations:

Provide continuous learning opportunities.

Use learning to reach their goals.

Link individual performance with organizational performance.

Foster inquiry and dialogue, making it safe for people to share openly

and take risks.

Embrace creative tension as a source of energy and renewal.


44/80

- 39 -

Are continuously aware of and interact with their environment.

(Kerka 1995)

Peter Senge (1990) acknowledged five disciplines (personal mastery,

mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking) that are

considered to be the cornerstone for implementing the learning

organisation. Of great importance though are his thoughts on systemic

thinking and dialogue.

3.4.1 Systems thinking and the learning organization

Systemic thinking is the theoretical basis and cornerstone (The Fifth

Discipline) of Peter Senges approach. It is the discipline that

amalgamates the others into a consistent theoretical and practical context.

According to Senge (1990, pp.12-13):

At the heart of a learning or ganization is a shift of mind from seeing

ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing

problems as caused by someone or something 'out there ' to seeing how our

own actions create the problems we experience. A learning organization is

a place where people are continually discovering how they create their

reality. And how they can change it.


45/80

- 40 -

At this point some considerations and remarks on systems thinking need to

be presented. Systems thinking refer to (or should refer to) individuals,

teams and groups, but also to the organisation as a whole; and attempts to

unveil their interrelations. From this point of view, systems thinking

provide the abil ity for indiv iduals to conceive the wider organisat ional

context and the organisation as a whole and to realise the consequences and

results of their actions on others and vice versa. In addition to this,

although systems thinking is a rather undemanding approach to implement;it can be applied in complex and advanced organisational structures. Third,

systemic thinking, according to Senge (1990), allows us to realize the

significance of feedback mechanisms in organizations. As he argues:

The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the long -term view.

Thats why delays and feedback loops are so important. In the short term,

you can often ignore them; theyre inconsequential. They only come back to

haunt you in the long term. (Senge 1990, p.92)

3.4.2 Dialogue and the learning organization

Another point the author would like to comment on as far as Peter Senges

work on learning organisations is concerned is his emphasis on dialogue.


46/80

- 41 -

Dialogue is a word that derives from the Greek word and can be

analysed into two synthetics (dia wh ich means through or via)

and (logos which means with an account or with wisdom).

Dialogue in ancient Greece meant that two or more people debated on an

issue or subject, using empirical argumentations in a quest (or with a

purpose) of an acc eptable by both parties solution ( lysis ) that

usually derives from a synthesis of opinions. Dialogue differs from

conversation because it has a purpose (the quest of lysis). As a

consequence dialogue can be defined as a process of synthesizing opinionsand arguments in the quest of a solution.

In a rather more simplified approach, dialogue consists of a process of two

people understanding each other. As such it is intrinsically risky and

involves questioning our beliefs and assumptions (Gadamer, 1979).

The main concern in a dialogue is not (or should not be) to prevail ones

argument to anothers; but to advance our understanding and

comprehension on an issue and, in a wider context, our human well being.

Agreement cannot be forced, but depends upon common assurance

(Habermas 1984, p.285-287).

It is rather uncomplicated to comprehend the reason why theorists of

learning organisations would focus on dialogue. For example, in Senges

Fifth Discipline (1990) dialogue is a crucial part of team learning. As he


47/80

- 42 -

comments: team learning entails the capacity of members of a team to

suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine thinking together (1990,

p.10). Dialogue is also necessary to other disciplines e .g. bui lding a shared

vision and developing mental models.

On the contrary, some important risks seem to exist as far as the process of

dialogue in organisations is concerned. One risk, that also consist an appeal

of Senges approach on dialogue, was the belief that i t could enhance and

improve corporate activity. Although this is possible, through theexamination and inquiring of inherent, predetermined aims and targets

(Bohm et. al . 1991); this approach could be characterised as too optimistic

though dialogue is very subversive (Factor, 1994).

Going over the main points of this chapter, a definition of the term learning

was presented and then this notion was applied in the organisational

context. In the following chapter a crit ical examination of the Hidding and

Catterall (1998) learning organisation model is presented.


48/80

- 43 -

4. Presentation and analysis of the Hidding and Catteralllearning organisation model.

Key Concepts: Anatomy of a learning organisation model, P&L Management/Knowledge Management,Organisational Environment, Open/Closed Systems, Partially Open/Partially Closed Systems, KnowledgeCoordinating Mechanisms, Information Technology .

