Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428

Qualitative knowledge capturing and organizationallearning: two case studies in Taiwan hotels

Jen-te Yang*

Department of Research and Development, National Kaohsiung Hospitality College, P.O. Box 608, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, ROC

Received 10 October 2002; accepted 7 May 2003

Abstract

This paper aims to examine the extent to which two selected hotels implement the practice of knowledge capturing and

organizational learning, in order to improve levels of customer satisfaction. Usually, the best practice of organizational learning is

that individuals identify, collect, and apply appropriate and useful information (i.e. the process of knowledge capturing); and then

their companies, through the process of collective learning, convert this information to valued organizational knowledge. This

capturing and learning process is a continuous flow. Theoretically individuals and their companies might benefit from this process.

Semi-structured interviews in two hotels in Taiwan provide detailed and verbatim data showing that individual learning and

knowledge capturing need to be triggered to develop organizational learning.

r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hotel industry; Customer satisfaction; Organizational learning; Knowledge capturing

1. Introduction

Most hoteliers focus on the enhancement of customerservices and the retention of customer loyalty. Toachieve these goals, they attempt to continuouslyunderstand what customers need and want. However,sometimes these goals are difficult to achieve sinceconsumer behavior changes all the time. Interestingly,as companies apply the concept of organizationallearning to their operations, achievement of thesegoals might be enriched. Learning, including internallearning and external learning, is a vital prerequisitefor the development of organizational learning. Lear-ners may not benefit in the future from a certain learningprocess unless they capture appropriate skills andknowledge, and the collective learning process istaken on.

In this paper, knowledge capturing is defined as theprocess of collecting and identifying useful information(i.e. knowledge acquisition), exploiting and usefullyapplying knowledge (i.e. knowledge leverage) anddisseminating it through the whole organization (i.e.

knowledge transfer) (cf. Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).Organizational learning, according to Garvin (1993), isdefined as ‘‘the process of improving action throughbetter knowledge and understanding’’ (p. 80). In otherwords, organizational learning is a process of enabling acompany to transfer information to valued knowledge,which in turn, enriches organizational capability ofadapting to environmental demands. It seems that thislearning process is a vital part of generating andapplying knowledge; and the concept of organizationallearning and knowledge capturing are intertwined andinterrelated.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate thecontent of new skills and knowledge which employeeslearn and capture in two researched hotels and toexplore some key approaches which are utilizedfor capturing knowledge. Semi-structured interviewswere administered in this study. The findings clearlyindicate that individual learning needs to be furthertriggered, in order to proceed to organizational learning.Results suggest that top management staff need toseriously take the effect of organizational learning intoaccount and furthermore, to implement this concept inreality, in order to advance the greater level of customerservice and overall organizational performance andeffectiveness.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Tel.: +886-935-927-138.

E-mail address: jenteyang@mail.nkhc.edu.tw (J.-t. Yang).

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00114-6

2. Fundamental theory

2.1. Types of knowledge

There is a significant difference between individualknowledge and organizational knowledge. Individualknowledge could be defined as comprehensive inter-pretations and syntheses of information being gathered,by applying individual talent, past experience, andcompetences. According to Bhatt (2000, p. 18), ‘‘orga-nizational knowledge is individually shared knowledgethat individuals come to understand and interpretin a particular organizational context.’’ These twotypes of knowledge contribute to the overall organi-zational competitiveness and performance througheffectively capturing and transferring individual andorganizational knowledge and developing organiza-tional capability (Sena & Shani, 1999; Bollinger &Smith, 2001).

According to Caddy, Guthrie, and Petty (2001),companies have to be aware of the need to totallycontrol and utilize their internal knowledge resources. Ifthis knowledge could not be completely managed by theorganizations, this ‘missing and hoarding’ knowledgewould become orphaned. If staff possess orphanknowledge without sharing it, when they are off-duty,are transferred to other positions or depart forother companies, this knowledge will be invisiblytransformed into knowledge lost. In addition, externalknowledge resources need to be included. The potentialknowledge, which may become orphaned, includescustomer, competitor, supplier, and government knowl-edge, and any other source incurred by the externalenvironment.

2.2. Knowledge capturing

Usually knowledge capturing refers to the acquisitionand retrieval of quantitative data, using statisticalcomputer packages, which is then used to assist indecision-making and strategic planning. Knowledgecapturing is, however, redefined to also include afundamental qualitative element of knowledge manage-ment and organizational learning. Individuals acquire orcapture knowledge and may retrieve that knowledge inthe service of their organizations if the organizationalenvironment enables this process. If this does not occurthen organizational learning cannot proceed.

An example of capturing knowledge from customersis that Ritz Carton Chain Hotels reinforces customerloyalty by means of detecting and recording their guestspecial interests at the first-time visit and providingpersonalized treatment based on the records afterwards(Davenport, Harris, & Kohli, 2001). This reinforcescustomer loyalty. This operational system enablesemployees to leverage knowledge between acquired

knowledge from its customers and its existing organiza-tional knowledge.

According to Caddy et al. (2001), after staff gainknowledge from any source and/or develop new ways oftackling routines, organizational knowledge needs to becreated, in order to further enhance the organizationalperformance. If this process has not been pursued, thepotential knowledge could run off when these staffmembers leave the firm (no matter whether they are offduty or leave the current position and/or job). In otherwords, an organization provides opportunities foremployees to transfer their new learning and perspec-tives with others, as the transferring process is the onlyway to sustain the process of organizational learning.Otherwise, without this process, there is only individuallearning, not organizational learning.

2.3. Types of learning process

Argyis and Schon (1978) differentiate three types oflearning process, including single-loop, double-loop,and deutero-loop learning. No adjustment of theexisting competences and operational methods takesplace in the single-loop learning since there is anassumption of the optimization of its competences andmethods. The nature of this learning type is adaptive; onthe other hand, double- and deutero-loop learning aregenerative. The think phase is added in the double anddeutero loop. According to Wilson (2000), ‘‘improvingour ability to think is the cornerstone of knowledgemanagement, and the centerpiece of all knowledgetransfer practices’’ (p. 377). The continuous improvement

is the process of double-loop learning by removingdefective methods and improving insufficient compe-tences. The deutero-loop learning is based on changing

those methods, which are obsolete, with the requirementof individual reflection on its mental models. Thereflection component reinitiates the learning cycle. Itwill lead to new levels of thinking and creation ofknowledge, and to overstripping the previous learningphase (Spinello, 2000). The last type would result in thegenerating of new discoveries and knowledge (Eskildsen,Dahlgaard, & Norgaard, 1999).

Acquiring knowledge from the internal learning maybe through learning from others’ experience, organiza-tional knowledge and organizational repository (such asdocuments and database). Learning from the externalenvironment means collecting knowledge from alliancepartners, competitors, competitors’ customers andsuppliers, government bodies, headquarters, any kindsof media, and so on (Ord !onez de Pablo, 2002).

2.4. Organizational learning

The notion of individual learning is distinguishedfrom the notion of organizational learning. According

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428422

to Swieringa and Wierdsma (1994), individual learningfocuses on the correction of outcomes by way ofchanging individual behavior; whereas organizationallearning is a process by which changing organizationalrules and strategies improves the results or achievesthe desired results. Organizational learning is said toenable an increase in the collective competenciesof employees of an organization. Consequently, theeffect of organizational learning is change and im-provement in both the organization and its employees.In addition, the managers should also bear in mindthat organizations could only learn while theirmembers learn. However, it is not necessarily certainthat organizations automatically learn when the employ-ees within them have learned something (Argyris &Schon, 1978).

2.5. Knowledge capturing and learning theories

Learning is a vital prerequisite for the developmentof organizational learning and knowledge capturingplans. It is not necessary to obtain knowledge andskills from the learning process as Rowley (2000)claims that ‘‘learning is of little value unless appro-priated skills and knowledge are acquired throughoutthe learning process’’ (p. 13). Also, individuals areable to digest and apply them to actions. Such individuallearning involves not only learning from past experience,but also sharing and mediating insights from thepresent moment. This can be applied to capturingknowledge. The implication of the thinking phaseto learning and capturing knowledge is that thinking isa vital process enabling information to become morevaluable and useful. Individuals reflect on their pastexperience and gathered information and othersthink about potential problems. The derivation ofthis process will be a kind of insight and knowledge.This may be individual knowledge and/or group/teamknowledge, depending on how the thinking process hastaken place.