In this chapter of this study the learning organisation model developed by

Hidding and Catterall in their article anatomy of a learning organisation

is presented and then is crit ically analysed; focusing mainly into the

abnormalities and anomalies of this model. The reason for selecting this

model is rather uncomplicated. This model is an empirical, and as so closer

to reality, attempt to approach the concept of learning organisations; in

contradiction with other models that follow a more theoretical approach.

4.1 Anatom y of a learnin g org anisat ion.

Hidding and Catterall in their article Anatomy of a Learning Organization:

Turning Knowledge into Capital at Andersen Consulting (1998) analyse a

learning organisation model. The authors tried to relate three types of

knowledge (Formalised, Emerging and Experiential) with the major parts of

the organisational structure. Project teams relate mostly to experiential

knowledge, organization wide methods groups relate mostly to formalized


49/80

- 44 -

knowledge. Communities of Practice relate to emerging knowledge.

Knowledge Nodes relate to two types of knowledge as they provide

emerging and formalized knowledge to project teams.

Figure 5 is similar to a fishnet organization as described by Johansen and

Swigart (1994) or spiders web organization as described by Quinn (1992).

However, the anatomy of a learning organisation model has two distinctive

characteristics when compared with the two above mentioned models. First ,

the anatomy of a learning organisation embodies a multi- layered spiders

web, with the layers types of knowledge- being qualitatively different.

Second, in the Hidding and Catterall model a distinction is made among the

Profit and Loss management (P&L) and knowledge management. According

to the authors this distinction was made because Profit and Loss

Management and knowledge management have objectives that need to be

Figure 4: Anatomy of a learning organisa t ionSource: Hidding and Cat tera l l , 1998 p . 12


50/80

- 45 -

balanced against each other (Hidding and Cat terall , 1998 p.12). This is

owing to the fact that knowledge management is related to developing

knowledge assets; while profit and loss managements main concern is to

exploit the organisational assets. Both are necessary, but in a relative

balance. Spending time and resources in order to grow knowledg e assets

reduces financial gain in the short term, but builds more assets that can be

exploited over the longer term. The authors conclude that both methods of

management are essential, but in a relative balance (Hidding and Catterall ,

1998 p.12).

4.2 Anatomy of a Learning Organisation?

The learning organisation model proposed by Hidding and Catterall (1996)

is incontestably a useful tool in analysing learning organisations (see

chapter 3.5). It could though be characterised as incomplete as i t neglects

or downgrades the role of the organisational environment and how this

environment affects the flow of knowledge towards the organisation and the

flow of knowledge from the organisation to the environment.

At this point a brief reference to what organisational environment consists

of is crucial. Organisational environment can be defined as the environment

into which an organisation operates, - the market, the economy, the

technology and the legislative and regulatory climate (Field and Keller,


51/80

- 46 -

1998). As it can be easily understood, a change or alteration in the

environment of the organisation could possibly affect the functionality or

even the sustainability of an organisation. In the learning organisation

context, environment is the main source of information gathering trough

various procedures, l ike feedback, research or market analysis. As a

consequence, environment should be a fundamental part in an learning

organisation analysis.

To take the discussion about organisational environment a l i t t le bit further,we can argue that i t was not specified by the authors if a learning

organisation is an open or a closed system. An open system is the one that

permits information to enter and leave the system and can therefore be

changed and affected by such information. A closed system is one that does

not allow any new information into the system at all (Blackman and

Henderson, 2001). Hidding and Catterall seem to prefer that an organisation

is a closed system as far as knowledge flow towards and from the

environment is concerned; owing to the fact that the only connection that

they highlight between learning organisation and its environment is control

flow from what they define as Global Management (See Figure 4). In

practice though, i t seems unlikely that an organisat ional sys tem is ent irely

closed but i t is possible that there may be stages between wholly open and

wholly closed organisations.


52/80

- 47 -

Although to be a partially open or partially closed system seems rather

irrational there are not few writers that argue in favour of this concept

(Von Krogh and Ross, 1995; Magalhaes, 1998; Morgan, 1986; Weick,

1995). This concept implies that organisations develop fil ters in order to

decide which ideas and areas of information will enter or leave the

organisation. Those fil ters are formed according to the targets and the aims

of an organisation in combination with the culture, organisational history

and status and quality standards. For example, Rolls-Royce, a high standard

and quality automobile manufacturer would rarely or in no case consider of using low quality raw materials for their cars (like artificial leather

substitutes instead of real leather for the seats) or build a small car to enter

a new market.