Mellander (2001) claims that ‘‘no knowledge manage-ment initiative can exist or succeed in any environmentwithout first providing the right conditions for learning’’(p. 165). Some practitioners argue that the positiveeffect of learning needs to be nurtured for a longperiod of time. However, Mellander refutes thisexplanation and further explains that as the maneuverfor the right conditions is developed to reality, learningwill not be difficult to pursue. After all, the learningactivities repeatedly occur and as well, learnerscontinuously cope with new challenges and situations.The experience and knowledge is reflected and built upfrom this process.

Knowledge capturing is about providing informationand knowledge for employees’ learning. To achieve thisgoal, the company needs to determine what levels of

internal learning and external learning employees reachand what types of knowledge they search for. Acompany needs to set up goals and visions and todisseminate these to all employees. For example, ifemployees know that a maximum of customer services isone of the company’s goals, they then should concen-trate on capturing knowledge which is relevant to thatgoal.

Galagan (1997) suggests, for the purpose of enablingindividual and organizational knowledge growth, anorganization has to cultivate its employees with theattitude of learning and sharing. Clarification isnecessary about how employees have to concentratetheir effort in order to maximize organizational andindividual benefits. To achieve this, Lesser and Prusak(2000) claim that individuals could more easily captureand transfer knowledge if trust and trustworthiness areembedded among people through personal contact andsocial networking. This ‘trust’ prerequisite has beenreinforced by much literature (Tynan, 1999; Davenport& Prusak, 2000; Soliman & Spooner, 2000; Sveiby, 2001;to name a few).

To conclude, the stronger the learning and capturingbehavior that an organization has, the greater the degreeof sustainable competitive advantage it develops. Inparticular, in global business, such as international hotelchains, as a company learns and transfers what it learnsquickly, the process of decision-making may be moreeffective and efficient than in companies that do notlearn and transfer quickly.

3. Research method

Semi-structured interviews in two international five-star hotels in Taipei, Taiwan were administered in thisstudy. Data are presented from individual interviewswith 11 employees from Company A and 10 fromCompany B. It was collected from those who had beenwith the current company for at least 6 months, as wellas working in the Human Resource, InformationSystem, and Room divisions. As the interviewees wereselected from the range of the top management level tothe rank-and-file level, all levels of employees wereinvolved. Each interview lasted between 20–35 minand where responses were vague or short on detail,interviewees were prompted to elaborate on what theyhad said.

The term knowledge, which was explained prior toeach interview, is defined as the boundaries encompass-ing job-related entities (such as operational thoughts,behaviors, standard operational procedures, organiza-tional routines, information and strategies about com-petitors, and customer knowledge), and individuals’insights and their past working experience which isrelevant to the current job.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428 423

All of the interview texts were coded by usingthe ‘‘QSR N5 (NUD�IST)’’ tool. All data ‘nodes’were created. The definitions of the nodes wereconceptually described in ‘memos.’ ‘Tree-structuredcatalogues’ for branches of the node tree werediscovered and built. This tree diagram shows howbroader concepts related to learning and knowledgecapturing were gleaned from the interviews. Top layersof the tree are: knowledge capturing (includingsub-headings of ‘how people acquire knowledge,’‘what people acquire knowledge’, ‘attitude to knowl-edge,’ ‘obstacles of knowledge acquisition’) and organi-zational learning (including sub-categories of ‘individuallearning attitude,’ ‘the reasoning process,’ ‘no adjust-ment,’ ‘think–rethink,’ ‘reflection,’ and ‘change’). In orderto develop the meanings of text units, a whole paragraphof contexts was coded on the basis of the definitions ofthe nodes.

4. Results

4.1. Company A

Company A was an internationally operated chainhotel with a management contract. In a decentralizedorganizational structure which includes employeeresponsibility and accountability, the majority of inter-viewees believed that firstly, learning would build uptheir competency and knowledge being gained from thelearning, and secondly, the capturing process wouldbecome theirs forever. Organizational routines such asstandard operational procedures were reviewed andaltered regularly; this led to providing the right andup-to-date product offerings to its customers. The datashowed occurrences of the ‘feedback,’ ‘think–rethink,’‘reflection,’ and ‘change’ phases of organizationallearning. These features gave quite strong evidence ofimplementing organizational learning practices.

However, the above routines seemed to be focusedon some certain level of employees such as topand middle management staff. Inhibiting factors ofknowledge capturing, which were found from ahalf-percentage of interviewees, were: the need for userID to control electronic devices, lack of defining thescope of knowledge capturing, the limitation of workingtime for learning and capturing knowledge, someemployees’ reluctance to learning and leveraging knowl-edge, and employees’ lack of capability of capturingknowledge.

With regard to the content of knowledge acquisition,all of the interviewees responded that they collectedknowledge related to the job. For example, a salesmanager mentioned acquiring information and knowl-edge from the sales calls about competitors’ andcustomers’ movements and tendencies. Collecting

knowledge can be conducted through: Internet, socialactivities, attending training sessions, consultations, andinter-shift briefings. Such social interactions could betalking with friends, social conversation, sales calls, andgatherings for those who are working in the samedepartment of different hotels, e.g. hotels’ generalmanagers, front office managers, and human resourcesmanagers.

4.2. Company B

Company B is a locally operated hotel with afranchise contract of a famous international hotel name.The data clearly shows that common understanding ofthe organizational learning concept had not beenthoroughly nurtured in the workplace climate. Twofindings supported the concept of organizational learn-ing. Firstly, three of ten interviewees always learnedfrom mistakes, which might be caused by them or theircolleagues, and from other colleagues’ feedback.Secondly, two other interviewees reinforced the factthat they would leverage and apply what they hadacquired and learned to the routines.

However, three other employees mentioned thatreluctance to sharing occurs when shared ideas mightinvolve changing the daily operations. Moreover, asenior manager said, employees wait for instruction

instead of looking for resources actively. All of theseevidences imply that knowledge capturing and organi-zational learning had not been included as part ofemployees’ job descriptions or organizational routines.Some obstacles which were found from the interviewswere the hoarding attitude of senior staff, lack ofknowledge capturing skills, and inability to see thewhole set of standard operation procedures.

Regarding the data of the content of acquiringknowledge, all of the interviewees pointed out job-related knowledge and some people placed moreemphasis on capturing working experiences and situa-tion handling. Interviewees usually employed thefollowing approaches to acquiring knowledge: learningby doing, written and printed materials (such asdepartmental logbooks or situational ‘bibles,’ paper-cutting, magazines, newspapers), Internet, social activ-ities (such as talking with friends and colleagues,attending industrial association gatherings), and anykind of education and training programs (such astraining sessions, hiring professionals of the consultingcompanies, observations of competitors’ and other hotelchains’ operations). The situational ‘bibles’ recordedeverything that happened in the hotel, such as theguests’ praises and complaints, and their settlements.The majority (five out of seven) of front-line and middle-level interviewees normally collected information andknowledge from their friends who worked in the hotelindustry.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428424

5. Discussion

5.1. Knowledge capturing

5.1.1. Adding value to knowledge after being leveraged

In the opinion of a senior manager in Company A,when he collected job-related information and knowl-edge from the association gatherings, he alwayspresumed and believed that, ‘‘y the different solutions

of different hotels when confronted with problems, and the

ways of problem-tackling adopted by various hotel

managers might not be appropriate or workable.y’’ Thisis partially true. Perhaps if he shared this knowledgewith other colleagues, the effect of the knowledgeacquisition might be different from perceived; forexample, the creation of new knowledge for gainingmore market share might have been gained. It is thisthat illustrates the why and where of the process ofknowledge leveraging.

As for the practice in Company B, a supervisor said,

‘‘yif I have a better conception, I would mention itto my colleagues first. If all of them agree with myideas, then I would propose it to my superior.yWhen we propose any changes in operationalprocedures, we normally explain to our superiorswhy the changes should be made and what things willlook like in the future.y’’

This means that new operational knowledge couldbe created through transferring and leveragingideas, plus the system thinking process. This couldapply to the concept of organizational learning,specifically to the thinking phase, where removingdefectives and improving dysfunctional procedures areexpected.

5.1.2. Employees loath to change

Three out of ten interviewees in Company Bmentioned that reluctance to sharing and transferringoccurs when shared ideas might involve changing thedaily operations, e.g., ‘‘ysome suggestions create

changes to the work procedures. And then y colleagues

would feel uncomfortable with the new way. Then that new

staff member [the suggestion proposer] was pushed

out.y’’ The avoidance attitude needs to be removed;otherwise there is no result in generating of newdiscoveries and knowledge, consequently, no organiza-tional learning. Moreover, this led to another factor ofconcern, which is that sharers stop sharing because offrustration.