One of the most important issues in a learning organisation is the

coordination and management of knowledge flows. The Hidding and

Catterall learning organisation model does not specify how all this

knowledge will be co-ordinated in an organisational context. Although the

writers separated knowledge management from profit and loss management;

they did not submit clear evidence on knowledge co-ordinating

mechanisms.

Organisations not only need to process information but i t is vital and

crucial to organise, harmonise and coordinate data, information and


53/80

- 48 -

knowledge. One of the most fundamental aspects of knowledge management

(See chapter 2.7) and management in general is to implement procedures

and mechanisms in order to coordinate knowledge. In practice,

organisations use a variety of integrating mechanisms to achieve knowledge

coordination. Five different methods of achieving coordination have been

identified.

Direct Supervision

Standardisation of Information Process

Standardisation of Outputs

Standardisation of Input Data and Information and

Mutual Adjustment (Mintzberg, 1989).

They vary along a continuum of how much discretion is allowed for the

employees (See figure 5).

low highLevel of discretion

DirectSupervision

Standardisation of Information Process

Standardisationof Outputs

Standardisation of InputData and Information

Mutual Adjustment

Figure 5: coordinating mechanisms based on level of discret ion.Source: Mintzberg, 1989


54/80

- 49 -

Direct supervis ion : When this type of coordinating mechanism is

implemented, knowledge flow is coordinated by designated supervisors who

tell subordinates what to do and how to util ise knowledge.

Standardisation of Information Process: This mechanism applies mainly

for data and information that are embedded to the structure of the learning

organisation and so considered to be common sense for the employees.

Those data can be managed by standard operating procedures or the

technology itself.

Standardisation of outputs: When products and services must be produced

according to technical specifications, these can be used as an adequate

basis for co-ordinating knowledge flow. In dividuals are allowed some

discretion in managing knowledge as long as the output meets the required

specifications.

Standardisation of Input Data and Information: Highly trained and skilled

employees can typically coordinate data and information flow by

performing activities consistent with their technical training.

Mutual adjustment: Mutual adjustment consists of a constant interchange

of informal communications. Individuals coordinate knowledge flow

through informal processes and mutually adjusting to one anothers needs.


55/80

- 50 -

Employees communicate with whomever they need to communicate with;

without a great level of regard for formal lines of communication.

Another issue that Hidding and Catterall did not develop in a great degree

is the one of the role of information technology into learning organisations.

There is a continuous dispute and debate around the purpose and

significance of information technology for knowledge management and

management in general. On the one hand, information technology solutions

are being util ised pervasively in organizations, and consequently they areconsidered to be an important medium for knowledge flow within

organisations and among organisations and their environment. A study from

the American Productivity and Quality Center (1997) unveils that

organizations embarking in knowledge management efforts generally

depend upon, for fulfil l ing their goals and objectives, on the development

of an appropriate IT infrastructure (AP&QC, 1997). In contradiction to this

approach to information technology, prominent knowledge management

theorists have highlighted the danger that underlies in the trend of strong

investments in information technology; that could result in decreases in

other investment areas like human capital. (Sveiby, 1997).

The danger that this viewpoint sees is that IT-driven knowledge

management strategies may end up objectifying and calcifying knowledge


56/80

- 51 -

into static, non-dynamic information and as a consequence disregarding

altogether the role of tacit knowledge.

Part of this problem emanates from a linguistic ambiguity: contemporary

information technology solutions are as much about developing direct l inks

among people through applications like e-mail, chat-rooms, internet-

conferencing and other types of individual and team communication

systems; as they are about storing information in databases and other types

of repositories. As for information databases, they can also be fruitfully re-thought, in a knowledge management perspective, as resources for the

sharing of best practices and for preserving the intellectual capital of

organizations.

In a more general context, investments in information technology are rather

unavoidable in order to expand knowledge management applications and

methods. Application of information technology solutions to a learning

organisation context, though, should be developed in accordance with some

principles and rules. On the one hand , the awareness of the l imits of

information technology, and of the fact that any IT deployment will not

achieve much, if i t is not accompanied by a cultural change toward

knowledge and learning values. On the other hand, we should take under

consideration the level and quality of the available information technology


57/80

- 52 -

solutions that have been designed or can be implemented to a learning

organisation context.