5.1.3. Defining the scope of capturing knowledge

A company provides employees with possible direc-tions as to what sort of knowledge they need to acquireand transfer in order to achieve organizational goals, and

to furthermore strengthen its competitive advantage. Forinstance, a senior manager of Company A said,

‘‘yI shall slightly explain to the idea provider whatthings our company can cooperate in and what thingswe cannot. Otherwise, putting his idea aside willmake him feel not respected. In fact, our staff donot get in touch with much information. They also donot know what things can be done or cannot bedone.y’’

Indeed, as the dimensions of required information andknowledge are defined, this would lead to minimizingthe negative effects of the situation that subordinates didnot know what sort of knowledge the company requiredand/or needed to be passed on, and also the situationwhere sometimes their ideas and information collectionwas rejected and neglected.

5.1.4. Hoarding and the ‘age’ group

Interestingly, one of the middle-level managers ofCompany B said,

‘‘ythe hoarding attitude is more obvious with age.The young people who just enter the workplaceand graduate from schools have more learningmotivation and talk directly about what they wantto say without hesitation. These people are willing tochange.y’’

If these older employees who are well experienced do nottransfer their knowledge, this would affect knowledgecapturing from the internal knowledge resources.According to Kim and Mauborgne’s research (Kim &Mauborgne, 1997), a high level of trust, openness andcommitment is a necessity to isolate knowledge hoard-ing. Lack of these three factors might be reasons forknowledge hoarding. Moreover, these people may beconcerned about lack of respect, and loss of power andcontrol, and an opportunity to be promoted. Theseinhibitors need to be identified and removed. Anotherconcern is that adult employees comprise an organiza-tion. As they bring a range of background, competenciesand knowledge, management staff should evaluate andunderstand their personal learning and sharing styles,and then provide appropriate opportunities for themand encourage them to transfer their competencies toothers.

Some other factors which impeded Company A toknowledge capturing were: firstly, only authorizedpersons could access the website, and secondly, abouta half of the interviewees said they did not have time toacquire knowledge during the working time. In CompanyB, ‘‘staff cannot see the whole set of SOP.’’ (Trainers copythe relevant information for trainees.)

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428 425

5.2. Individual learning

5.2.1. Decentralization and learning attitude

A middle-level manager who was proud of theCompany A in which he was working in the decen-tralized organizational culture, said that

‘‘yHR arranges divisional meetings in which thewhole department collectively figures out ideas thatare good for the company’s future. With brainstorm-ing, the whole framework will be constructed.y’’

Also, when a front-line interviewee faced a difficultyto collect job-related information and knowledge fromhis superiors, he was still keen to capture their knowl-edge. He usually declared that

‘‘yI totally agree with your words, but I am stilleager to know how you and my fellow colleagueshandle possible situations in order to make prepara-tion for some different visions. And then, I can collectthese ideas and figure out a better way.y’’

The reason for him doing this was that he believedthat every hierarchical level had its own routines andtasks. If everyone handled all situations within thedomain of their responsibilities, it would give a greatconvenience to others. The effect of this front-lineemployee’s learning attitude would contribute to theoverall organizational performance. As the individuallearning outcomes are integrated to the ‘brainstorming,’the collective organizational learning would be driven.

Consequently, these evidences imply that the com-pany with a decentralized structure and employee’saccountability enables individuals to be motivated formore participation in and commitment to building upthe common understandings amongst staff. A similarfinding is also presented in the research of Mrinalini andNath (2000).

5.2.2. Command-and-control and learning attitude

Unlike the learning attitude of employees in CompanyA, as a human resource manager in Company B said,‘‘Staff do whatever their superiors tell them to do.’’ Thissaying was echoed by other two interviewees. Thisraises the issue of whether employees actively captureknowledge. As this involves an issue of managementphilosophy, both parties should have consensus onknowledge capturing.

One employee said that some superiors keep adistance between themselves and subordinates. As ahotel business is a people-focused industry, under thismanagement practice, the following effects need to bethought about: whether employees in this kind of workclimate are willing to communicate with superiors, whethertrust is established among superiors and subordinates, andwhether the management philosophy is an effectiveapproach towards achieving team cohesion.

However, three responses of Company B provided anevidence of knowledge capturing and organizationallearning. First, a middle-level supervisor said

‘‘yI always ask actively and I never wait until peopleteach me. When I was a trainee, if my colleagues werebusy, I learnt at their side. When someone is free, Iask him/her at once. I think it is the best way tolearn.y’’

Second, in order for the continuous improvement ofindividual competency and the reflection on others’reactions, a middle-level manager said, ‘‘I always ask

their [subordinates’] feedback on my training style and

the understanding of what I say.’’ Third, another middle-level manager said that when his suggestions wererejected by his superiors, they normally offered himreasons. This result showed that the employees’ learningattitudes in Company B was an ‘individual’ matter. Anissue is whether the company creates a continuouslearning climate for its staff.

5.3. Organizational learning

5.3.1. The reasoning process

A front-line employee of Company A used thereasoning process for convincing superiors to acceptnew ideas. He said, ‘‘I will tell them the reason why I

propose it along with my analysis in order to obtain their

support.’’ Paradoxically, a manager of another Divisionsaid

‘‘yall along I encourage them [his subordinates] totell me what things they think should be revised in thecurrent situation. If they think that the existing way isnot good, but do not point it out, or just makecriticisms behind me, then how meaningless it is.y’’

He also revealed that in the current practices, mostemployees just raised issues and problems without anysuggestion. Here, two aspects need to be taken intoaccount. The first is the extent of the employee’slearning attitude and of his/her learning absorptiveand retentive capacity. The second is the way that themanager encourages his subordinates. These findingsindicate that this reasoning process would enrichindividual learning, and consequently organizationallearning.

5.3.2. The practice of organizational learning

A sales manager said, ‘‘A sales person can think over

these successful or lost cases again in order to make his

future negotiation more efficient.’’ These continuousupdating routines and the think–rethink behavior wouldimprove employees’ abilities to reflect, furthermorewould be an effective approach to removing defectiveand obsolete routines and to advancing insufficientindividual and organizational competences. This cyclical

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428426

changing process would lead to new levels of thinkingand creation of new knowledge.

A senior front-line interviewee of Company B said

‘‘yif many people make the same mistake, I as atrainer would review the procedures and find out thefact as to why we make the mistake, and report to mysupervisor. If it would affect the morale and efficiencyof the whole department, some supervisors maybediscover these situations but some others only dowhatever they want and have to do.y’’

If the other supervisor investigates the underlyingproblems of the mistake and removes them, organiza-tional learning takes place, i.e. the enrichment oforganizational competences. For example, one of themiddle-level managers suggested that

‘‘ythe mistake might be caused by a problem ofprocedures or policies. I will ask staff whether theprocedure is too complicated so they make mistakesand whether they have better ideas to avoid themistakes.y’’

However, if the supervisor takes no further action, theproblems are still there. Similarly, the practices ofthe organizational learning could also be found fromthree other interviews, for instance, they applied theirnew learning to and gained knowledge about theroutines and if applicable, change would occur.

5.3.3. Actions after receiving the training programs

Five out of 11 interviewees in Company A said thatafter the in-house training sessions being conducted, theemployees need not make any reports. Two of theinterviewees in Company A believed that ‘‘y if people

just want to hear messages and forget and ignore them

immediately after hearing, they would never learn any-

thing from sharers.y’’ Similarly, a human resource (HR)manager of Company B said, ‘‘‘hearing’ does not imply

that behavior can be changed. The learning reports should

be sent to the training department because employees will

get a deeper impression after they have done the reports.’’Indeed, it is not necessary to obtain knowledge andskills from the learning and acquiring process, unlessindividuals are able to digest and apply them to reality.The HR practices were good, for example the learningreports used for reflecting individuals’ learning andknowledge acquisition. The contribution of the learningreport to individual and organizational learning dependson how the reflecting and thinking effort have takenplace.

5.3.4. An occurrence of a structure hole

A HR manager of Company B mentioned, ‘‘y we not

only teach people how to train but also tell them the

reason to train, how much they have to learn, how to learn

in the future and how to apply what we learned to

practical operations.y’’ Ironically, one of its supervisorssaid, some training courses cannot be used in reality. Itseems that not all of the training sessions followed theHR manager’s thought. This contradictory saying mightmean that the possibility of ‘structural holes’ (Burt,1997) occurred in the company, i.e. employees are notconnected together. This structure hole in organiza-tional network could be removed by developingopportunities of social interaction such as dialogue,knowledge caf!e, and any sort of social activities andsimultaneously engendering a supportive culture chan-nel such as loyalty and trust throughout an organization(Burt, 1997; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). This isimportant because when individuals bridge ties in astructure hole and span the hole, they would have moreaccess to resources—such as knowledge and insights ofother persons—on both sides of the holes.