To synopsise, this chapter highlighted that although the anatomy of a

learning organisation is a useful tool in analysing organisations of this

type; in practice seems to be an over-simplistic model owing to the fact that

it neglects to refer to fundamental issues of learning organisations; as the

relation that exists among the learning organisation and its environment,

how the knowledge is fi l trated and the role of the IT infrastructure in anorganisational structure of this kind. The following chapter could be

characterised as a respond to these issues as it consists of a proposal for the

development of an e - learning organisations.


58/80

- 53 -

5. Towards an e-learning organisation: a proposal for ahybrid learning organisation model.

Key Concepts: Information Technology, Information Technology Solutions, Internet and Intranet,Groupware-Lotus Notes, Intelligent Agents, Mapping Tools, Document Management, Knowledge EnrichedSolutions, Information Filtering, E-Learning Organisation, Knowledge Discard, Knowledge Input,Knowledge Output.

In the following sections of this chapter the development of an e -learning

organisation model takes place. Firstly, the relation between the learning

organisation and the information technology and the importance of IT in a

learning organisation environment is examined. In order to enhance this

relation some IT mechanisms and solutions are also presented. The chapter

concludes with the development of the e - learning organisation.

5 .1 Learn ing o rgan i sa t ions and in form ation t echno logy.

Information technology support of knowledge activities and learning

projects not a newborn issue. In the 1970s there was a proli feration of

expert systems, and a sharp interest in artificial intelligence. At that t ime,

it was suggested that those systems might fundamentally modernize


59/80

- 54 -

knowledge activities within organisations. The reality, as we know in

hindsight, is that those systems failed to fulfil the purposes they were

invented for. The information systems of that decade (1970s) could process

only a narrow range of simplistic issues, they required extensive knowledge

elicitation and high level of specialisation in order to use them and on top

of all this crit icism, they were characterised as unsuccessful owing to their

high cost of purchase and maintenance and their failure to interpret and

comprehend the fundamentals of the human though process. This era is best

attributed as the one where we attempted to make computers think, rather than util ising them to assist individuals to think. Today, after years of

steady advancement, information technology solutions are being widely

implemented in a variety of organisational processes.

The importance and effect of information technology solutions varies

extremely among organisation and even in different departments of the

same organisation. Their success sti l l depends upon the way individuals

will util ise them; owing to the fact artificial intelligence solutions for

organisations are sti l l in embryonic stage. Several information technology

solutions were implemented in an organisational concept mainly because

they are nowadays affordable to implement and maintain; but also because

they are generic and pervade many organisational processes.


60/80

- 55 -

5 .2 In form at ion t echno logy so lu t ions

This chapter aims to present the most crucial IT based tools for the

development of an e-learning organisation; in an attempt to provide

evidence that the technology that is required for the development of an e-

learning organisation already exists and in some cases is already in use by

contemporary learning organisations. For example, corporations like VTN

Technologies INC ( www.vtn-tech.com/default .asp) and Intelladon

(www.intelladon.com/home.asp) have created a sophisticated online

learning environment suite and provide e-learning solutions to a wide

variety of customers.

5.2.1 Intranet and Internet

Internet protocols provide users the ability to access any information, any

where, at any time. Browsers and client software can act as front-ends to

information in many formats and many of the other knowledge tools such as

document management or decision support. This in synthesis with emails,

discussion lists and newsgroups and video conferences create a useful IT

solution for organisations.
http://www.vtn-tech.com/default.asphttp://www.vtn-tech.com/default.asp


61/80

- 56 -

Many organisations decide nowadays to go online or even to exist only

online like the Knowledge Online organisation. This is an online

organisation (see www.knowledgeon-line.co.uk) that provides via a secure

intranet connection a wealth of information to their consultants and

customers world-wide. Through active information management by

knowledge editors the information remains well structured and relevant.

The creation of an online organisation could be interpreted as a worldwide

clientele without the added costs of creating branches on a universal scale.

5.2.2 Groupware - Lotus Notes

Groupware solutions like Lotus Notes create to the above mentioned IT

solution of internet/intranet the capability to create discussion databases.

Employees have the ability to access their organizational memory, as well

as current news and developments in areas of interest, through one of

Lotu ss fundamental features, i ts multiple views .

5.2.3 Intelligent Agents

Information overload is becoming nowadays a severe problematic situation

for many organisations and their employees. Intelligent agents can

programmed to search networks, databases and the internet and to select


62/80

- 57 -

and alert employees of new relevant information. In addition to this they

can be used as an information fil tering solution, owing to the fact that they

can be programmed to fil ter data and information and discard the irrelevant

parts. Int

Documents

Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning. Developing a Hybrid Organisational Learning Model