5.3.5. Obstacles to capturing and learning

Some impediments such as hoarding attitude, lack ofknowledge capturing skills, lack of defining the domainof knowledge acquisition, reluctance to learn andcapture knowledge, need to be removed. Moreover,before this can occur, companies should build up atrusting and open working environment for employees.If this does not occur, knowledge capturing andindividual learning cannot proceed, and consequently,organizational learning. Furthermore, to implement thisconcept in reality would advance the greater level ofcustomer service and overall organizational perfor-mance and effectiveness. Overall, the process of knowl-edge acquiring and transferring and individual learningenables employees to enrich their competence. Theprocess of knowledge leveraging, added to the existingorganizational knowledge, ensures the advancement ofoverall organizational capability. Importantly, these willadd value to the quality of customer services.

6. Conclusion

This study clearly shows that the practice of knowl-edge capturing and organizational learning exist to acertain extent in the two selected hotels, especiallyCompany A. Many of the interviewees in Company Arevealed that, after acquiring job-related informationand knowledge, they would ‘think-and-rethink about,’reflect on, and provide feedback on what they hadlearned; and then they would engage in some changes ifit were applicable. Unlike Company A, the learningattitude of employees in Company B was passive;employees usually waited for instruction for actionsincluding learning and capturing new things. Thefindings clearly indicate that individual learning needsto be further triggered, in order to foster organizationallearning. Results suggest that top management staff

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428 427

need to seriously take the effect of organizationallearning into account. This effect will definitely con-tribute to enhancing the level of customer satisfaction.

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory

of action perspective. USA: Addison-Wesley.

Bhatt, G. D. (2000). Organizing knowledge in the knowledge

development cycle. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 15–26.

Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing organizational

knowledge as a strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management,

5(1), 8–18.

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.

Caddy, I., Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2001). Managing orphan

knowledge: Current Australian best practice. Journal of Intellectual

Capital, 2(4), 384–397.

Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Kohli, A. K. (2001). How do they

know their customers so well? Mit Sloan Management Review,

42(2), 63–73.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How

organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Eskildsen, J. K., Dahlgaard, J. J., & Norgaard, A. (1999). The impact

of creativity and learning on business excellence. Total Quality

Management, 10(4/5), S523–S530.

Galagan, P. A. (1997). Smart companies. Training & Development,

51(12), 20–24.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard

Business Review, 71(3), 78–91.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process: Managing in the

knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 65–75.

Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (2000). Communities of practice, social

capital, and organizational knowledge. In J. W. Cortada, & J. A.

Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000–2001.

Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Mellander, K. (2001). Engaging the human spirit: A knowledge

evolution demands the right conditions for learning. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 2(2), 165–171.

Mrinalini, N., & Nath, P. (2000). Organizational practices for

generating human resources in non-corporate research and

technology organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2),

177–186.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company:

How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Ord !onez de Pablo, P. (2002). Knowledge management and organiza-

tional learning: Typologies in the Spanish manufacturing industry

from 1995–1999. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1),

52–62.

Rowley, J. (2000). From learning organization to knowledge

entrepreneur. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 7–15.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital

theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2),

219–237.

Sena, J. A., & Shani, A. B. (1999). Intellectual capital and knowledge

creation: Towards an alternative framework. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.),

Knowledge management handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Soliman, F., & Spooner, K. (2000). Strategies for implementing

knowledge management: Role of human resources management.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 337–345.

Spinello, R. A. (2000). The knowledge chain. In J. W. Cortada, & J. A.

Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000–2001.

Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sveiby, K. E. (2001). A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guild

in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4),

344–358.

Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. (1994). Becoming a learning organiza-

tion: Beyond the learning curve. Workingham, England: Addison-

Wesley.

Tynan, S. A. (1999). Best behaviors. Management Review, 88(10),

58–61.

Wilson, L. T. (2000). Putting quality in managing corporate memory.

In J. W. Cortada, & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge

management yearbook 2000–2001. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ.-t. Yang / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 421–428428